For All The Cyberwar Talk, Turns Out There Have Been Fewer Attacks On The Pentagon's Network

from the cyberlull dept

For all the recent talk of "cyberwar," with particular emphasis on the idea that hackers in foreign countries were bombarding US gov't and military institutions with constant internet attacks, it now turns out that "incidents of malicious cyber activity" against the Pentagon have been on the decline this year. There still have been plenty of attempts to breach the network, but it's a much lower number than in the past. And that seems to contradict what Pentagon officials have been saying.

Deputy Defense Secretary William Lynn, who's been leading the charge for why the Pentagon should be in charge of cybersecurity, recently claimed that the frequency was increasing exponentially. Except that's not true, apparently. The NSA, who is the main group within the Defense Department that wants to handle cybersecurity, apparently had its boss specifically (falsely) claim that he was "alarmed by the increase, especially this year." Of course, there are still plenty of attacks -- no one is denying that, but it's even more evidence that the folks looking to use this to gain more power are clearly exaggerating what's going on.

Filed Under: attacks, cyberwar, stats

EFF, Public Knowledge And Creative Commons All Respond (Politely) To ASCAP's Misguided Attack

from the I-would-have-been-more-snarky dept

Following last week's bizarre decision by ASCAP to attack Creative Commons, Public Knowledge and EFF as part of its fundraising campaign, all three organizations have now responded, and done so with a bit of wonderment at why they were painted in such a misleading light.

• Creative Commons responded in an interview with Zeropaid, noting how misguided and flat-out wrong it was for ASCAP to suggest that Creative Commons somehow undermines artists' rights, when it's always done exactly the opposite:

  "It's very sad that ASCAP is falsely claiming that Creative Commons works to undermine copyright" Steuer told ZeroPaid. He explained, "Creative Commons licenses are copyright licenses -- plain and simple, without copyright, these tools don't even work. CC licenses are legal tools that creators can use to offer certain usage rights to the public, while reserving other rights. Artists and record labels that want to make their music available to the public for certain uses, like noncommercial sharing or remixing, should consider using CC licenses. Artists and labels that want to reserve all of their copyright rights should absolutely not use CC licenses."
  
  It does make sense because Creative Commons is voluntary. The creator can choose whether or not to use Creative Commons or not.
  
  "Many tens of thousands of musicians, including acts like Nine Inch Nails, the Beastie Boys, David Byrne, Radiohead, and Snoop Dogg, have used Creative Commons licenses to share with the public. These musicians aren't looking to stop making money from their music. In fact," Steuer added, "many of the artists who use CC licenses are also members of collecting societies, including ASCAP. Incidentally, that's how we first heard about this email campaign -- many musicians that support Creative Commons received the email and forwarded it to us. Some of them even included a donation to Creative Commons."




• The EFF responded in an interview with CreateDigitalMusic.com, where it noted, amusingly, that the EFF's long-standing proposal on how to "fix" copyright law, actually is to set up an ASCAP-like system for digital music (this is something that I've long disagree with EFF about, by the way). So it seems pretty silly to claim that EFF is somehow trying to undermine ASCAP. It just takes issue when ASCAP takes a ridiculous stance like claiming that ringtones require a separate "public performance" license -- a position that is clearly at odds with the law.

  "They imply in that letter that the EFF don't want artists to get paid for their work," says Rebecca Jeschke, EFF spokesperson. "For years, we've had a proposal for Voluntary Collective Licensing," she says, a scheme by which users of file sharing services could contribute to funds for artists. She says the EFF has been working on the issue since 2003. "We're interested in making sure that there's a balance, that copyright respects the rights of the creators but also innovators and speakers, and that [the doctrine of] fair use rights [a provision of US Copyright Law] are respected."




• Finally, Public Knowledge responded on its own website, in a response that is similar to the EFF's, pointing out that it clearly supports getting artists' paid, has no interest in undermining such rights, and has advocated models similar to ASCAP's:

  Of course, anybody who has spent more than 5 minutes on our website or talking to our staff knows that these things are not true - Public Knowledge advocates for balanced copyright and an open Internet that empowers creators and the public.  What we oppose are overreaching policies proposed by large corporate copyright holders that punish lawful users of technology and copyrighted works.  We have taken artist-centric positions on a number of critical copyright issues which have put us at odds with some of our copyright reform colleagues.  For example, PK has supported a level-playing field in the payment of performance royalties and called for (pdf) copyright holders to sue large scale peer-to-peer infringers directly, as opposed to holding innovators liable for the infringement of others.  We have also advocated for changes to the law that would make it easier for online music services to license content from music publishers, leading to greater legal use of music and greater compensation for artists.  Finally, and oddly enough, we have emphasized the central role that performance rights organizations like ASCAP could play in a digital world and have praised them for their ability to keep accurate records of who owns what copyright.  So frankly, we're more puzzled by this attack than anything.

So, basically none of these organizations do anything like what ASCAP claimed. It's too bad that ASCAP still seems to be standing by its backwards-looking position.

Filed Under: attacks, copyright, culture, fundraising
Companies: ascap, creative commons, eff, public knowledge

Police In Mumbai Shutting Down Open WiFi

from the blame-the-technology dept

Perhaps it's no surprise that, following the terrorist attacks in Mumbai, people are freaking out and blaming technology, as if that will prevent another terrorist attack. First, there were the calls to ban Google maps and now a large number of police are sweeping through all of Mumbai to find open WiFi networks and get the owners to shut the networks down. Of course, there are plenty of perfectly legitimate reasons for offering an open WiFi network, but it seems that no one is even considering that. Because such networks were used in the past by terrorists and possibly could be again, they all must go.

Filed Under: attacks, india, mumbai, wifi

Indian Court Wants To Ban Google Earth In The Wake Of Mumbai Attacks

from the oh-please dept

You just knew this was going to happen eventually. Pretty soon after the attacks last month in Mumbai concluded, reports started coming out about how the terrorists made use of a variety of modern technologies to plan and execute the attacks. A few reports claimed that they had used Google Earth to familiarize themselves with the locations involved in the attacks (some reports had claimed that the terrorists had never been to Mumbai and just used Google Earth -- but other reports contradicted that).

However, an Indian Court is now calling for the software to be banned saying that it "aids terrorists." Of course, so do maps or photographs of hotels, such as those placed online by the hotels themselves, but people aren't overreacting and calling for a ban of those things as well. Yes, we can understand the kneejerk reaction here, and the anger over these horrific attacks. But, banning Google Earth isn't the answer. If Google Earth weren't available, the attacks still would have happened. It's just that the planning would have been different. It's perfectly natural for people to lash out at technology used in a bad way after a tragedy, but hopefully the court won't overreact and will eventually realize the anger should be at the people who actually performed the attacks, not the tools they used.

Filed Under: attacks, google earth, india, mumbai
Companies: google