The NSA Surveillance Scandal Has Resulted In The Rush For Offshore Havens To Provide Data Privacy

NSA Internet Spying Sparks Race to Create Offshore Havens for Data Privacy -- Wall Street Journal

Firms Tout 'Email Made in Germany' as More Secure; Brazil Wants Its Own Servers

Google Inc., Facebook Inc. nd other American technology companies were put on the defensive when Edward Snowden's allegations about U.S.-government surveillance of Internet traffic emerged this spring.

Outside the U.S., some companies and politicians saw an opportunity.

Three of Germany's largest email providers, including partly state-owned Deutsche Telekom AG, DTE.XE -0.28% teamed up to offer a new service, Email Made in Germany. The companies promise that by encrypting email through German servers and hewing to the country's strict privacy laws, U.S. authorities won't easily be able to pry inside. More than a hundred thousand Germans have flocked to the service since it was rolled out in August.

Read more ....

My Comment: This is only going to grow with time. The NSA surveillance scandal has damaged U.S. web business and reputations .... and with just cause.

Read More

Canadian police urge Parliament to pass domestic spying bill

 

(AFP Photo / Patrick Kovarik)

Source: Russia Today

http://rt.com/news/canada-police-spy-bill-c-30-455/

Police across Canada are urging Ottawa to resurrect a controversial Internet surveillance bill that would allow them to monitor Canadians' digital activities in real-time without a warrant.

­The Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police has made a plea to on the federal government to pass Bill C-30, also known as the Protecting Children from Internet Predators Act ahead of a gathering by the provincial and federal justice ministers next week.

The group is concerned that Parliament will be closed down before the legislation is passed.

“We have a fear that it will die on the order paper,” said Vancouver Police Chief Jim Chu, who is also the president of the association. “And if it does, then our investigators will be constrained and victims will suffer greater harm because of that,” the Canadian Press reports.

Deputy police chief Warren Lemcke agreed with Chu’s assessment, saying that “right now there are gangsters out there communicating about killing someone and we can't intercept that,” as cited by CBC news.

The legislature, introduced in the Canadian Parliament last February, demands that the country’s telecommunication industry provide law enforcement with the “authority to intercept communications and to require telecommunications service providers to provide subscriber and other information, without unreasonably impairing the privacy of individuals, the provision of telecommunications services to Canadians or the competitiveness of the Canadian telecommunications industry.”

If passed, the law would also give the police the power to make it a crime to use social media as a tool to injure, alarm or harass individuals. It would also grant access to the individual’s private data such as name, address, phone number and email without a warrant.

The law would ask the companies to place tracking bugs in their programs so that police, if needed, could spy on conversations if they got the necessary legal approvals.

Until now, C-30 has remained shelved by Parliament, and has not been debated after receiving mass criticism when it was originally released.

Critics claimed that the authorities would likely use the powers to harass peaceful protestors and activists.

A number of social media protests were organized, one of which circulated personal details from the divorce files of the bill’s sponsor of the bill-Public Safety Minister’s Vic Toews.

People also marched on the streets, demanding checks to the would-be unlimited police powers.

A public opinion poll conducted by Angus Reid after the bill’s introduction concluded that "the idea of surrendering subscriber data and identifiers without a warrant” is rejected by almost two thirds of Canadians.

 

Read More

Google loses $26 billion due to premature report

 

(AFP Photo / Karen Bleier)

Source: Russia Today

http://rt.com/business/news/google-stock-plunge-report-767/

Google Inc's saw its shares crash by 9%, erasing about $26 billion off the company’s market value after its quarterly result, which fell below Wall Street's expectations, were accidentally released early.

Trading of Google stock was halted after the shares had fallen as much as 10.5%. “We have ceased trading on NASDAQ while we work to finalize the document,” the company said in a statement, stressing it would release its full report “once it’s finalized.”

The third-quarter revenue was about $11.3 billion, short of the average estimate for $11.8 billion, according to Google’s report. It grew 15% to $7.73 billion from the same period a year earlier, less than half the growth Google reported in at the same period in 2011.

The company’s growth has slowed down as the world’s largest seller of online ads struggles to adjust its advertising to tablets and smart phones. The number of advertisers paid each time a user clicks on a advertisement dropped about 15% from a year earlier, and was 3% down from the prior period, according to the report.

Google’s CEO Larry Page apologized for the “scramble”caused by the accidental release. Google blamed financial printing company R.R. Donnelley & Sons for the early release of the earnings report that resulted in a drop in tech stocks across the market, with the Nasdaq Composite falling 1%.

R.R. Donnelley said it’s investigating the issue. “We are fully engaged in an investigation to determine how this event took place and are pursuing our first obligation – which is to serve our valued customer,” the company said in a statement.

 

Read More

Copyrighters take legality of second-hand sales to Supreme Court

 

Image from flickr.com user@laviddichterman

Source: Russia Today

http://rt.com/usa/news/us-court-copyright-used-reselling-428/

A little-known case may result in a ban on reselling any product made overseas without US copyright holders taking a share of the profits. A single ruling by the Supreme Court could make all secondary market sites – including garage sales – illegal.

­Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons will center on whether or not an individual can buy copyrighted material outside the United States, then resell it inside the US. The first-sale doctrine, established 1908, permits individuals to sell copyrighted products to others. According to the doctrine, the copyright holder only has control over the first sale. But for products manufactured abroad – which include almost all popular electronics, including those Chinese-made gadgets consumers are so used to swapping annually – this law is being challenged.

The trial, which begins October 29, follows a Thai student at Cornell University's choice to buy his textbooks abroad. Noticing that the books, required for class, were cheaper in Thailand, Supap Kirtsaeng had his relatives gather and mail them to him. Eventually, the graduate student began selling those books online at a profit.

The textbooks were legally manufactured in Thailand and sold there at a much lower price. Still, the publisher sued Kirtsaeng in an attempt to stop the sale of the books – and make him pay $600,000 in damages. In order for the publisher to win the case, the court would have to rule to ban the resale of internationally manufactured products.

But if the Supreme Court chooses to do so, it would apply to anything that has a Made in China, Japan or Europe sticker on it – causing problems for businesses like pawnshops, the Salvation Army, eBay, Craigslist, and other resale-based organizations. Many garage sales would likely break the law and individuals could face hefty fines for simply selling an old gadget to a friend.

“It means that it’s harder for consumers to buy used products and harder for them to sell them,” Georgetown University Law Center professor Jonathan Band told MarketWatch. “This has huge consumer impact on all consumer groups.”

Selling anything produced overseas, including CDs and DVDs, jewelry, electronics, books or artwork, would only be allowed if the seller pays the copyright holder a portion of the sale.

Such a ban would prove especially troublesome for websites like Craigslist and eBay, which allow people to buy and sell their belongings online.

“It would be absurd to say anything manufactured abroad can’t be bought or sold here,” Marvin Ammori, a First Amendment lawyer, told MarketWatch.

In opposition to the potential change in copyright law, eBay has launched a movement to defend the first-sale doctrine. The online auctioneer has launched “eBay Main Street” – a website dedicated to mobilizing its merchants.

“It is possible that an extreme application of US copyright law might enable manufacturers to force retailers and consumers to first have to obtain permission from the manufacturer before reselling or even donating goods manufactured overseas,” the newly launched website states. “This rule could affect most of the goods we use every day, from books to cell phones.”

A coalition group called the Citizens for Ownership Rights (CFOR) has created a petition to express opposition against the change.

“We, the undersigned, believe that we should truly own the things that we buy,” it reads.

With a goal of collecting 100,000 signatures, the CFOR plans to send the petition to the US president

 

Read More

Cyber Martial Law in the Philippines

An office worker browses an on-line pharmacy in Manila.(AFP Photo / Jay Directo)

Source: Global Research

http://www.globalresearch.ca/cyber-martial-law-in-the-philippines/
Access Now – Stop Cyber Martial Law
https://www.accessnow.org/page/s/stop-cyber-martial-law

Tens of millions of internet users in the Philippines woke up Wednesday to a new reality: Sharing a link, clicking ‘Like’ on Facebook, or retweeting a message could land you 12 years in jail.¹

Russia Today - Philippines Internet Gag Law

http://rt.com/news/philippines-internet-gag-law-545/

The Cybercrime Prevention Act, which just came into effect, is so broad and loophole-ridden that a wide range of online activity could be considered libelous. Even if you don’t write the material, just sharing it with someone online could land you in prison.

In the face of this unjust law, Filipinos have been protesting in the streets and online to stand up for their rights. An alliance of organizations, bloggers, media, and everyday citizens have come together and brought international attention to their cause, and have reached a tipping point.²

That’s why they have come to us for help. With elections just around the corner, we’ve been told that many politicians are downright scared of a national and international backlash, giving us the opportunity to convince them to junk this law for good. And we know there’s nothing like an election to get politicians to listen.

Click the link below to call on lawmakers to stand up for freedom of expression, and repeal the CyberCrime Prevention Act. We’ll deliver your signatures to Filipino lawmakers next week so they know where the world stands.

 

Access Now - Stop Cyber Martial Law

https://www.accessnow.org/stop-cyber-martial-law

Alarmingly, an accused citizen can’t even use intent or good faith as a defense against this horrible law — meaning that the government has unrestricted and unchecked power to throw whomever they like in jail. Not to mention, the law allows real-time data to be tracked, violating the privacy of internet users.

The Supreme Court on Tuesday is slated to take up the constitutionality of the law, and silent, non-violent protests will be held on Oct. 9 — called Black Tuesday. With broad and unjust cybercrime laws being enacted around the world, we need to fight them one by one. That’s why it’s critical that the international community stands up on Black Tuesday. Start by clicking the link below:

 

Access Now - Stop Cyber Martial Law

https://www.accessnow.org/stop-cyber-martial-law

While we respect the impartiality of the court, this gives us the perfect moment to rally to protect free of expression. Indeed, many Filipinos online have begun sending around memes to show they are not afraid to stand up unjust laws that attempt to silence free speech.³

This defiant and democratic spirit has been seen before. Over 25 years ago, Filipinos fought and won to overcome martial law and institute a democratic government. But what makes this law’s passage curious is that President Aquino is the son of Corazon Aquino, former president and leader of the opposition party that restored democracy in the Philippines in 1986. So many Filipinos are left wondering why the son of the leader who fought for their rights is allowing free speech to be taken away.

With all this coming to a head, we aren’t just taking a stance against a law, but are standing up for democratic values bravely won not too long ago. Let’s remind the president just what so many Filipinos fought for. Sign the petition by clicking the link below, and join the millions of Filipinos who are fighting for their right to freely speak their mind.

Access Now - Stop Cyber Martial Law

https://www.accessnow.org/stop-cyber-martial-law

In the words of Dakila, our ally in the Philippines, “We say, never again to martial law — cyber or not.”

For a free internet,

The Access Team

1 https://www.accessnow.org/blog/100312-the-philippines-battle-another-martial-law

2 http://pifa.ph/#
3 https://twitter.com/i/#!/search/?q=%23CyberCrimeLaw&src=hash

Read More

US Congress approves extension of secret surveillance under FISA

 

U.S. Capitol.(AFP Photo / Win McNamee)

Source: Russia Today

http://rt.com/usa/news/congress-surveillance-act-fisa-980/

The House of Representatives voted Wednesday to extend the government’s power to warrantlessly wiretap Americans for another five years by reauthorizing the 2008 amendments to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

Lawmakers in the House agreed from Washington, DC on Wednesday afternoon to reauthorize the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act’s Amendments Act of 2008 (FAA), a polarizing legislation that has been challenged by privacy advocates and civil liberties organizations alike around the country. The extension was approved by a vote of 301 to 118.

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act was first signed into law in 1978 by President Jimmy Carter, but amendments added two decades later under the George W Bush administration provide for the government to conduct widespread and blanketing snooping of emails and phone calls of Americans. The FISA Amendments added in 2008, specifically section 702, specify that the government can eavesdrop on emails and phone calls sent from US citizens to persons reasonably suspected to be located abroad without ever requiring intelligence officials to receive a court order.

If the US Senate echoes the House’s extension of the act, the FAA will carry through for another five years until 2017, ensuring the federal intelligence community that they will be able to conduct surveillance on the correspondence of the country’s own citizens well into the future. If no action is taken, the FAA is slated to expire at the end of 2012.

Earlier this year, a plea from two US senators to see how many times the FAA has been used was refused by the National Security Administration. Last month, San Francisco’s Electronic Frontier Foundation filed a lawsuit against the US Justice Department for failing to adhere to Freedom of Information Act requests for documents pertaining to the program.

“The FISA Amendments Act (FAA) of 2008 gave the NSA expansive power to spy on Americans' international email and telephone calls,” the EFF explained in an official statement made after the suit was filed. “However, last month, in a letter to Senator Ron Wyden, a government official publicly disclosed that the NSA's surveillance had gone even further than what the law permits, with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) issuing at least one ruling calling the NSA's actions unconstitutional.”

Sen. Wyden, a Democratic lawmaker from Oregon who has also sit on the Senate intelligence committee for several years, originally asked for Senate to place a hold on the vote this past June. This week, Sen. Wyden tells Reuters, "My hold is on and it will stay on," although that plea does not apply to the House, however, where lawmakers appeared eager on Wednesday to power through the vote.

So determined were some lawmakers to proceed, in fact, that the rules of the debates preceding Wednesday’s vote called for no more than one hour of discussion before ballots were cast. Several congressmen, including lawmakers that planned to vote yes on the FAA extension regardless, proposed a two year extension as a compromise, but no new amendments were allowed to be tacked on before Wednesday’s vote.

Despite opposition on and off the Hill, the FAA has received praise from some of Washington’s most elite members of the government, including Attorney General Eric Holder and long-standing lawmaker Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX), the sponsor of the FAA renewal who also infamously urged Congress to approve the since-defeated Stop Online Piracy Act, or SOPA, a broad and dangerous Internet legislation that threatened to reshape the Web as we know it.

In his address at Northwestern University School of Law this past March, Mr. Holder said section 702 of the FAA “ensures that the government has the flexibility and agility it needs to identify and to respond to terrorist and other foreign threats to our security,” but emphasized the fact that only persons thought to be outside the US — not Americans — can be targeted. When Sens. Wyden and Udall asked to know how often that snooping involved Americans at all, however, they were told by the NSA’s Inspector General that a “review of the sort suggested would itself violate the privacy of US persons.”

On his part, Sen. Wyden has written, “that if no one has even estimated how many Americans have had their communications collected under the FISA Amendments Act . . . Then it is possible that this number could be quite large.”

“Since all of the communications collected by the government under section 702 are collected without individual warrants, I believe that there should be clear rules prohibiting the government from searching through these communications in an effort to find the phone calls or emails of a particular American, unless the government has obtained a warrant or emergency authorization permitting surveillance of that American,” the lawmaker wrote in an official press release earlier this year.

Rep. Smith, the sponsor of both this bill and SOPA, has said, “We have a duty to ensure the intelligence community can gather the intelligence they need to protect our country.”

On Thursday, Rep. Smith claimed, “Foreign nations continue to spy on America to plot cyber-attacks and attempt to steal sensitive information from our military and private sector industries,” and that Congress has “a solemn responsibility to ensure that the intelligence community can gather the information” necessary to hinder these attempts.

Rep. Dan Lungren (R-California) added on Wednesday from the Hill that reauthorizing the FAA is “critical to the protection of the American people,” claiming that the United States, “as a nation had not done enough to connect the dots to warn us sufficiently to protect” against another terrorist attack on par with the ones that devastated America on September 11, 2001.

Rep. Trey Gowdy, a Republican congressman from South Carolina, also used the attack on the Twin Towers to justify the necessity of extending the FAA.

“If we could come together to remember 9/11, surely we can come together to prevent another one,”

said Rep. Gowdy.

Opponents of the act, however, say that the attempts to do as such come at a cost too great for civil liberties.

“We’ve been told that we can’t even tell how many people are being subjected to this process located in the United States, and that we don’t know and they can’t tell us,” Rep. John Conyers (D-Michigan ) pleaded earlier this year in opposition to the act. “I think we can get a little bit closer. There can be some reasonableness. It’s this kind of vagueness that creates in those of us in the Congress, suspicions that are negative rather than suspicions that are positive.”

“Why can't we know how many people are affected by FISA amendment act in the US?” Rep Conyers asked. “This kind of vagueness creates suspicions.”

Former Democratic presidential hopeful Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) said on his own part that those suspicions are even more validated since the Justice Department has declined to adhere to a Freedom of Information Act request for information on the FAA, explaining on Wednesday, “Everyone becomes suspect when big brother is listening.”

Rep Hank Johnson (D-GA) also threw his weight behind efforts to reject the act on Wednesday, saying it the FISA amendments allow for “illegal surveillance of an untold number of American citizens” with absolutely no oversight.

“Not even the NSA knows the extent to which FISA amendment acts have potentially been approved,” Rep Earl Blumenhauser (D-Oregon) added from the House floor before the vote.

The American Civil Liberties Union reports that, every day, the NSA intercepts and stores around 1.7 billion emails, phone calls, text and other electronic communications thanks to laws like FISA. To put it into perspective, they add, “that’s equivalent to 138 million books, every 24 hours.”

“After four years, you’d hope that some basic information or parameters of such a massive spying program would be divulged to the public, or at least your rank-and-file member of Congress, but they haven’t,” says Michelle Richardson, a counsel at the ACLU’s Washington Legislative Office. “Only a small handful of members have either personally attended classified briefings or have staff with high enough clearances to attend for them.Sen. Ron Wyden — who has been on the Senate Intelligence Committee for years—has even been stonewalled by the Obama administration for a year and a half in his attempts to learn basic information about the program, such as the number of Americans who have had their communications intercepted under the FAA.”

“Can you believe that 435 members of Congress who have sworn to uphold the Constitution are about to vote on a sweeping intelligence gathering law without this basic information?” she asks.

Read More