White House Kicks Russian Diplomats Out Of The Country, Releases Preliminary Report On Russian Hacking With More To Come

from the escalation-time dept

As was widely expected, the White House officially announced its response to claims of Russian interference in our election process, and the "response" is basically kicking 35 Russian diplomats out of the country. Russia admittedly suggested it will do the same. The announcement also includes adding some entities to the official list of "Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons." Somewhat incredibly, now added to that list is the FSB, which is the modern incarnation of the KGB. What's incredible about this was that it took until now for this to happen. With this, the administration also issued an executive order expanding on a previous executive order from last year, enabling it to take these actions.

Somewhat ridiculously, the new executive order just shows the full new order, and doesn't call out what changes were made from the original. So I went through and did a diff on the two executive orders myself. The first major change is an additional first line of who can be sanctioned. While the original had a description of what types of people could be sanctioned for cybersecurity violations, that same sanction has been bumped down to the 2nd item, and the new first item is:

the persons listed in the Annex to this order

Hmmm. That feels unfortunately close to an "enemies list."

The second major change is the addition of this action which can get you sanctioned to a long list of reasons:

tampering with, altering, or causing a misappropriation of information with the purpose or effect of interfering with or undermining election processes or institutions;

Yup. Remember, we noted already that interfering with "election systems" was not previously listed as a sanctionable offense. Now it is. That was to be expected.

Along with this report, Homeland Security and the FBI also (finally) released something of a "Joint Analysis Report" about the alleged Russian interference. The only major revelation in there is that the US government is referring to this hacking program as "GRIZZLY STEPPE."

This Joint Analysis Report (JAR) is the result of analytic efforts between the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). This document provides technical details regarding the tools and infrastructure used by the Russian civilian and military intelligence Services (RIS) to compromise and exploit networks and endpoints associated with the U.S. election, as well as a range of U.S. Government, political, and private sector entities. The U.S. Government is referring to this malicious cyber activity by RIS as GRIZZLY STEPPE.

Previous JARs have not attributed malicious cyber activity to specific countries or threat actors. However, public attribution of these activities to RIS is supported by technical indicators from the U.S. Intelligence Community, DHS, FBI, the private sector, and other entities. This determination expands upon the Joint Statement released October 7, 2016, from the Department of Homeland Security and the Director of National Intelligence on Election Security.

This activity by RIS is part of an ongoing campaign of cyber-enabled operations directed at the U.S. government and its citizens. These cyber operations have included spearphishing campaigns targeting government organizations, critical infrastructure entities, think tanks, universities, political organizations, and corporations leading to the theft of information. In foreign countries, RIS actors conducted damaging and/or disruptive cyber-attacks, including attacks on critical infrastructure networks. In some cases, RIS actors masqueraded as third parties, hiding behind false online personas designed to cause the victim to misattribute the source of the attack. This JAR provides technical indicators related to many of these operations, recommended mitigations, suggested actions to take in response to the indicators provided, and information on how to report such incidents to the U.S. Government.

Other than that, the report really doesn't tell us much more than was already reported in the past by various cybersecurity outfits, about the supposed infiltration by two hacking groups -- called APT28 and APT29 (APT: Advanced Persistent Threat) that people say are connected to the Russian government. There is a nifty graphic, though: The report also posts the YARA signature of the malware that was used (and encourage security folks to check for matching YARA signatures on their systems), and highlights (as was already known) that most of the "hacking" involved spearphishing (directly targeting individuals and tricking them into giving up passwords, with fake password reset requests).

The report does not add much to prove that it was actually the Russians behind this, though everyone insists that's now the consensus view. The NY Times notes that "a more detailed report on the intelligence... will be published in the next three weeks," which certainly could reveal more details. But... of course... "much of the detail -- especially evidence collected from "implants" in Russian computer systems, tapped conversations and spies — is expected to remain classified." In other words, for those who are still skeptical that it was Russia, don't expect them to be convinced by any of this.

Meanwhile, Donald Trump, when asked about all of this managed to toss off his typical word salad of nothingness:

“I think we ought to get on with our lives. I think that computers have complicated lives very greatly. The whole age of computer has made it where nobody knows exactly what is going on. We have speed, we have a lot of other things, but I’m not sure we have the kind, the security we need.”

Yes, it's true that attribution in online security is difficult, but most of that statement is completely ridiculous.

And, of course, this is all kinds of a mess. You have claims of attacks that no one wants to back up with actual details, for fear that it will reveal too much about sources and methods. You have escalation of "diplomatic responses" to counter this attack that everyone tells us was done by the Russians. You have an incoming President who basically said "how do I even computer." None of this is good, and none of it should be okay from no matter where you sit. If we're going to get into a fight with Russia, it would be nice if we had more evidence that "hey, someone broke into the email systems of political parties -- because those organizations are bad at security." But that doesn't seem likely to happen.

Instead, we're left with this weird game where we're constantly being told "trust us" by one side and "computers confusing" by the other. That's not comforting.

Filed Under: cybersecurity, diplomats, election, russia, sanctions, white house

WhatsApp And Its End-to-end Encryption Get Love From An Unusual Quarter: International Diplomats

from the pass-it-on dept

Encryption remains a hot issue, with politicians repeatedly claiming that it allows bad people to hide bad things, although there isn't much evidence this is really a problem. More recently, WhatsApp has become a favorite target since it introduced end-to-end encryption that allegedly not even the company can decrypt. David Cameron vaguely threatened to block it, and Brazil actually tried. Against that background, the following story from the Guardian offers a welcome contrast of government officials using -- and loving -- WhatsApp, not least for its end-to-end encryption:

The rise of WhatsApp diplomacy is transforming the negotiating chamber. There are countless groups of allies and virtual huddles, exchanges over policy statements and fine print, and fair amounts of banter and even emojis (Vladimir Putin is referred to by widespread use of a grey alien avatar).

"You can form small groups of like-minded allies, take photos of annotated documents, ask people what they think without the whole room knowing," a senior western diplomat said.

The tool is useful for communicating with allies who might not be sitting close to them, diplomats say, as well as for agreeing negotiating tactics during difficult sessions and for organising break-out huddles in a way that avoids offending those left out.

The article goes on to describe some real-life situations in which WhatsApp chats offered a vital channel during diplomatic negotiations. It also notes some of the ways the app is being used, for example to make discreet requests like "please speak at the plenary in support of x" or "let's meet outside to discuss this," and the rather more dramatic "please interrupt this person."

This isn't the first hint that WhatsApp is becoming an important tool for international diplomacy. Back in May of this year, a Guardian news item about an internal report into the problems within the UK's Foreign Office included the following information:

The report also finds that rather than make use of specially-tailored encryption, many British diplomats reportedly use WhatsApp to discuss sensitive topics such as the bloody conflicts in Syria and Ukraine.

The author of the report, Tom Fletcher, a former British ambassador to Lebanon, is also quoted in the latest WhatsApp story, where he says:

The smartphone is now as essential a part of the modern diplomat's armoury as courage, patience and a strong stomach. But it is also a threat to the diplomat -- heaven forbid that leaders should start WhatsApping each other direct, without needing to go through their diplomatic envoys.

That's one potential problem with the new WhatsApp diplomacy. Another is that diplomats may start to depend on the app, and take its security for granted. But as Techdirt reported back in April, WhatsApp's end-to-end encryption is not quite as secure as people might think. Moreover, if the program became the de facto tool for communicating among diplomats, a great deal of important information would be passing through it that many governments would dearly love to know. If that happens, the pressure on WhatsApp to provide backdoors to allow the authorities to eavesdrop on those conversations will become even greater. It would be relatively easy to do that: the app is not open source, so there's no way to check. Let's hope that diplomats are beginning to understand why that would be such a bad idea, and will add their voice opposing any such short-sighted moves.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and +glynmoody on Google+

Filed Under: communications, diplomats, encryption
Companies: whatsapp

IP Diplomat Sob Story: It's Hard To Push The US Agenda When The World Listens To Reason

from the oh,-the-truth-is-a-nasty-thing dept

We've talked in the past about the US State Department's horrific IP Attache program. These are US government "diplomats" whose sole job is to go around the world spreading copyright and patent maximalist propaganda based on the interests of a few large US companies. There's been an effort underway to expand this group -- and, in fact, one of the many clauses hidden in SOPA was a plan to do so, massively. After SOPA failed, Lamar Smith actually tried to pass a bill that focused just on expanding the IP Attache group, but thanks to a quick outcry, that seemed to get shelved too.

Nearly four years ago, we wrote about the IP Attaches getting together to whine about all of those darn "anti-IP activists" making their lives difficult -- and apparently they're still at it. The US Chamber of Commerce -- a giant lobbying group who was one of the major backers of SOPA -- apparently hosted the IP Attache annual gathering recently, allowing for more rants about people making their lives difficult by actually telling people that maybe, just maybe, expanding copyright and patent law isn't such a good thing. And, can we just note how odd it is that no one thinks there's any conflict of interest at all in a lobbying group hosting an event for these US government employees?

The main target of derision among IP Attaches? NGOs, or non-governmental organizations -- who are normally focused on pesky things like the well-being of the public. But, according to the IP Attaches, these darn NGOs and their do-gooding is getting in the way of them getting to spread their Hollywood and US Chamber of Commerce-backed maximalist propaganda:

Karin Ferriter, the IP attache to the World Trade Organization, had particularly sharp words for non-governmental organisations operating in Geneva, where she said there a “number of people working to undermine IP.”

Such opponents are “heavily populated” in Geneva but not typically found in the capitals, she said. She referred to a recent trip she had to Cameroon, where, she said, government officials were “true believers” and want better quality products through IP rights.

“People in Geneva are misinformed by the NGO community to devalue IP,” Ferriter said. And the job of the IP attaches is to remind them of the importance of IP and a strong IP system.

“Unfortunately,” she said, NGOs “are working just as much as possible to weaken the IP system.” There is a disconnect, Ferriter said, “but that’s where we come in, to help them see the value of it.”

Others noted similar issues, even calling such NGOs "the wrong people" spreading "the wrong message."

Todd Reves, the IP attache to the UN in Geneva, particularly the World Intellectual Property Organization, concurred with Ferriter. He said in Geneva, it is often a case of “the wrong people talking to the right people.” Some diplomats there are not IP experts, and some are given more flexibility to act on their government’s behalf, so they are “more susceptible” to the messages of the NGOs. “They may be hearing the wrong message,” he said.

Notice the tricky use of words here: anyone who looks at the mountains of evidence that show stricter IP laws can have serious limiting impacts on innovation and economic growth isn't just "wrong" but they're "not IP experts." We see this all the time in the comments here. In the maximalist world, your opinion doesn't matter if you don't have a history of profiting off of the IP system. That makes you an expert. Those who actually understand, say, the economic, cultural or health impacts of expanded IP programs... they're just not experts.

Some of the specifics they talked about show how these folks are all about massively increasing patents and copyrights around the globe, no matter what the consequences. One attache complains about how Brazil has all sorts of well educated people, but they're just not getting enough patents. As if more patents is the end goal. Similarly, another person complains that experts in Southeast Asia have accurately pointed out that patent and copyrights "are equated with products being more expensive." He seems horrified by this bit of factual information getting out into the world, and suggests that IP Attaches in the area need to focus more on "the positive benefits of IP" and push that. The idea that the people he denigrates are actually right, and perhaps the people in those countries are better served with more affordable products, does not seem to occur to him. That's not his job, of course. He's not there to make things better in the world. He's there to make things more expensive, so big US companies can profit -- and he's getting paid with American taxpayer money to do so.

Not surprisingly, the same guy is really excited about the "ripple effects" the TPP and its ridiculous language on copyrights and patents will have on the region -- hopefully forcing many countries to sign onto legislation favored by US corporate interests.

Then there's this:

Reves summed up: “We’re trying to change the view that IP is bad to IP is good.” He mentioned an enterprise forum that is in the works for the 2013 WIPO General Assembly next October, at which companies will highlight the advantages of IP rights. He said that while “the jury is still out,” he is optimistic that five years from now the debate in Geneva will turn more pro-IP.

The idea that WIPO has not been pro-IP enough is hilarious to anyone who's actually followed WIPO over the years. The organization has always been ridiculously pro-IP. And, yes, it's true that in the past few years, they've finally (grudgingly) acknowledged claims from some developing countries that expanded patent laws (mainly) have the ability to cause more harm than good, but the organization is now and has always been ridiculously "pro-IP."

Either way, it's really ridiculous that the US government employs these people, who so blatantly represent the interests of a very small sliver of corporate America, rather than what's actually best for innovation, culture, health and economic growth.

Filed Under: copyright, diplomats, fair use, geneva, ip attache, ip policy, ngos, patents
Companies: us chamber of commerce

Yes, The IPAA Is A Serious Problem: Both In Process & Substance

from the but-doesn't dept

Last week, we were among the first to call attention to the fact that Lamar Smith and the House Judiciary Committee were seeking to rush through an IP-related bill which was similar to a small part of SOPA. We noted at the time that this was a much smaller issue than the key points in SOPA that everyone objected to, but our main concern was the failure in process. The fight over SOPA was as much a complaint about the process by which IP bills get passed as it was about the substance -- and this is a point that Lamar Smith and the House Judiciary Committee clearly still have not realized.

In the wake of this, BNA's Tamlin Bason correctly noted a few factual errors in what a few of us had originally published about the bill. For example, I flipped the setup of the bill, saying that the attaches would be moving from USPTO to Commerce, rather than the other way around, as is the actual case (though, confusingly, the bill also elevates a role from the USPTO into Commerce). I admit that this was a mistake in the writeup, though one that had little bearing on the actual issues raised by the bill and the process by which it was being rushed through. In fact, the process itself was partly to blame. We were told about the existence of this bill and the fact that there would be a markup with less than 24 hours notice last Monday, giving us little time process all the fine print.

While supporters of the Judiciary Committee are now using these minor mistakes to claim that there's nothing at all wrong with the IPAA, that's simply incorrect. Gigi Sohn's careful analysis of the bill shows where there are serious concerns in the substance, mainly in the fact that the role of the IP attache continues to be to only push one side of the equation (enforcement) and completely ignore important limitations and exceptions. On top of that, it leaves the door open to massive expansion of the program. This is exactly how we described it in our original post: a way to expand this program, and a questionable way to get US diplomats doing what's in Hollywood's best interest, not the public's:

Remember when everyone thought the Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator (IPEC) only had authority to act with regard to “enforcement” as opposed to other IP policy matters? That limitation is nowhere to be found in the 2008 legislation that created the position or in its legislative history, and there is nothing in this bill that limits the Assistant Secretary's powers either.

In addition, the Secretary of Commerce is given carte blanche to hire as many Deputy Assistant Secretaries to help as the USPTO can afford. This means that overnight, the USPTO would become the home of yet another office dedicated wholly to the protection of intellectual property.

Have we told you that the USPTO already has personnel dedicated to Intellectual Property Enforcement? It should come as no shock to anyone that these new positions, as well as the attache positions, are likely to be filled by those who believe that more IP enforcement is always better.

In fact, as Gigi points out, the role that will be elevated is the Administrator for Policy and External Affairs, which will become the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Policy and External Affairs -- a much more high profile position. It's worth noting that the job is currently held by Shira Perlmutter, an infamous copyright maximalist, former executive VP of the IFPI as well as IP Policy boss at Time Warner. Think she's going to push for more exceptions and limitations? Yeah, right.

But, honestly, the bigger complaint here is still the process itself. People complained about SOPA being negotiated in back rooms without a chance for real public input. Just because Smith and the HJC chose a seemingly "boring" piece of SOPA to try to rush through without people noticing, don't think this wasn't a deliberate decision. Of course they chose a boring piece of SOPA. It was a test to see if people were really that concerned about the process, and to see if they could sneak through this bit of SOPA without anyone noticing. The fact that people spoke up stopped that temporarily, but these attacks on minor errors in the initial rushed writeups shows that the HJC is now trying to minimize the criticism -- though it still hasn't actually released the draft of the bill for public review. While Reddit has been saying that there's a vote on the IPAA on Wednesday, it doesn't appear to be on the schedule yet, though we have heard rumors of Friday or early next week from different people.

Smith and the HJC could have avoided this whole mess by doing something simple: being open and releasing the bill and letting the public react to it before rushing it through markup. Nancy Scola, over at ReadWriteWeb has a really good writeup on Lamar Smith's failings with this bill, which focus on the process failures, and the fact that Smith clearly tried to rush this through:

Fifty days.

That's the median time it took for eight legislative bills - on economic espionage, identity theft, abortion in the District of Columbia - to circulate in the House of Representatives before they were put on the agenda for Tuesday's markup session by the House Judiciary Committee.

Zero days.

That's how long the ninth bill on the agenda, a measure submitted by Judiciary chair Lamar Smith, existed before it was submitted for Tuesday's markup. Unlike the other eight (H.R. 6029, H.R. 4362, H.R. 3803... ), Smith's Intellectual Property Attaché Act didn't even have a number. It had yet to be introduced into the House legislative system.

That's legislating the future of copyright, the Internet and creative content, Lamar Smith-style.

As Scola points out, it's clear that IPAA was a "trial balloon" to see if they could sneak IP stuff through in a post-SOPA era: pick something that is good for his Hollywood backers, but which is "maybe just dry enough" that it can fly below the radar and get passed.

We apologize for making a small error in our initial post -- though, we likely wouldn't have done so if Smith had done as he supposedly promised other members of Congress and released the draft long before it went through the markup process. Instead, by trying to sneak stuff through and see if anyone was paying attention, we missed one minor detail in the bill, but not the larger concern nor the serious process issues. If the HJC and Lamar Smith don't want to see these kinds of reactions, they should be a hell of a lot more open about what they are trying to do. But, of course, that might make it more difficult to get Hollywood's agenda to move forward. I guess that's the dilemma they face.

* The initial report also stated that Darrell Issa was a co-sponsor of the bill. Scola's report quotes his office saying that it's simply untrue and that Issa is not a co-sponsor. We've heard similar things as well, and a few others named in the original report have since said they, too, were not co-sponsors.

Filed Under: copyright, diplomats, house judiciary committee, ipaa, lamar smith, process, transparency

Not To Be Overlooked In SOPA: Massive Expansion Of Copyright Maximalist Diplomatic Corp

from the regulatory-capture dept

Regulatory capture is defined pretty simply as:

In economics, regulatory capture occurs when a state regulatory agency created to act in the public interest instead advances the commercial or special interests that dominate the industry or sector it is charged with regulating.

As is noted, this is a form of economic failure, because it creates (sometimes massive) negative externalities, in terms of inefficiencies and costs to the public. While we've covered the many, many horrific parts of the E-PARASITE Act (since renamed SOPA), there are always more problems lurking. One section that has received almost no attention at all is the final section of the bill, Section 205.

The simplest way to describe this section is that it's the creation of the entertainment industry's own copyright police force within the diplomatic core. It's pure regulatory capture. The entire section is about massively extending US bureaucracy, in the form of a diplomatic force of copyright maximalists, whose sole job it will be to travel the world and push for more and more draconian copyright enforcement in the interest of the US entertainment industry. It's pretty scary just how blatant this kind of regulatory capture is. Nowhere in the bill does it talk about more effective copyright policy. Instead, it requires "aggressive support for enforcement action" throughout the world, in the interest of a few US companies. We already have IP attaches and the USTR going around the globe pushing the interests of Hollywood, against the interests of the public. Do we really want more of that?

This is a problem, especially considering just how much evidence there is that over-aggressive copyright enforcement and ever expansive copyright law has actually been quite harmful for culture. If the role were to support more effective copyright law, that would be sensible. But it's not. Instead, it's just creating a new bureaucratic role to send copyright maximalists around the globe, employed by the US government, but whose sole purpose would be to do the bidding of a few US companies.

Filed Under: copryight, diplomats, protect ip, regulatory capture, sopa

Since When Did US Diplomats Become Microsoft Sales Staff?

from the just-wondering... dept

Another tidbit from the recent dump of State Department cables shows that US diplomats in Bosnia were apparently instrumental in pushing the government there to license Microsoft software:

On December 18, the BiH Council of Ministers and Microsoft finally signed a Strategic Partnership Agreement for access to legal Microsoft applications for all state-level government ministries. Prime Minister Nikola Spiric signed the agreement on behalf of the BiH Government. The agreement obligates the BiH Government to use licensed software, but is only the first step in strengthening the state government's intellectual property regime. Microsoft will now begin negotiations with BiH to purchase licenses for the software applications under the state's purview. This marks a huge success for the U.S. Embassy, which has been working with state-level officials for three years to push for action to ban pirated and unlicensed software from ministry offices. (Note: Federation and RS-entity governments signed separate strategic partnership agreements with Microsoft in 2006. End note.)

They couldn't push more open solutions?

Filed Under: diplomats, politics, sales staff, software
Companies: microsoft

How Sweden Dismantled Many Of Its Online Civil Rights At The Orders Of US Content Industries

from the sad-to-see dept

People who talk about copyright policy and some of the things going on around the globe, often talk about how various governments' decisions appear to be direct-on-order from Hollywood and the legacy US entertainment industry. And, to some extent, that sounds crazy conspiratorial to think that Hollywood and the MPAA would be so involved in domestic policies that impact innovation around the globe. But as some are noting, this "nutjobby" theory is now actually looking like clear fact, at least in the case of Sweden. This has all come out thanks to the State Department cable dumps, which basically show that pretty much Sweden's entire strategy in pushing through bad laws that take away civil rights and privacy online were direct from the US entertainment industry, weakly laundered through the US State Department, who merely passed along Hollywood's orders to the Swedish government... backed up with the threat of trade sanctions. What's really amazing is that the diplomats in the State Department never seem to consider whether or not they should be protecting a few big entertainment companies, rather than the best interests of citizens around the globe. It's such a short term view, as well, because wiping out civil rights elsewhere will come back to haunt the US. But as long as the MPAA's members keep getting paid...

Filed Under: civil liberties, civil rights, copyright, diplomats, sweden

Wait, America-Hating Foreigners Will Be Influenced By How Many Twitter Followers A US Diplomat Has?

from the is-this-the-washington-post-or-the-onion? dept

We've discussed a few times in the past the absolute ridiculousness of services like "Klout" that try to assign a "number" to influence based on random things like how many Twitter followers you have or how often you tweet. Of course, the actual research on this stuff (you know, not by some random company trying to make people and companies think they're important) says that this kind of stuff is all hogwash, and you can't really predict who will "influence" others on certain things. In most cases, who influences you on what is driven more by the close circle of people you know and trust, not someone with a lot of Twitter followers.

But Klout continues to spread its own silly marketing message... and the press apparently just loves it. But, you would think that the Washington Post, of all publications, wouldn't publish an (unintentionally?) hilarious puff piece by Brian Fung suggesting that something like Klout could influence how US diplomats interface with America-hating foreigners. Honestly, the story reads like something straight out of The Onion, taking a faux serious tone about how much diplomats can learn from their Klout score. It opens by talking about just how hated the US is abroad:

America�s reputation abroad has reached a new low. In the Middle East, America is even less popular now than when President George W. Bush occupied the White House. Washington�s image has suffered the most in Turkey, plummeting from a high of 52 percent in 2000 to a dismal 10 percent in 2011. In Asia this past week, Vice President Joe Biden tried to build bridges with Chinese President Hu Jintao�s presumptive successor, but the visit was clouded by doubts about the U.S. deficit.

But have no fear, US diplomats. If you just embrace your Klout score, the Middle East will be eating out of your hands in no time flat.

Klout, which Time magazine included in a list of the year�s 50 best Web sites on August 16, gives its users a score based on how influential they are across a range of social networks. Contributing to the social savviness readout is a wealth of information about users� most engaged followers and the topics they respond to best.

It�s not hard to see how diplomats can turn this data to their advantage. In an environment that often rewards targeted communication over indiscriminate broadcasting, diplomats have an interest in finding out who their followers are and what they like. Posting content that influencers will spread themselves can maximize the State Department�s impact via network effects while economizing effort. And by learning about their audience, diplomats will be able to tailor their engagement strategy and make course corrections, just as commercial brands do in the private sector.

If not The Onion, at best this reads as a weak press release from Klout itself. The article doesn't quote anyone. It doesn't attempt to explore whether or not Klout's rankings actually mean anything. It just assumes that they do. I'm happy that diplomats are using social media, and I hope they learn to use it well. But relying on Klout to figure out how they should move forward doesn't seem like a particularly fruitful strategy.

Filed Under: diplomats, social media
Companies: klout

US Offered To Write New Zealand's Three Strikes Laws

from the but-of-course dept

Leaked cables have already confirmed how involved the US government has been in Canadian copyright reform, Swedish copyright reform and Spanish copyright reform. I think, at this point, it's safe to assume that anywhere in the world where we're seeing new draconian copyright laws proposed, the US is behind them.

How about New Zealand? Yup. The country that just approved a new three strikes law also faced tremendous pressure from the US. As you may recall, back in 2008, New Zealand politicians tried to sneak through a three strikes law, that would kick people offline based on accusations (not convictions) of infringement. A few months later, mainly due to massive public outcry, the government scrapped those plans and actually promised a complete rethink of copyright laws.

But, of course, the US and its entertainment industry interests couldn't have that. It quickly got heavily involved in pressuring the government. In a cable just after New Zealand decided to scrap the proposed law, the US embassy noted that it made it clear a new 3 strikes law needed to be put in place as soon as possible and saying that the US can help them write the new law.

Embassy will continue to stress with GNZ officials the need for a shorter rather than protracted timeline for the redraft and will ascertain the details of a notice and comment period for public submissions once released by GNZ. During this hiatus we've proposed holding DVC(s) between NZ and U.S. interlocutors to possibly help with drafting and as a public diplomacy tool to dispel public misperceptions about proper role of IPR protection. U.S. agencies have the benefit of 10 years worth of experience in enforcing the U.S. Digital Millennium Copyright Act that may serve useful to New Zealand officials in their effort to implement section 92A.

Yes, you read that right. Not only did the US say it would help write a foreign country's laws, it also planned to use its 10 years of experiences with the failed DMCA (as described by the guy who wrote it), as a guide for how to pass bad legislation in New Zealand.

The cables turned up a few other interesting tidbits from a bit further back, including the fact that a program -- run by the Recording Industry Association New Zealand (RIANZ) to set up a website and get people to snitch on their friends, reporting them as infringers -- was funded by the US government. Yes, the US government handed half a million dollars (New Zealand dollars) to the recording industry to get people to turn in their friends for copying music. Lovely.

Separately, the US warned New Zealand that exceptions in copyright law (including those found in US law under fair use) should not be allowed in New Zealand because:

these exceptions to copyright protection would send the wrong message to consumers and undermine efforts to curb unauthorized copying of CDs in New Zealand. They would cost the industry in revenue and profits and discourage innovation.

They admit that this info comes from industry lobbyists themselves, but the embassy still seems to think it's valid. This is a complete joke, of course. As many copyright scholars and experts will tell you, it's those exceptions that are important to keeping new content coming and vibrant. The idea that concepts like fair use would "send the wrong message to consumers" is laughable, and the US government shouldn't be pushing such garbage on other countries.

None of this is a surprise, but it is a clear reminder of how much the entertainment industry's completely debunked arguments not only influence US policy on these matters, but they're also pushed by US diplomats on other countries around the globe.

Filed Under: copyright, diplomats, new zealand, three strikes, us

Latest Wikileaks Release Shows How US Completely Drove Canadian Copyright Reform Efforts

from the surprise,-surprise dept

With Wikileaks State Department cables showing how much the US influenced copyright policy in Sweden and in Spain, it shouldn't really be much of a surprise that the US unduly influenced copyright policy elsewhere as well. The latest Wikileaks report confirms what pretty much everyone knew already: copyright reform in Canada was driven mainly by US interests. Michael Geist points out some of the highlights, including the US Government demanding anti-circumvention provisions (things that the creators of those provisions in the US have even admitted were a failure). Yet, the US demands this, while maintaining that it would prefer there be few, if any, exceptions on circumvention:

If there are any exceptions to TPM or rights management information (RMI) liability, the exceptions should be clearly enumerated and narrow in scope

Separately, the US demanded third party liability on ISPs to pressure them into acting as Hollywood's private copyright police force:

A system of protections and obligations for ISPs that shelters them from certain liability, reduces and prevents copyright infringement on the Internet and provides incentives for ISPs to work cooperatively with copyright owners.

In response, Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harpher seemed happy to promise such things, which explains why the Canadian government kept pushing so hard for anti-circumvention "digital lock" rules, despite widespread opposition to that key part of the proposed Canadian copyright reform. And yet, the US keeps complaining that Canada isn't ratcheting up its copyright laws fast enough, not recognizing the widespread public opposition that such laws are facing.

Embassy Ottawa remains frustrated by the Government of Canada,s continuing failure to introduce - let alone pass - major copyright reform legislation that would, inter alia, implement and ratify the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) Internet treaties. Several recent factors compound this frustration, including the fact that:

-- the Prime Minister told the President last August that Canada would pass copyright legislation;

-- the November Speech from the Throne laying out the government,s Parliamentary agenda stated that it would "improve the protection of cultural and intellectual property rights in Canada, including copyright reform;" and

-- senior GOC officials, especially Industry Minister Prentice, repeatedly assured the Ambassador and senior Mission Canada officers that the copyright bill would be introduced "soon." Specifically, assurances were given that the legislation had been finalized and would be introduced prior to the Christmas recess, and then again immediately upon Parliament's return in January. Neither of which occurred.

Note that there is no discussion as to why Canada hasn't moved forward. No discussion of the rather effective opposition to overly draconian copyright laws. Just demands that Canada "do something," and plans for the US to keep applying more and more diplomatic pressure.

Even more telling, the US ambassadors only seem to speak with either the government or copyright holder organizations in all of this. In one cable, it discusses concerns from the recording industry and the movie studios that Canada's proposed legal changes don't go far enough. Nowhere do they seem to speak to actual consumers or to anyone who represents consumers. Because, you see, it's not about them. In fact, it appears that the "Canadian" Recording Industry Association has a very cozy relationship with the US government, with the two meeting to get feedback on proposals and strategize about policy issues. Again, no mention of any similar consultation with the people actually impacted by such changes in the law: everyone else. In fact, it seems like the only time the public is mentioned at all, it's to note how pesky it is that they don't seem to like these changes, and to explain why Canada has slow rolled the changes (because politicians were afraid negative publicity would hurt their re-election campaigns).

In one of the earlier documents linked above, the State Department (based on feedback from industry) criticize the idea of "notice and notice" rather than "notice and takedown" with a snarky complaint about how it's "if I told you once, I've.... told you once." Apparently, the officials don't recognize how notice and takedown invariably leads to false takedown and stifling of free speech (something we thought US diplomats were supposed to be protecting).

Once again, none of this is even remotely surprising. The US government, at the urging of the US entertainment industry, has been pushing its own brand of overly aggressive, speech stifling, copyright laws around the globe. It's just too bad that Canadian politicians apparently don't have the guts to stand up to bullying US diplomats.

Filed Under: canada, copyright, diplomats, reform