While I don’t share the zeal some have for ECPA reform, to change the requirements to search emails on third party servers, I think the whole project is at worst harmless so long as FISA is preserved.
As much as a broad free trade area would be great, I begin to wonder whether the Trans-Pacific Partnership has been hijacked by special interests, and so must fail. I mean, this “threat to Internet freedom” stuff is likely overblown, but the treaty is likely being used to try to ram stuff through that could never pass as ordinary legislation.
Continue reading »
I’d have signed a letter against IRFA, the Pandora-backed regulatory bailout.
Government is trying to give advice on security online, including advice on how to deal with breakins. Information exchange is truly a proper cybersecurity role for government. Also important is prosecuting private offenders, and dealing with state offenders.
Though it gets tricky when state offenders include firms selling goods while pretending to be private firms, such as Chinese firms like Lenovo or Huawei.
ECPA reform is being held in the Senate. Leaky Leahy says it’s a Republican doing it. I wonder who? Lindsey Graham? John McCain? I’m not entirely convinced that the bill is necessary, but I don’t think it’s a particularly idea as long as we preserve something along the lines of FISA.
If you really want your email to be private, don’t have it all run through Google.
Turns out Snowden’s final decision to pledge allegiance to United Russia has encouraged a child pornographer in Ireland to follow suit.
Continue reading »
There are many consistent themes of the Obama administration, but one of the more troubling ones is the duplication of competencies. Just how many agencies do we need creating their own cybersecurity mandates? Yes, yes, Department of Energy wants to feel important. Who cares? Get this stuff under one roof. NSA, GSA, DHS, FCC, I don’t care. Pick one.
Oh look, FDA is apparently looking to get into the act, or will they at least stick to warning and let somebody else actually do the standards-setting?
At least Darrell Issa is hard at work cleaning house internally for government security and IT oversight.
Speaking of cybersecurity, all the NSA stuff makes us reconsider when the Obama administration only slapped Google on the wrist over WiSpy.
Continue reading »
There’s a lot of fear going around about ACTA, the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement, a plurilateral agreement under the WTO between the US, the EU, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Singapore, Japan, South Korea, and Morocco. Some of the fears look real, some don’t. For example, even though it was negotiated in secret, the text is easily available.
Another false complaint is that it’s another SOPA, when in fact such a claim misses the point. SOPA was a bad bill, as it turned out to be a censorship bill that defied due process, but the intent was to fight the problem of free riding on copyright and trademark. Crossing international boundaries has been a cheap and easy way to cash in on another country’s copyright and trademark laws without having to abide by them. SOPA tried to fix that in a crude, rude, and ineffective way. ACTA has more options, and doesn’t have to resort to censorship, necessarily.
I’ve just read the treaty. I don’t really see a problem. Even if infringement isn’t ruining the movies and music, trademark and copyright are Constitutional concepts worthy of protection. That’s why some of the anti-SOPA leaders are promoting their own bill.
The pro-liberty position is not one of anarchy. It’s time to get reasonable protections in place. Maybe I missed something, and ACTA is a problem. But the best argument I see against ACTA is that it only includes a few countries, and not those best known for infringement (such as China, either China in fact). ACTA may yet be harmless but ineffective, as opposed to SOPA being harmful and ineffective.
Continue reading »