Florida's controversy-igniting pastor has held yet another Koran-burning ceremony outside his church. Pleas from the Pentagon to refrain from the act fell on deaf ears, as the pastor stuck to his guns and torched the holy Muslim text.
Powerless, local police stood by and watched the pastor and some 20 of his followers perform the burning of the Koran and a depiction of the prophet Mohammed, allegedly staged as a protest against the imprisonment of a Christian missionary in Iran. Jones was handed a fine from the fire department – but what most fear is that this incident will spark a huge scandal among the world’s Muslims.
Jones, a hotel manager turned missionary, already caused international outrage last year by adopting a zealous anti-Muslim stance and burning the Koran. In response, thousands of Muslim demonstrators poured into Afghanistan’s northern city of Mazar-i-Sharif and stormed a UN compound, killing eight UN staff employees. The violence went on for days, and the head of the UN Assistance Mission in Afghanistan said the only person who could be blamed for the violence was the American pastor.
This time around, the Pentagon tried to cool the pastor’s burning passion, arguing that his actions would endanger US soldiers in Afghanistan and elsewhere, and possibly further damage the already-fragile US-Afghani relations. A similar recent event in war-torn Afghanistan sparked an unprecedented wave of anti-American protests and attacks on US and NATO military personnel.
Oops, he did it again: Florida Pastor Terry Jones burns another Koran — RT
29.4.12
Israeli intel ex-chief: Netanyahu’s policy on Iran misleading, messianic — RT
Top Israeli government ministers are misleading the public about the consequences of preemptive military action against Iran, former Israeli security chief Yuval Diskin has warned.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Ehud Barak were among those caught in a shower of criticism from Diskin during a public meeting on Friday.
“They tell the public that if Israel acts, Iran won't have a nuclear bomb,” he explained. “This is misleading. Actually, many experts say that an Israeli attack would accelerate the Iranian nuclear race."
And besides criticism based on his military background, Diskin expressed some personal disagreement with the leadership’s policies.
“I don't have faith in the current leadership of Israel to lead us to an event of this magnitude, of war with Iran,” Diskin explained. “I do not believe in a leadership that makes decisions based on Messianic feelings.”
Israeli officials unleashed a wave of criticism at Diskin following his speech. Both the prime and defense ministers’ offices called Diskin’s remarks “irresponsible” and “based on personal frustration.” Barak’s office even said that such statements are “damaging the tradition of generations of Shin Bet leaders.” And Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman suggested that Diskin should have resigned before the end of his term if he had so mistrusted the prime minister and defense minister.
Diskin headed Shin Bet, the internal security apparatus in Israel and the Palestinian Territories, until last year.
Israel's current military chief has also expressed disagreements with the government's approach. Last week, in sharp contrast to the increasingly aggressive rhetoric of Benjamin Netanyahu, Chief of Staff Benny Gantz said that international pressure on Iran “in the form of diplomatic and economic sanctions” is the key to solving the issue. Gantz said that Iranian leadership is “rational” enough to decide against going the “extra mile” to build nuclear weapon.
The Israeli Defense Minister, however, adheres to a totally different opinion. Last Thursday, Barak said that Iran is not “rational in the Western sense of the word,” and thus is highly unlikely to halt its nuclear program in response to sanctions. Barak maintains that all diplomatic efforts to reach a compromise with Iran are just a waste of “precious time.”
Meanwhile Netanyahu, during his speech on Holocaust Remembrance Day, reiterated that a nuclear Iran would pose an existential threat to the State of Israel. And those who do not like confronting such “uncomfortable truths,” the prime minister added, "have learned nothing from the Holocaust."
"The Iranian regime is openly calling for our destruction, and working frantically for the development of nuclear weapons as a means to that end," Netanyahu said.
Despite ongoing talks over Iran’s nuclear program, Israeli officials have repeatedly indicated their readiness to solve Iran’s nuclear issue once and for all by striking the Islamic Republic’s nuclear sites. The strong rhetoric from Israel even suggests that the country is capable of, and will carry out, such a strike without US support.
Iran maintains that its nuclear ambitions are solely civilian, and international experts agree that the Islamic Republic is not close to acquiring atomic weapons capabilities.
Israeli intel ex-chief: Netanyahu’s policy on Iran misleading, messianic — RT
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Ehud Barak were among those caught in a shower of criticism from Diskin during a public meeting on Friday.
“They tell the public that if Israel acts, Iran won't have a nuclear bomb,” he explained. “This is misleading. Actually, many experts say that an Israeli attack would accelerate the Iranian nuclear race."
And besides criticism based on his military background, Diskin expressed some personal disagreement with the leadership’s policies.
“I don't have faith in the current leadership of Israel to lead us to an event of this magnitude, of war with Iran,” Diskin explained. “I do not believe in a leadership that makes decisions based on Messianic feelings.”
Israeli officials unleashed a wave of criticism at Diskin following his speech. Both the prime and defense ministers’ offices called Diskin’s remarks “irresponsible” and “based on personal frustration.” Barak’s office even said that such statements are “damaging the tradition of generations of Shin Bet leaders.” And Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman suggested that Diskin should have resigned before the end of his term if he had so mistrusted the prime minister and defense minister.
Diskin headed Shin Bet, the internal security apparatus in Israel and the Palestinian Territories, until last year.
Israel's current military chief has also expressed disagreements with the government's approach. Last week, in sharp contrast to the increasingly aggressive rhetoric of Benjamin Netanyahu, Chief of Staff Benny Gantz said that international pressure on Iran “in the form of diplomatic and economic sanctions” is the key to solving the issue. Gantz said that Iranian leadership is “rational” enough to decide against going the “extra mile” to build nuclear weapon.
The Israeli Defense Minister, however, adheres to a totally different opinion. Last Thursday, Barak said that Iran is not “rational in the Western sense of the word,” and thus is highly unlikely to halt its nuclear program in response to sanctions. Barak maintains that all diplomatic efforts to reach a compromise with Iran are just a waste of “precious time.”
Meanwhile Netanyahu, during his speech on Holocaust Remembrance Day, reiterated that a nuclear Iran would pose an existential threat to the State of Israel. And those who do not like confronting such “uncomfortable truths,” the prime minister added, "have learned nothing from the Holocaust."
"The Iranian regime is openly calling for our destruction, and working frantically for the development of nuclear weapons as a means to that end," Netanyahu said.
Despite ongoing talks over Iran’s nuclear program, Israeli officials have repeatedly indicated their readiness to solve Iran’s nuclear issue once and for all by striking the Islamic Republic’s nuclear sites. The strong rhetoric from Israel even suggests that the country is capable of, and will carry out, such a strike without US support.
Iran maintains that its nuclear ambitions are solely civilian, and international experts agree that the Islamic Republic is not close to acquiring atomic weapons capabilities.
Israeli intel ex-chief: Netanyahu’s policy on Iran misleading, messianic — RT
28.4.12
Microsoft does about face on CISPA — RT
CISPA has just lost a powerful backer, with Microsoft withdrawing its support for the controversial cyber security bill saying any law must allow them “to honor privacy promises” they make to their customers.
Microsoft’s change of heart regarding the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (CISPA) follows the United States House of Representatives decision to pass the bill by an overwhelming margin of 248 to 168 on Thursday.
Responding to queries from CNET on Friday, Microsoft said any law must allow "us to honor the privacy and security promises we make to our customers."
The tech giant further added it hopes to "ensure the final legislation helps to tackle the real threat of cybercrime while protecting consumer privacy."
The company had previously lauded the bill as an important “first step towards addressing significant problems in cyber security" when it was first proposed last November.
Microsoft’s new position on CISPA mirrors that of US President Barrack Obama, who threatened to veto the bill. The White House seeks measures that would require companies to minimize the quantity of personally identifiable information before sharing it with the government and each other. The Obama administration also fears “HR3523 (CISPA) effectively treats domestic cyber security as an intelligence roll” by virtually deputizing the National Security Agency to handle such matters.
As SOPA and PIPA were halted in their tracks in January by a ground swell of public opposition, CISPA had already sailed through the House Intelligence Committee the previous month with a vote of 17-1.
CISPA is supposed to amend the National Security Act of 1947 to further facilitate the sharing of “cyber security intelligence” between the government and the private sector, as well as between private companies. In the bill, “Cyber threat intelligence” has been loosely defined as efforts to “degrade, disrupt or destroy” networks or systems owned by both the US government and US corporations. The bill further seeks to counter the theft or misuse of private or government information, including intellectual property. CISPA further does away with legal liability for the private companies who collect and share information. Critics fear the bill will create what the Electronic Frontier Foundation described as a “backdoor wiretap into our daily communications.”
By both militarizing the administration of cyber security, creating a broadly based notion of what information can be shared, and allowing the government to use that information in any capacity once it has been obtained, US Representative Ron Paul describing CISPA as "Big Brother writ large."
A mere two steps away from becoming law, Software freedom activist Richard Stallman told RT CISPA undermines the Constitution by nearly abolishing “people’s right not to be unreasonably searched.”
“If you store any data in a US company, that company – with few exceptions – is legally required to hand that data over to US government without even a search warrant, so I think both individuals and governments should take precautions to make sure that their citizens’ data is not being handed over to US companies or their foreign subsidiaries, which are also subject to that same hypocritically named Patriot Act," he warned.
Microsoft does about face on CISPA — RT
Microsoft’s change of heart regarding the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (CISPA) follows the United States House of Representatives decision to pass the bill by an overwhelming margin of 248 to 168 on Thursday.
Responding to queries from CNET on Friday, Microsoft said any law must allow "us to honor the privacy and security promises we make to our customers."
The tech giant further added it hopes to "ensure the final legislation helps to tackle the real threat of cybercrime while protecting consumer privacy."
The company had previously lauded the bill as an important “first step towards addressing significant problems in cyber security" when it was first proposed last November.
Microsoft’s new position on CISPA mirrors that of US President Barrack Obama, who threatened to veto the bill. The White House seeks measures that would require companies to minimize the quantity of personally identifiable information before sharing it with the government and each other. The Obama administration also fears “HR3523 (CISPA) effectively treats domestic cyber security as an intelligence roll” by virtually deputizing the National Security Agency to handle such matters.
As SOPA and PIPA were halted in their tracks in January by a ground swell of public opposition, CISPA had already sailed through the House Intelligence Committee the previous month with a vote of 17-1.
CISPA is supposed to amend the National Security Act of 1947 to further facilitate the sharing of “cyber security intelligence” between the government and the private sector, as well as between private companies. In the bill, “Cyber threat intelligence” has been loosely defined as efforts to “degrade, disrupt or destroy” networks or systems owned by both the US government and US corporations. The bill further seeks to counter the theft or misuse of private or government information, including intellectual property. CISPA further does away with legal liability for the private companies who collect and share information. Critics fear the bill will create what the Electronic Frontier Foundation described as a “backdoor wiretap into our daily communications.”
By both militarizing the administration of cyber security, creating a broadly based notion of what information can be shared, and allowing the government to use that information in any capacity once it has been obtained, US Representative Ron Paul describing CISPA as "Big Brother writ large."
A mere two steps away from becoming law, Software freedom activist Richard Stallman told RT CISPA undermines the Constitution by nearly abolishing “people’s right not to be unreasonably searched.”
“If you store any data in a US company, that company – with few exceptions – is legally required to hand that data over to US government without even a search warrant, so I think both individuals and governments should take precautions to make sure that their citizens’ data is not being handed over to US companies or their foreign subsidiaries, which are also subject to that same hypocritically named Patriot Act," he warned.
Microsoft does about face on CISPA — RT
27.4.12
Siria, en el punto de mira de la oposición armada... y de Occidente – RT
Mientras Siria sigue sacudida por atentados terroristas, surgen nuevas voces que señalan la coincidencia entre los objetivos de la así llamada oposición armada siria y Occidente.
El ataque suicida que este viernes causó 11 muertos volvió a quebrar la inestable tregua entre la oposición y las tropas gubernamentales en Siria.
“El objetivo sigue siendo la desestabilización del gobierno de Damasco, aterrorizar a población civil, llevarla a un callejón sin salida”, sostiene el periodista independiente Fernando Casares en declaraciones a RT.
El experto apunta que los insurgentes comparten su misión principal de “acabar con la familia Al Assad” con una serie de estados occidentales.
“Es evidente que los intereses de los países occidentales que están alrededor del Consejo Nacional Sirio y de los países del Golfo, Arabia Saudí, Catar, inclusive Turquía, convergen con los intereses que tienen los grupos armados”, explica Casares.
Tanto las acciones de los terroristas, como las políticas que emplean los estados occidentales buscan “hacer una Siria que responda a los intereses de los Estados Unidos y a los intereses de Israel en la región”, remacha el periodista.
Esta escasa voluntad de Occidente para resolver pacíficamente el conflicto, es confirmada por la misma oposición de Siria, en concreto por el representante de su ala moderada, el Frente Popular sirio para el Cambio y la Liberación (FPCL). "Occidente de hecho no quiere democracia, quiere otra cosa, que es seguir con su hegemonía sobre estos países. Esto quedó en evidencia con el ejemplo de Libia, Irak, etcétera”, declaró el dirigente del FPCL, Qadri Jamil, que llamó la atención sobre "la hipocresía occidental" durante una rueda de prensa en Moscú.
El opositor cree que incluso a la hora de promover las negociaciones en Siria, los poderes occidentales no buscan la estabilidad en el país. “Quieren imponer las condiciones que no pudieron imponer mediante una injerencia militar”, subraya Jamil.
Entretanto, se espera que este lunes el grupo de observadores internacionales en Siria sea ampliado hasta 30, número que ha de seguir aumentando hasta los 300 para garantizar la tregua y el diálogo político en Siria, tal y como espera gran parte de la comunidad internacional.
Sepan más del conflicto en Siria aquí.
Siria, en el punto de mira de la oposición armada... y de Occidente – RT
Stallman: CISPA 'nearly abolishes' the right not to be unreasonably searched — RT
Controversial online security bill CISPA is two steps away from becoming a law. Software freedom activist Richard Stallman says Internet users should beware, as the government is a much bigger threat than any individual hacker.
“What CISPA says as passed by the House of Representatives is any ISP, any website, any company that has some of your data in it can voluntarily hand it over to the government for a wide range of reasons,” and it's up to the government to interpret it however they see fit, the father of the free software philosophy explained.
“So if they see the slightest bit that they think is odd in your email, they can hand it over to the government. And if the government says it has something to do with national security – it is very easy to say that, whether it’s true or not – then the government can study it for any purpose. This nearly abolishes people’s right not to be unreasonably searched.”
The CISPA battleground in numbers
Stallman urged people to protect their right to Internet privacy, adding that precautions should be taken on both individual and federal levels.
“If you store any data in a US company, that company – with few exceptions – is legally required to hand that data over to US government without even a search warrant, so I think both individuals and governments should take precautions to make sure that their citizens’ data is not being handed over to US companies or their foreign subsidiaries, which are also subject to that same hypocritically named Patriot Act," he warned.
Stallman also said that CISPA is essentially different from the recently defeated SOPA, as the latter was pushed by the publishing industry to prevent illegal file sharing, while CISPA is driven by so-called cyber security.
“Cyber security is not an invalid goal – but of course, it doesn't justify doing terrible harm just because you are doing it in the name of a valid goal,” the activist warned.
When asked if Obama will go through with his promise to veto the bill, Stallman said that it's “unusual for Obama to stand for human rights,” but that he would be glad if the president does in fact veto the bill.
On Thursday the House of Representatives approved CISPA in an unexpected last minute vote. The bill is now set to go to the Senate, and then to President Barack Obama, who can either sign it into law or veto it.
Stallman: CISPA 'nearly abolishes' the right not to be unreasonably searched — RT
“What CISPA says as passed by the House of Representatives is any ISP, any website, any company that has some of your data in it can voluntarily hand it over to the government for a wide range of reasons,” and it's up to the government to interpret it however they see fit, the father of the free software philosophy explained.
“So if they see the slightest bit that they think is odd in your email, they can hand it over to the government. And if the government says it has something to do with national security – it is very easy to say that, whether it’s true or not – then the government can study it for any purpose. This nearly abolishes people’s right not to be unreasonably searched.”
The CISPA battleground in numbers
Stallman urged people to protect their right to Internet privacy, adding that precautions should be taken on both individual and federal levels.
“If you store any data in a US company, that company – with few exceptions – is legally required to hand that data over to US government without even a search warrant, so I think both individuals and governments should take precautions to make sure that their citizens’ data is not being handed over to US companies or their foreign subsidiaries, which are also subject to that same hypocritically named Patriot Act," he warned.
Stallman also said that CISPA is essentially different from the recently defeated SOPA, as the latter was pushed by the publishing industry to prevent illegal file sharing, while CISPA is driven by so-called cyber security.
“Cyber security is not an invalid goal – but of course, it doesn't justify doing terrible harm just because you are doing it in the name of a valid goal,” the activist warned.
When asked if Obama will go through with his promise to veto the bill, Stallman said that it's “unusual for Obama to stand for human rights,” but that he would be glad if the president does in fact veto the bill.
On Thursday the House of Representatives approved CISPA in an unexpected last minute vote. The bill is now set to go to the Senate, and then to President Barack Obama, who can either sign it into law or veto it.
Stallman: CISPA 'nearly abolishes' the right not to be unreasonably searched — RT
IRL action: Anonymous takes to the streets to protest CISPA — RT
Anonymous is taking its battle against CISPA to the streets. A video titled “Operation Defense. Phase II” calls on Americans to organize protests at the local offices of companies that supported the controversial bill recently adopted by the House.
In a video, released by “The Anonymous Message” YouTube channel, the group admits that distributed denial of service attacks (DDoS) are not as effective as they were a year ago. A number of websites have upgraded their servers to withstand the assaults.
Instead, Anonymous calls on Americans concerned with losing their Internet privacy rights to take the battle to the street. In a video statement, the hacktivists urged people to organize mass demonstrations at local offices of corporations that backed CISPA.
“To the citizens of the United States of America: We are Anonymous,” a synthesized voice announces. “This is a special emergency message regarding the status of the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act. CISPA has passed the legislature. We are calling upon the citizens of the United States to physically protest. This includes all the Occupy movement. Our rights are being taken away.”
The video then goes on to provide exact details of the time, place and nature of the protests. The first company set to take the blow is AT&T, whose local offices will be targeted for protest between May 1 and May 5. Similar protests will follow near the offices of IBM, Intel, Microsoft and Verizon Wireless. Anonymous also invites CISPA opponents to boycott Pepsi and Coca Cola products between June 11 and June 14.
The video also reminds Americans to wear a Guy Fawkes mask at the protests and to seek support from the local Occupy movement. They also advise people to stage the rallies “across the street from the headquarters or buildings so as to not get evicted or arrested.”
“Remember, you have a right to protest if you care about your freedom of speech, your right to privacy and your government censoring you. This is your time to act now. We will defend our home. Operation Defense phase two engaged. We are Anonymous. We are legion. We do not forgive. We do not forget. Supporters of CISPA, you should have expected us,” the video-statement concludes.
The group actually first gained worldwide press attention in 2008 for organizing street protests against the Church of Scientology. Back then, Anonymous was outraged by the fact that the Church tried to remove an interview with Tom Cruise, one of Scientology's most famous adherents, from YouTube.
Accusing the Church of trying to censor the Internet, Anonymous responded by launching Project Chanology. Initially the project's members organized several DDoS attacks against Scientology websites, made prank phone calls and sent black faxes to Scientology centers.
Several days later, Anonymous decided to launch a “War on Scientology.” YouTube videos “Message to Scientology” and “Call to Action” invited Anonymous supporters to rally outside Scientology centers worldwide. The videos also accused the Church of Scientology of financially enslaving its followers.
As a result, thousands of people took to the streets of Boston, Dallas, Chicago, New York City, Los Angeles, Paris, London, Manchester and many others to protest against the Church of Scientology.
Protesters demonstrate outside the Church of Scientology in London April 12, 2008. The group, calling itself "Anonymous", called for a day of worldwide picketing of the Church. (Reuters / Luke MacGregor)
Reuters / Luke MacGregor
For the first five years of its existence, it was a little-known, decentralized online community.
In 2006, the group organized the so-called “Habbo raids” on the social networking site Habbo. Hacktivists responded to the news of an Alabama amusement park barring a two-year old toddler infected with AIDS from entering its swimming pool by creating characters dressed in suits that said the pool was “closed due to AIDS,” flooding the site with Internet sayings and forming swastika-like formations. When the hacktivist profiles were removed, they complained of racism.
In December 2006-January 2007, Anonymous took down the website of white supremacist radio talk show host Hal Turner. Turner later unsuccessfully sued 4chan and other websites.
Its popularity soared in recent years, as the group carried out a number of coordinated DDoS attacks against government and corporate websites.
Many of Anonymous’ actions have targeted organizations that they believe promote Internet censorship.
In 2010 the group DDoS-attacked a number of anti-piracy websites as part of Operation Payback, in retaliation against a DDoS attack on torrent sites by piracy opponents.
In 2011 Anonymous organized attacks against a number of government websites worldwide, including those in the US, Tunisia, Israel, Malaysia and Syria.
In January 2012 Anonymous took down the websites of US Department of Justice, the US Copyright Office, the FBI, the MPAA and a handful of others. In February Anonymous announced that it would be attacking “corrupt corporate and government websites” every Friday. Since then, it has also taken down websites of the CIA, Interpol, AIPAC and others.
And corporate and government websites aren’t Anonymous' only targets. Last year Anonymous hacktivists took down 40 child pornography sites and published the names of over 1,500 people who frequented them as part of Operation Darknet. A number of Anonymous activists also took part in Occupy protests, and expressed their support for the aims of the grassroots movement.
In 2012, Time Magazine named Anonymous as one of the most influential ‘people’ in the world – in results determined by an online vote.
IRL action: Anonymous takes to the streets to protest CISPA — RT
In a video, released by “The Anonymous Message” YouTube channel, the group admits that distributed denial of service attacks (DDoS) are not as effective as they were a year ago. A number of websites have upgraded their servers to withstand the assaults.
Instead, Anonymous calls on Americans concerned with losing their Internet privacy rights to take the battle to the street. In a video statement, the hacktivists urged people to organize mass demonstrations at local offices of corporations that backed CISPA.
“To the citizens of the United States of America: We are Anonymous,” a synthesized voice announces. “This is a special emergency message regarding the status of the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act. CISPA has passed the legislature. We are calling upon the citizens of the United States to physically protest. This includes all the Occupy movement. Our rights are being taken away.”
The video then goes on to provide exact details of the time, place and nature of the protests. The first company set to take the blow is AT&T, whose local offices will be targeted for protest between May 1 and May 5. Similar protests will follow near the offices of IBM, Intel, Microsoft and Verizon Wireless. Anonymous also invites CISPA opponents to boycott Pepsi and Coca Cola products between June 11 and June 14.
The video also reminds Americans to wear a Guy Fawkes mask at the protests and to seek support from the local Occupy movement. They also advise people to stage the rallies “across the street from the headquarters or buildings so as to not get evicted or arrested.”
“Remember, you have a right to protest if you care about your freedom of speech, your right to privacy and your government censoring you. This is your time to act now. We will defend our home. Operation Defense phase two engaged. We are Anonymous. We are legion. We do not forgive. We do not forget. Supporters of CISPA, you should have expected us,” the video-statement concludes.
How Tom Cruise made Anonymous famous
Although Anonymous is most famous for its online activities, its streetwise approach is actually nothing new.The group actually first gained worldwide press attention in 2008 for organizing street protests against the Church of Scientology. Back then, Anonymous was outraged by the fact that the Church tried to remove an interview with Tom Cruise, one of Scientology's most famous adherents, from YouTube.
Accusing the Church of trying to censor the Internet, Anonymous responded by launching Project Chanology. Initially the project's members organized several DDoS attacks against Scientology websites, made prank phone calls and sent black faxes to Scientology centers.
Several days later, Anonymous decided to launch a “War on Scientology.” YouTube videos “Message to Scientology” and “Call to Action” invited Anonymous supporters to rally outside Scientology centers worldwide. The videos also accused the Church of Scientology of financially enslaving its followers.
As a result, thousands of people took to the streets of Boston, Dallas, Chicago, New York City, Los Angeles, Paris, London, Manchester and many others to protest against the Church of Scientology.
Protesters demonstrate outside the Church of Scientology in London April 12, 2008. The group, calling itself "Anonymous", called for a day of worldwide picketing of the Church. (Reuters / Luke MacGregor)
Reuters / Luke MacGregor
Anonymous – a history of hacktivism
Anonymous was founded on the imageboard 4chan in 2003. The hacktivist group is open, and any hacker can apply the Anonymous label for his or her attacks, thus joining the movement.For the first five years of its existence, it was a little-known, decentralized online community.
In 2006, the group organized the so-called “Habbo raids” on the social networking site Habbo. Hacktivists responded to the news of an Alabama amusement park barring a two-year old toddler infected with AIDS from entering its swimming pool by creating characters dressed in suits that said the pool was “closed due to AIDS,” flooding the site with Internet sayings and forming swastika-like formations. When the hacktivist profiles were removed, they complained of racism.
In December 2006-January 2007, Anonymous took down the website of white supremacist radio talk show host Hal Turner. Turner later unsuccessfully sued 4chan and other websites.
Its popularity soared in recent years, as the group carried out a number of coordinated DDoS attacks against government and corporate websites.
Many of Anonymous’ actions have targeted organizations that they believe promote Internet censorship.
In 2010 the group DDoS-attacked a number of anti-piracy websites as part of Operation Payback, in retaliation against a DDoS attack on torrent sites by piracy opponents.
In 2011 Anonymous organized attacks against a number of government websites worldwide, including those in the US, Tunisia, Israel, Malaysia and Syria.
In January 2012 Anonymous took down the websites of US Department of Justice, the US Copyright Office, the FBI, the MPAA and a handful of others. In February Anonymous announced that it would be attacking “corrupt corporate and government websites” every Friday. Since then, it has also taken down websites of the CIA, Interpol, AIPAC and others.
And corporate and government websites aren’t Anonymous' only targets. Last year Anonymous hacktivists took down 40 child pornography sites and published the names of over 1,500 people who frequented them as part of Operation Darknet. A number of Anonymous activists also took part in Occupy protests, and expressed their support for the aims of the grassroots movement.
In 2012, Time Magazine named Anonymous as one of the most influential ‘people’ in the world – in results determined by an online vote.
IRL action: Anonymous takes to the streets to protest CISPA — RT
20.4.12
Anonymous tweetbomb: Hacktivists round on CISPA — RT
Hacktivist group Anonymous has slammed SOPA’s successor-bill CISPA, due to go before the US House of Representatives. They claim it will allow companies unprecedented access to personnel information, severely violating privacy laws.
Anonymous have dubbed the new legislation as “rampant government spying” even worse than SOPA. The collective called on their supporters to initiate a “24-hour Anti-CISPA tweetbomb” to boycott the new legislation. The action started on Friday at midnight (EST).
Anonymous posted a “STOP CISPA TOOLKIT” on Twitter, which extensively outlined the bill, their opposition to it, and how their supporters can stop it.
The collective also tweeted a link outlining how 800+ corporations and the US Chamber of Commerce “support Internet freedom crushing” via their support for the act.
The proposal currently has bi-partisan support in the US government with 112 members of Congress backing it to be passed, six more following suit on Thursday.
However, the draft law has even raised a few eyebrows in the White House, giving rise to concerns that it would allow companies to divulge confidential customer records and communications.
Spokesperson for the US National Security Council Caitlin Hayden said that although information sharing legislation is essential to address “critical infrastructure risks” there needs to be “safeguards in place to protect civil liberties.”
“Legislation that would sacrifice the privacy of our citizens in the name of security will not meet our nation's urgent needs,” stressed Hayden.
CISPA stands for the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act, which is a bill aimed at granting private companies greater internet security by allowing them to share personnel information on possible cyber threats.
Moreover, how the legislation defines these “cyber threats” has become a bone of contention for opponents of the bill.
CISPA defines a threat as “information directly pertaining to a vulnerability of, or threat to a system of network of a government or private entity, including information pertaining to the protection of a system or network.”
Critics take issue with the bill’s ambiguous wording and say they will give the government and give companies free rein to access private information.
Particular attention has been paid to the clause "notwithstanding any other provision of law." Companies may share information "with any other entity, including the federal government."
According to the current phrasing, companies could flout personal privacy protections and share huge amounts of data.
“Such information could very well include account names and passwords, histories, message content, and other information not currently available to agencies under federal wiretap laws,” hacktivist group Anonymous write on their website..
The House Rules Committee has set a deadline of next Tuesday for amendments to be made to the controversial legislation before the vote takes place in the House of Representatives.
CISPA joins the ranks of SOPA, ACTA, PIPA and other legislation put forward in the US supposedly to step up internet security. All have been the subject of controversy amid accusations that the US government is trampling on civil liberties.
Anonymous tweetbomb: Hacktivists round on CISPA — RT
Anonymous have dubbed the new legislation as “rampant government spying” even worse than SOPA. The collective called on their supporters to initiate a “24-hour Anti-CISPA tweetbomb” to boycott the new legislation. The action started on Friday at midnight (EST).
Anonymous posted a “STOP CISPA TOOLKIT” on Twitter, which extensively outlined the bill, their opposition to it, and how their supporters can stop it.
The collective also tweeted a link outlining how 800+ corporations and the US Chamber of Commerce “support Internet freedom crushing” via their support for the act.
The proposal currently has bi-partisan support in the US government with 112 members of Congress backing it to be passed, six more following suit on Thursday.
However, the draft law has even raised a few eyebrows in the White House, giving rise to concerns that it would allow companies to divulge confidential customer records and communications.
Spokesperson for the US National Security Council Caitlin Hayden said that although information sharing legislation is essential to address “critical infrastructure risks” there needs to be “safeguards in place to protect civil liberties.”
“Legislation that would sacrifice the privacy of our citizens in the name of security will not meet our nation's urgent needs,” stressed Hayden.
CISPA stands for the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act, which is a bill aimed at granting private companies greater internet security by allowing them to share personnel information on possible cyber threats.
Moreover, how the legislation defines these “cyber threats” has become a bone of contention for opponents of the bill.
CISPA defines a threat as “information directly pertaining to a vulnerability of, or threat to a system of network of a government or private entity, including information pertaining to the protection of a system or network.”
Critics take issue with the bill’s ambiguous wording and say they will give the government and give companies free rein to access private information.
Particular attention has been paid to the clause "notwithstanding any other provision of law." Companies may share information "with any other entity, including the federal government."
According to the current phrasing, companies could flout personal privacy protections and share huge amounts of data.
“Such information could very well include account names and passwords, histories, message content, and other information not currently available to agencies under federal wiretap laws,” hacktivist group Anonymous write on their website..
The House Rules Committee has set a deadline of next Tuesday for amendments to be made to the controversial legislation before the vote takes place in the House of Representatives.
CISPA joins the ranks of SOPA, ACTA, PIPA and other legislation put forward in the US supposedly to step up internet security. All have been the subject of controversy amid accusations that the US government is trampling on civil liberties.
Anonymous tweetbomb: Hacktivists round on CISPA — RT
Anonymous tweetbomb: Hacktivists round on CISPA — RT
Hacktivist group Anonymous has slammed SOPA’s successor-bill CISPA, due to go before the US House of Representatives. They claim it will allow companies unprecedented access to personnel information, severely violating privacy laws.
Anonymous have dubbed the new legislation as “rampant government spying” even worse than SOPA. The collective called on their supporters to initiate a “24-hour Anti-CISPA tweetbomb” to boycott the new legislation. The action started on Friday at midnight (EST).
Anonymous posted a “STOP CISPA TOOLKIT” on Twitter, which extensively outlined the bill, their opposition to it, and how their supporters can stop it.
The collective also tweeted a link outlining how 800+ corporations and the US Chamber of Commerce “support Internet freedom crushing” via their support for the act.
The proposal currently has bi-partisan support in the US government with 112 members of Congress backing it to be passed, six more following suit on Thursday.
However, the draft law has even raised a few eyebrows in the White House, giving rise to concerns that it would allow companies to divulge confidential customer records and communications.
Spokesperson for the US National Security Council Caitlin Hayden said that although information sharing legislation is essential to address “critical infrastructure risks” there needs to be “safeguards in place to protect civil liberties.”
“Legislation that would sacrifice the privacy of our citizens in the name of security will not meet our nation's urgent needs,” stressed Hayden.
CISPA stands for the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act, which is a bill aimed at granting private companies greater internet security by allowing them to share personnel information on possible cyber threats.
Moreover, how the legislation defines these “cyber threats” has become a bone of contention for opponents of the bill.
CISPA defines a threat as “information directly pertaining to a vulnerability of, or threat to a system of network of a government or private entity, including information pertaining to the protection of a system or network.”
Critics take issue with the bill’s ambiguous wording and say they will give the government and give companies free rein to access private information.
Particular attention has been paid to the clause "notwithstanding any other provision of law." Companies may share information "with any other entity, including the federal government."
According to the current phrasing, companies could flout personal privacy protections and share huge amounts of data.
“Such information could very well include account names and passwords, histories, message content, and other information not currently available to agencies under federal wiretap laws,” hacktivist group Anonymous write on their website..
The House Rules Committee has set a deadline of next Tuesday for amendments to be made to the controversial legislation before the vote takes place in the House of Representatives.
CISPA joins the ranks of SOPA, ACTA, PIPA and other legislation put forward in the US supposedly to step up internet security. All have been the subject of controversy amid accusations that the US government is trampling on civil liberties.
Anonymous tweetbomb: Hacktivists round on CISPA — RT
Anonymous have dubbed the new legislation as “rampant government spying” even worse than SOPA. The collective called on their supporters to initiate a “24-hour Anti-CISPA tweetbomb” to boycott the new legislation. The action started on Friday at midnight (EST).
Anonymous posted a “STOP CISPA TOOLKIT” on Twitter, which extensively outlined the bill, their opposition to it, and how their supporters can stop it.
The collective also tweeted a link outlining how 800+ corporations and the US Chamber of Commerce “support Internet freedom crushing” via their support for the act.
The proposal currently has bi-partisan support in the US government with 112 members of Congress backing it to be passed, six more following suit on Thursday.
However, the draft law has even raised a few eyebrows in the White House, giving rise to concerns that it would allow companies to divulge confidential customer records and communications.
Spokesperson for the US National Security Council Caitlin Hayden said that although information sharing legislation is essential to address “critical infrastructure risks” there needs to be “safeguards in place to protect civil liberties.”
“Legislation that would sacrifice the privacy of our citizens in the name of security will not meet our nation's urgent needs,” stressed Hayden.
CISPA stands for the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act, which is a bill aimed at granting private companies greater internet security by allowing them to share personnel information on possible cyber threats.
Moreover, how the legislation defines these “cyber threats” has become a bone of contention for opponents of the bill.
CISPA defines a threat as “information directly pertaining to a vulnerability of, or threat to a system of network of a government or private entity, including information pertaining to the protection of a system or network.”
Critics take issue with the bill’s ambiguous wording and say they will give the government and give companies free rein to access private information.
Particular attention has been paid to the clause "notwithstanding any other provision of law." Companies may share information "with any other entity, including the federal government."
According to the current phrasing, companies could flout personal privacy protections and share huge amounts of data.
“Such information could very well include account names and passwords, histories, message content, and other information not currently available to agencies under federal wiretap laws,” hacktivist group Anonymous write on their website..
The House Rules Committee has set a deadline of next Tuesday for amendments to be made to the controversial legislation before the vote takes place in the House of Representatives.
CISPA joins the ranks of SOPA, ACTA, PIPA and other legislation put forward in the US supposedly to step up internet security. All have been the subject of controversy amid accusations that the US government is trampling on civil liberties.
Anonymous tweetbomb: Hacktivists round on CISPA — RT
‘Nuclear talks won’t halt Israeli strike on Iran’ — RT
Israel says it never promised the United States it would refrain from striking Iran while the latest nuclear talks were underway. However, some experts say the drive to strike Iran has little connection with Tehran’s alleged weapons program.
Ratcheting up the rhetoric, Israeli defense minister Ehud Barak told Israel’s Army Radio diplomatic efforts to reach a compromise with Iran were a waste of “precious time.”
Barak’s position comes in stark contrast to Saturday’s talks in Istanbul between Iran and the five plus one countries – the five permanent members of the UN Security Council plus Germany. Iran’s chief nuclear negotiator Saeed Jalilil portrayed the talks as “very successful,” with a White House spokesman lauding Tehran’s “positive attitude.”
With the five plus one countries having agreed to meet with Iran again for talks in Baghdad next month, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu claimed Iran was given a “freebie” by the international community. US President Barrack Obama shot back, saying the US had not given anything away in the talks.
While Israel insists that it will use force to stop Iran from developing the capability to produce a nuclear weapon, Professor Seyed Mohammad Marandi from the University of Tehran told RT Iran poses a very different type of existential threat to the Jewish state.
“Israel has an inherent hostility towards Iran, and it has really nothing to do with the nuclear program. It began from the very start of the Islamic revolution in Iran. Because the Iranian position has always been that Israel is an apartheid state, and like apartheid South Africa, it must cease to exist in its current state of affairs.”
Marandi says that it is “the idea that Iran promotes that Palestinians should have equal rights that angers Israel so much” – rather than its nuclear program.
Marandi says Israel’s restlessness with the negotiations stems from the possibility “that Western countries may be shifting their positions” when it comes to Iran exercising its rights under the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Marandi attributes this shift both to “the fact that oil prices have gone up dramatically and Western economies are hurting,” as well as his belief that “Iran is the only stable country in the region” following the Arab Spring.
While Marandi says Iran will never “give up its right to enrich uranium,” it could be more transparent with the UN nuclear watchdog.
“The Iranians of course have concerns,” he said. “In the past, every time the IAEA met new scientists or saw new places, subsequently we had assassinations and murders of Iranian scientists, including an academic who was a colleague of mine at the University of Tehran.”
‘Nuclear talks won’t halt Israeli strike on Iran’ — RT
Ratcheting up the rhetoric, Israeli defense minister Ehud Barak told Israel’s Army Radio diplomatic efforts to reach a compromise with Iran were a waste of “precious time.”
Barak’s position comes in stark contrast to Saturday’s talks in Istanbul between Iran and the five plus one countries – the five permanent members of the UN Security Council plus Germany. Iran’s chief nuclear negotiator Saeed Jalilil portrayed the talks as “very successful,” with a White House spokesman lauding Tehran’s “positive attitude.”
With the five plus one countries having agreed to meet with Iran again for talks in Baghdad next month, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu claimed Iran was given a “freebie” by the international community. US President Barrack Obama shot back, saying the US had not given anything away in the talks.
While Israel insists that it will use force to stop Iran from developing the capability to produce a nuclear weapon, Professor Seyed Mohammad Marandi from the University of Tehran told RT Iran poses a very different type of existential threat to the Jewish state.
“Israel has an inherent hostility towards Iran, and it has really nothing to do with the nuclear program. It began from the very start of the Islamic revolution in Iran. Because the Iranian position has always been that Israel is an apartheid state, and like apartheid South Africa, it must cease to exist in its current state of affairs.”
Marandi says that it is “the idea that Iran promotes that Palestinians should have equal rights that angers Israel so much” – rather than its nuclear program.
Marandi says Israel’s restlessness with the negotiations stems from the possibility “that Western countries may be shifting their positions” when it comes to Iran exercising its rights under the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Marandi attributes this shift both to “the fact that oil prices have gone up dramatically and Western economies are hurting,” as well as his belief that “Iran is the only stable country in the region” following the Arab Spring.
While Marandi says Iran will never “give up its right to enrich uranium,” it could be more transparent with the UN nuclear watchdog.
“The Iranians of course have concerns,” he said. “In the past, every time the IAEA met new scientists or saw new places, subsequently we had assassinations and murders of Iranian scientists, including an academic who was a colleague of mine at the University of Tehran.”
‘Nuclear talks won’t halt Israeli strike on Iran’ — RT
Pentagon has ‘successful plan’ with hundreds of Tomahawks deployed near Iran — RT
America’s plan B for Iran “will be successful,” promises US defense secretary, Leon Panetta. Reports suggest this is no sable rattling, as the US strike groups deployed to the Persian Gulf may be carrying some 430 Tomahawk missiles.
Washington has not yet dropped its “all options” stance towards Iran, who, they fear, may be building nuclear weapons. The confirmation was obtained by CNN’s Wolf Blitzer from Panetta on Thursday.
“We are prepared with all options on the table if we have to respond,” Panetta said, adding that “there are plans” to deal with Iran if the country does not give up its nuclear ambitions.
“I don’t think there is any question that if we have to implement that plan, it will be successful,” he added.
This practical approach sees two American aircraft carriers, their battle groups, several submarines and additional Marines deployed to the Gulf waters. Both the US Navy and the Pentagon say the commissions are “routine.”
Nevertheless, assessments made by Interfax news agency say that the group headed by the USS Enterprise alone has taken at least 130 Tomahawk missiles to the Persian Gulf.
The other group, which has the USS Abraham Lincoln as its flagship, has as many long-range cruise missiles of the same class. This group was last reported to be patrolling the Arabian Sea, where the US Navy says it is providing air support to NATO troops in Afghanistan.
The submarine USS Georgia, which is also navigating the waters, is estimated to be carrying 154 Tomahawks. Another submarine, assigned to an amphibious assault group, is reported to have 12 cruise missiles at its disposal.
All this gives a total figure of at least 430 Tomahawks with a range of 1,700 km on a routine voyage around the waters of the Persian Gulf. The missiles would be able to take out Iran’s air-defense system in its entirety and turn its military airfields into rubble, experts tell Interfax.
With all the military build-up in the area, Washington says the first round of nuclear talks with Tehran gave them “positive” feelings. However, no alleviating of sanctions against Iran’s economy has so far been debated in the White House, as Secretary of State Hillary Clinton declared on Monday.
The USA seems to be between a rock and the hard place regarding the issue of Iran. On the one hand, Washington says they want Iran to drop nukes, but diplomacy comes first. On the other hand, the US has to restrain Israel as its Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has branded the first round of talks with Iran an international “freebie” for the country. He also makes it a point of mentioning at least once a month that Tehran is “an existential threat” to Israel.
Iran denies it is trying to build nuclear weapons, saying also it is their right to produce nuclear energy and radioactive treatment for cancer patients.
Pentagon has ‘successful plan’ with hundreds of Tomahawks deployed near Iran — RT
Washington has not yet dropped its “all options” stance towards Iran, who, they fear, may be building nuclear weapons. The confirmation was obtained by CNN’s Wolf Blitzer from Panetta on Thursday.
“We are prepared with all options on the table if we have to respond,” Panetta said, adding that “there are plans” to deal with Iran if the country does not give up its nuclear ambitions.
“I don’t think there is any question that if we have to implement that plan, it will be successful,” he added.
This practical approach sees two American aircraft carriers, their battle groups, several submarines and additional Marines deployed to the Gulf waters. Both the US Navy and the Pentagon say the commissions are “routine.”
Nevertheless, assessments made by Interfax news agency say that the group headed by the USS Enterprise alone has taken at least 130 Tomahawk missiles to the Persian Gulf.
The other group, which has the USS Abraham Lincoln as its flagship, has as many long-range cruise missiles of the same class. This group was last reported to be patrolling the Arabian Sea, where the US Navy says it is providing air support to NATO troops in Afghanistan.
The submarine USS Georgia, which is also navigating the waters, is estimated to be carrying 154 Tomahawks. Another submarine, assigned to an amphibious assault group, is reported to have 12 cruise missiles at its disposal.
All this gives a total figure of at least 430 Tomahawks with a range of 1,700 km on a routine voyage around the waters of the Persian Gulf. The missiles would be able to take out Iran’s air-defense system in its entirety and turn its military airfields into rubble, experts tell Interfax.
With all the military build-up in the area, Washington says the first round of nuclear talks with Tehran gave them “positive” feelings. However, no alleviating of sanctions against Iran’s economy has so far been debated in the White House, as Secretary of State Hillary Clinton declared on Monday.
The USA seems to be between a rock and the hard place regarding the issue of Iran. On the one hand, Washington says they want Iran to drop nukes, but diplomacy comes first. On the other hand, the US has to restrain Israel as its Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has branded the first round of talks with Iran an international “freebie” for the country. He also makes it a point of mentioning at least once a month that Tehran is “an existential threat” to Israel.
Iran denies it is trying to build nuclear weapons, saying also it is their right to produce nuclear energy and radioactive treatment for cancer patients.
Pentagon has ‘successful plan’ with hundreds of Tomahawks deployed near Iran — RT
18.4.12
Nicaragua: Presencia de Cuba en Cumbre de las Américas es decisión de los pueblos — teleSUR
Nicaragua propuso que la inclusión de Cuba en la Cumbre de las Américas sea decidido por el pueblo de Estados Unidos y Canadá y no por sus mandatarios. Fustigó que la cita continental haya sido censurada.
El presidente de Nicaragua, Daniel Ortega, aseguró este domingo que Cuba formaría parte de la Cumbre de las Américas si la decisión la tomara el pueblo estadounidense y canadiense, a través de un referendo, y no sus mandatarios que han obstaculizado la participación de la isla caribeña en el foro continental.
“Yo invito al presidente (Barack) Obama y al primer ministro de Canadá (Stephen Harper), que intentan dar lecciones de democracia allá en Cartagena, que hagan una cosulta con sus pueblos (...) Eso incluso liberaría a estos gobiernos de la carga que tienen”, advirtió.
Durante su participación en un acto celebrado en la Plaza de La Revolución en Managua, para manifestar su solidaridad con el Gobierno de la isla antillana, Ortega aseguró que la decisión de los mandatarios de Estados Unidos y Canadá de mantener al pueblo cubano al margen de la cita continental obedece a sus intereses y no los del pueblo.
“Los Gobiernos de Estados Unidos y Canadá no están hablando ni por el pueblo norteamericano ni canadiense, están hablando por lo que son sus principios de dominación y no están viendo los cambios que se han producido en América Latina y el Caribe”, dijo tras insistir que la inclusión de Cuba en la Cumbre de las Américas debe ser sometida a referendo.
“Todas las naciones latinoamericanas de las más diversas ideologías, pensamientos políticos, todos están coincidiendo en que Cuba tiene que estar presente o sino no habrá más Cumbre de la mal llamada de las Américas”
En este sentido, le exigió a su homólogo estadounidense que cumpla con su palabra de “establecer un nuevo tipo de relaciones con América Latina”, tal y como lo prometió antes de ser presidente de EE.UU.
Cumbre censurada
Durante su dicurso, Daniel Ortega, criticó que las intervenciones de los presidentes en la VI Cumbre de las Américas no hayan sido transmitidas, tal y como ha sucedido en otras cita internacionales.
“Esta es la primera Cumbre mal llamada de las Américas que se convierte en la cumbre secreta censurada para los pueblos, censurada para el mundo. ¿le han puesto la censura a quiénes? A los pueblos. Porque la decisión fue impuesta por los intereses del norte. Porque se iban a debatir temas que pondrían en evidencia que Cuba no es la aislada sino el imperio”, insistió Ortega.
El presidente de Nicaragua no asistió a la Cumbre de las Américas por solidaridad a Cuba, país que ha sido históricamente excluido de la cita. Por la misma razón, Ecuador tampoco acudió a la sexta edición del encuentro que se realiza en Cartagena de Indias este fin de semana.
Esta tarde los Cancilleres de la Alianza Bolivariana para los pueblos de Nuestra América (ALBA) informaron, a través de comunicado, que los países que conforman el mecanimos de integración no participarán en otra Cumbre sin la presencia de Cuba.
“Yo invito al presidente (Barack) Obama y al primer ministro de Canadá (Stephen Harper), que intentan dar lecciones de democracia allá en Cartagena, que hagan una cosulta con sus pueblos (...) Eso incluso liberaría a estos gobiernos de la carga que tienen”, advirtió.
Durante su participación en un acto celebrado en la Plaza de La Revolución en Managua, para manifestar su solidaridad con el Gobierno de la isla antillana, Ortega aseguró que la decisión de los mandatarios de Estados Unidos y Canadá de mantener al pueblo cubano al margen de la cita continental obedece a sus intereses y no los del pueblo.
“Los Gobiernos de Estados Unidos y Canadá no están hablando ni por el pueblo norteamericano ni canadiense, están hablando por lo que son sus principios de dominación y no están viendo los cambios que se han producido en América Latina y el Caribe”, dijo tras insistir que la inclusión de Cuba en la Cumbre de las Américas debe ser sometida a referendo.
“Todas las naciones latinoamericanas de las más diversas ideologías, pensamientos políticos, todos están coincidiendo en que Cuba tiene que estar presente o sino no habrá más Cumbre de la mal llamada de las Américas”
En este sentido, le exigió a su homólogo estadounidense que cumpla con su palabra de “establecer un nuevo tipo de relaciones con América Latina”, tal y como lo prometió antes de ser presidente de EE.UU.
Cumbre censurada
Durante su dicurso, Daniel Ortega, criticó que las intervenciones de los presidentes en la VI Cumbre de las Américas no hayan sido transmitidas, tal y como ha sucedido en otras cita internacionales.
“Esta es la primera Cumbre mal llamada de las Américas que se convierte en la cumbre secreta censurada para los pueblos, censurada para el mundo. ¿le han puesto la censura a quiénes? A los pueblos. Porque la decisión fue impuesta por los intereses del norte. Porque se iban a debatir temas que pondrían en evidencia que Cuba no es la aislada sino el imperio”, insistió Ortega.
El presidente de Nicaragua no asistió a la Cumbre de las Américas por solidaridad a Cuba, país que ha sido históricamente excluido de la cita. Por la misma razón, Ecuador tampoco acudió a la sexta edición del encuentro que se realiza en Cartagena de Indias este fin de semana.
Esta tarde los Cancilleres de la Alianza Bolivariana para los pueblos de Nuestra América (ALBA) informaron, a través de comunicado, que los países que conforman el mecanimos de integración no participarán en otra Cumbre sin la presencia de Cuba.
teleSUR/ao-YIB
Nicaragua: Presencia de Cuba en Cumbre de las Américas es decisión de los pueblos — teleSUR
Internet censorship ‘useless’ - Medvedev — RT
In his latest video blog entry, President Dmitry Medvedev said that Russia would never censor the internet, but urged law enforcers to find and punish those who distribute slander or hate materials, or child pornography.
Medvedev stressed that he was not talking about internet censorship as such a thing was
“impossible and simply senseless” but urged stronger punishment for spreading deliberately false reportsespecially if such information could damage someone’s honor, dignity or business reputation.
The president also promised stronger punishment for spreading child pornography and promoting terrorism, national or religious feuds.
In addition, Medvedev called upon internet users to help make the Russian power system more transparent and efficient.
The outgoing Russian head of state said that “No one but us ourselves will make Russia better.”
“Counting on bureaucrats’ omnipotence and universal knowledge means a lenient attitude to office-connected crimes. In the modern world that is complex and rapidly changing, the state simply does not have enough eyes to watch everything and enough hands to correct every mistake. The country needs you – active and not indifferent people and I seriously count on you,” Medvedev stated.
The president said that the internet must be used in order to make the power structures more open and transparent.
Apart from the cheering and calls for cooperation, the president noted that the state system in Russia is already using the internet in some of its functions – in 2010 and 2011 several draft laws underwent public discussion through specially-designed feedback mechanisms. As a result, the bills submitted to the parliament differed significantly from their initial versions.
Medvedev also acknowledged that practice brought out certain negative moment in internet use that still have to be overcome – for example, comments and ratings allowed “deliberately unacceptable and simply silly” ideas to be submitted and discussed.
He noted that this was the primary reason why the public expertise system required user registration, even though this move reduced the number of participants by several orders of magnitude.
“This is a necessary condition for the work that requires not only initiative, but also responsibility,” Medvedev stressed.
The president also said he deemed it necessary to introduce electronic democracy to the Russian regions in the form of crowdsourcing and referenda, as it was too complicated to solve minor problems through interference from Moscow.
The blog entry was posted after Medvedev held another session of the Big Government – a recently-created large consulting body that is expected to work with actual government after Medvedev becomes prime minister under President Vladimir Putin.
In the blog, Medvedev promised that even after leaving the presidential post he will remain present in social networks and take active part in various discussions.
Internet censorship ‘useless’ - Medvedev — RT
Medvedev stressed that he was not talking about internet censorship as such a thing was
“impossible and simply senseless” but urged stronger punishment for spreading deliberately false reportsespecially if such information could damage someone’s honor, dignity or business reputation.
The president also promised stronger punishment for spreading child pornography and promoting terrorism, national or religious feuds.
In addition, Medvedev called upon internet users to help make the Russian power system more transparent and efficient.
The outgoing Russian head of state said that “No one but us ourselves will make Russia better.”
“Counting on bureaucrats’ omnipotence and universal knowledge means a lenient attitude to office-connected crimes. In the modern world that is complex and rapidly changing, the state simply does not have enough eyes to watch everything and enough hands to correct every mistake. The country needs you – active and not indifferent people and I seriously count on you,” Medvedev stated.
The president said that the internet must be used in order to make the power structures more open and transparent.
Apart from the cheering and calls for cooperation, the president noted that the state system in Russia is already using the internet in some of its functions – in 2010 and 2011 several draft laws underwent public discussion through specially-designed feedback mechanisms. As a result, the bills submitted to the parliament differed significantly from their initial versions.
Medvedev also acknowledged that practice brought out certain negative moment in internet use that still have to be overcome – for example, comments and ratings allowed “deliberately unacceptable and simply silly” ideas to be submitted and discussed.
He noted that this was the primary reason why the public expertise system required user registration, even though this move reduced the number of participants by several orders of magnitude.
“This is a necessary condition for the work that requires not only initiative, but also responsibility,” Medvedev stressed.
The president also said he deemed it necessary to introduce electronic democracy to the Russian regions in the form of crowdsourcing and referenda, as it was too complicated to solve minor problems through interference from Moscow.
The blog entry was posted after Medvedev held another session of the Big Government – a recently-created large consulting body that is expected to work with actual government after Medvedev becomes prime minister under President Vladimir Putin.
In the blog, Medvedev promised that even after leaving the presidential post he will remain present in social networks and take active part in various discussions.
Internet censorship ‘useless’ - Medvedev — RT
Latest US news, world news, sport and comment from the Guardian | guardiannews.com | The Guardian
The US is calling on its NATO allies to donate millions of dollars to maintaining Afghan security forces in view of coalition troop withdrawal. Washington is facing dwindling support over the campaign as more nations announce a pull-out of forces.
Representatives from the US and NATO are at a summit in Brussels to finalize a plan for transferring security responsibility into Afghan hands following the scheduled pull-out of coalition forces in 2014.
The two-day meeting will pave the way for a conference on the conflict to be held in Chicago on 21 May during which a bill will be presented to sustain the Afghan police and military after 2014.
The allies are also expected to broach the subject of funding the straggling Afghan security forces following the withdrawal, staving off fears of an outbreak of insurgency in the embattled country.
Washington will reportedly ask its allied nations to front a quarter of the costs of financing the Afghan forces, equating to around $1 billion a year.
``I expect NATO members and [partner countries] to commit to pay a fair share of the sustainment costs after 2014,'' NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen said on Wednesday.
The US is currently expected to supply Afghanistan with $1.3 billion a year drawn from other members of the coalition, but it has consistently fallen short of this quota.
Washington has said Afghan forces will be leading the security effort in the country by the end of 2013, although it will still maintain a significant military presence in the country.
Local security enforcement has been growing and is expected to swell to approximately 352,000 troops by the middle of this year. They are facing an estimated 25,000 Taliban insurgents currently believed to be operating in the country.
Several nations have already announced their early withdrawal from Afghanistan or a scale-down of troops. On Tuesday Australia followed suit, announcing that it would pull out soldiers by the end of 2013.
Relations between Afghan security forces and NATO coalition troops have been put under significant pressure recently. Sunday’s militant attacks on Kabul’s diplomatic area and three eastern cities demonstrated insurgency was still rife in the country despite coalition efforts.
The attacks claimed 50 lives and were the worst since the ouster of the Taliban in 2001.
The Taliban claimed the offensive was retaliation for recent incidents involving US soldiers that caused outcry in Afghanistan, deepening the rift between locals and coalition forces. Among these were the Kandahar massacre in which 17 Afghan civilians were murdered by an American soldier, and the burning of Korans by US troops.
Medea Benjamin, co-founder of the antiwar movement Code Pink, told RT that recent fighting in Afghanistan gives the Obama administration “more justification to say they have to stay.”
“There is always a push in the US, there are elements within the military and within the political parties that would like to see the US and NATO stay beyond the 2014 pullout date,” she said.
Benjamin added that any worsening in the Afghan campaign could be used as a “hammer” by the Republicans against Obama’s government in the forthcoming elections. For this reason Obama is pushing for more funding to “keep things as quiet as possible” in Afghanistan.
Representatives from the US and NATO are at a summit in Brussels to finalize a plan for transferring security responsibility into Afghan hands following the scheduled pull-out of coalition forces in 2014.
The two-day meeting will pave the way for a conference on the conflict to be held in Chicago on 21 May during which a bill will be presented to sustain the Afghan police and military after 2014.
The allies are also expected to broach the subject of funding the straggling Afghan security forces following the withdrawal, staving off fears of an outbreak of insurgency in the embattled country.
Washington will reportedly ask its allied nations to front a quarter of the costs of financing the Afghan forces, equating to around $1 billion a year.
``I expect NATO members and [partner countries] to commit to pay a fair share of the sustainment costs after 2014,'' NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen said on Wednesday.
The US is currently expected to supply Afghanistan with $1.3 billion a year drawn from other members of the coalition, but it has consistently fallen short of this quota.
Washington has said Afghan forces will be leading the security effort in the country by the end of 2013, although it will still maintain a significant military presence in the country.
Local security enforcement has been growing and is expected to swell to approximately 352,000 troops by the middle of this year. They are facing an estimated 25,000 Taliban insurgents currently believed to be operating in the country.
Several nations have already announced their early withdrawal from Afghanistan or a scale-down of troops. On Tuesday Australia followed suit, announcing that it would pull out soldiers by the end of 2013.
Relations between Afghan security forces and NATO coalition troops have been put under significant pressure recently. Sunday’s militant attacks on Kabul’s diplomatic area and three eastern cities demonstrated insurgency was still rife in the country despite coalition efforts.
The attacks claimed 50 lives and were the worst since the ouster of the Taliban in 2001.
The Taliban claimed the offensive was retaliation for recent incidents involving US soldiers that caused outcry in Afghanistan, deepening the rift between locals and coalition forces. Among these were the Kandahar massacre in which 17 Afghan civilians were murdered by an American soldier, and the burning of Korans by US troops.
Medea Benjamin, co-founder of the antiwar movement Code Pink, told RT that recent fighting in Afghanistan gives the Obama administration “more justification to say they have to stay.”
“There is always a push in the US, there are elements within the military and within the political parties that would like to see the US and NATO stay beyond the 2014 pullout date,” she said.
Benjamin added that any worsening in the Afghan campaign could be used as a “hammer” by the Republicans against Obama’s government in the forthcoming elections. For this reason Obama is pushing for more funding to “keep things as quiet as possible” in Afghanistan.
10.4.12
SOPA 2.0, CISPA is Worse
112TH CONGRESS
1ST SESSION
H. R. 3523
To provide for the sharing of certain cyber threat intelligence and cyber
threat information between the intelligence community and cybersecurity entities, and for other purposes.
A BILL
To provide for the sharing of certain cyber threat intelligence and cyber threat information between the intelligence community and cybersecurity entities, and for other purposes.
1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled, SECTION 1. SHORT
TITLE. This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Cyber Intelligence Sharing and
Protection Act of 2011’’.
2 SEC. 2. CYBER THREAT INTELLIGENCE AND INFORMATION SHARING.
(a) IN GENERAL.—Title XI of the National Security Act of 1947
(50U.S.C. 442 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following
new section: ‘‘CYBER THREAT INTELLIGENCE AND INFORMATION
SHARING ‘‘SEC. 1104. (a) INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY SHAR-ING OF
CYBER THREAT INTELLIGENCE WITH PRIVATE SECTOR.—‘‘(1) IN
GENERAL.—The Director of National Intelligence shall establish
procedures to allow elements of the intelligence community to share
cyber threat intelligence with private-sector entities and to encourage
the sharing of such intelligence.
3 ‘‘(2) SHARING AND USE OF CLASSIFIED INTELLIGENCE.—The graph (1)
shall provide that classified cyber threat intelligence may only
be—procedures established under paragraph ‘‘(A) shared by an
element of the intelligence community with—‘‘(i) certified entities; or
‘‘(ii) a person with an appropriate security clearance to receive such
cyber threat intelligence; ‘‘(B) shared consistent with the need to
protect the national security of the United States; and ‘‘(C) used by a
certified entity in a manner which protects such cyber threat
intelligence from unauthorized disclosure.
4 ‘‘(3) SECURITY CLEARANCE APPROVALS.—The Director of National
Intelligence shall issue guide-lines providing that the head of an
element of the intelligence community may, as the head of such
element considers necessary to carry out this sub-section— ‘‘(A)
grant a security clearance on a temporary or permanent basis to an
employee or officer of a certified entity; ‘‘(B) grant a security
clearance on a temporary or permanent basis to a certified entity
and approval to use appropriate facilities; and ‘‘(C) expedite the
security clearance process for a person or entity as the head of such
element considers necessary, consistent with the need to protect the
national security of the United States.
5 ‘‘(4) NO RIGHT OR BENEFIT.—The provision of information to a
private-sector entity under this subsection shall not create a right or
benefit to similar information by such entity or any other
private-sector entity.
6 ‘‘(b) PRIVATE SECTOR USE OF CYBERSECURITY SYSTEMS AND
SHARING ‘‘(1) IN OF CYBER THREAT INFORMATION.—GENERAL.
—‘‘(A) CYBERSECURITY PROVIDERS.— Not-withstanding any other
provision of law, a cybersecurity provider, with the express consent of a
protected entity for which such cybersecurity provider is providing
goods or services for cybersecurity purposes, may, for cybersecurity
purposes— ‘‘(i) use cybersecurity systems to identify and obtain
cyber threat information to protect the rights and property of such
protected entity; and ‘‘(ii) share such cyber threat information with
any other entity designated by such protected entity, including, if
specifically designated, the Federal Government.
7 ‘‘(B) SELF-PROTECTED ENTITIES.—Not-withstanding any other
provision of law, a self-protected entity may, for cybersecurity
purposes—‘‘(i) use cybersecurity systems to identify and obtain
cyber threat information to protect the rights and property of such
self-protected entity; and ‘‘(ii) share such cyber threat information
with any other entity, including the Federal Government.
8 ‘‘(2) USE AND PROTECTION OF INFORMATION. --threat information
shared in accordance with paragraph (1)—‘‘(A) shall only be shared
in accordance with any restrictions placed on the sharing of
such information by the protected entity or self-protected entity
authorizing such sharing, including, anonymization or minimization of
such information; if requested, appropriate ‘‘(B) may not be used by
an entity to gain an unfair competitive advantage to the detriment of
the protected entity or the self-protected entity authorizing the
sharing of information; and ‘‘(C) if shared with the Federal
Government—‘‘(i) shall be exempt from disclosure under section 552
of title 5, United States Code; ‘‘(ii) shall be considered proprietary
information and shall not be disclosed to an entity outside of the
Federal Government except as authorized by the entity sharing such
information; and ‘‘(iii) shall not be used by the Federal Government
for regulatory purposes.
9 ‘‘(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.
10 ‘‘(4) RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER LAWS REQUIRING THE
DISCLOSURE OF INFORMATION.—The sub-mission of
information under this subsection to the Federal Government
shall not satisfy or affect any requirement under any other
provision of law for a person or entity to provide information
to the Federal Government.
11 ‘‘(c) REPORT ON INFORMATION SHARING.—The Privacy and
Civil Liberties Oversight Board established under section 1061 of
the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004
(5 U.S.C. 601 note) shall annually submit to Congress a report in
unclassified form containing—‘‘(1) a review of the sharing and use
of information by the Federal Government under this section
and the procedures and guidelines established or issued by the
Director of National Intelligence under subsection (a); and “(2) any
recommendations of the Board for improvements or modifications to
such authorities to address privacy and civil liberties concerns.
‘‘(d) FEDERAL PREEMPTION.—This section supersedes any statute
of a State or political subdivision of a State that restricts or otherwise
expressly regulates an activity authorized under subsection (b).
12 ‘‘(e) SAVINGS CLAUSE.—Nothing in this section shall be construed
to limit any other authority to use a cyber-security system or to identify,
obtain, or share cyber threat intelligence or cyber threat information.
‘‘(f) DEFINITIONS.—In this section: ‘‘(1) CERTIFIED ENTITY.—The
term ‘certified entity’ means a protected entity, self-protected entity, or
cyber-security provider that— ‘‘(A) possesses or is eligible to obtain a
security clearance, as determined by the Director of National Intelligence;
and ‘‘(B) is able to demonstrate to the Director of National Intelligence that
such provider or such entity can appropriately protect classified cyber threat
intelligence.
13 ‘‘(2) CYBER THREAT INTELLIGENCE.—The term ‘cyber threat
intelligence’ means information in the possession of an element of
the intelligence community directly pertaining to a vulnerability of,
or threat to, a system or network of a government or private entity,
including information pertaining to the protection of a system or
network from— ‘‘(A) efforts to degrade, disrupt, or destroy such
system or network; or ‘‘(B) theft or misappropriation of private or
government information, intellectual property, or personally
identifiable information.
14 ‘‘(3) CYBERSECURITY PROVIDER.—The term ‘cyber-security
provider’ means a non-governmental entity that provides goods
or services intended to be used for cyber-security purposes.
‘‘(4) CYBERSECURITY PURPOSE.—The term ‘cyber-security
purpose’ means the purpose of ensuring the integrity, confidentiality,
or availability of, or safeguarding, a system or network, including
protecting a system or network from— ‘‘(A) efforts to degrade, disrupt,
or destroy such system or network; or ‘‘(B) theft or misappropriation of
private or government information, intellectual property, or personally
identifiable information. ‘‘(5) CYBER-SECURITY SYSTEM.—The
term ‘cyber-security system’ means a system designed or employed
to ensure the integrity, confidentiality, or availability of, or safeguard,
a system or network, including protecting a system or network from—
‘‘(A) efforts to degrade, disrupt, or destroy such system or network; or
‘‘(B) theft or misappropriation of private or government information,
intellectual property, or personally identifiable information.
15 ‘‘(6) CYBER THREAT INFORMATION.—The term ‘cyber threat
information’ means information directly pertaining to a vulnerability
of, or threat to a system or network of a government or private entity,
including information pertaining to the protection of a system or
network from— ‘‘(A) efforts to degrade, disrupt, or destroy such
system or network; or ‘‘(B) theft or misappropriation of private
or government information, intellectual property, or personally
identifiable information. ‘‘(7) PROTECTED ENTITY.—The term
‘protected entity’ means an entity, other than an individual, that
contracts with a cyber-security provider for goods or services to be
used for cyber-security purposes. ‘‘(8) SELF-PROTECTED ENTITY.
—The term ‘self-protected entity’ means an entity, other than an
individual, that provides goods or services for cyber-security purposes
to itself.’’. (b) PROCEDURES AND GUIDELINES.—The Director
of National Intelligence shall— (1) not later than 60 days after the date
of the enactment of this Act, establish procedures under paragraph (1)
of section 1104(a) of the National Security Act of 1947, as added by
subsection (a) of this section, and issue guidelines under paragraph (3)
of such section 1104(a); and (2) following the establishment of such
procedures and the issuance of such guidelines, expeditiously distribute
such procedures and such guide lines to appropriate Federal Government
and private-sector entities. (c) INITIAL REPORT.—The first report
required to be submitted under subsection (c) of section 1104 of the
National Security Act of 1947, as added by subsection (a) of this
section, shall be submitted not later than one year after the date of the
enactment of this Act. (d) TABLE OF CONTENTS AMENDMENT.
—The table of contents in the first section of such Act is amended
by adding at the end the following new item:
‘‘Sec. 1104. Cyber threat intelligence and information sharing.’’.
9.4.12
Anonymous - Operation Defence
We Are Anonymous
We Are Legion
We Do not Forget
We Do not Forgive
YOU SHOULD HAVE EXPECTED US!!!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)