<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<TITLE>Message</TITLE>
<META name=GENERATOR content="MSHTML 9.00.8112.16443"></HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff text=#333333>
<DIV><SPAN class=043121415-28042012><FONT color=#0000ff size=2 face=Arial>To add
to this mix...</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=043121415-28042012><FONT color=#0000ff size=2
face=Arial></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=043121415-28042012>
<H1>Big Data could know us better than we know ourselves</H1>
<DIV
style="BORDER-BOTTOM: medium none; TEXT-ALIGN: left; BORDER-LEFT: medium none; BACKGROUND-COLOR: rgb(255,255,255); COLOR: rgb(0,0,0); OVERFLOW: hidden; BORDER-TOP: medium none; BORDER-RIGHT: medium none; TEXT-DECORATION: none"><BR><A
style="COLOR: #003399"
href="http://www.ottawacitizen.com/life/Data+could+know+better+than+know+ourselves/6524781/story.html#ixzz1tLaFPFnK">http://www.ottawacitizen.com/life/Data+could+know+better+than+know+ourselves/6524781/story.html#ixzz1tLaFPFnK</A></DIV></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<P><SPAN lang=en-ca><FONT face=Garamond><FONT size=2><SPAN
class=043121415-28042012>M</SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></P>
<P><SPAN lang=en-ca><FONT face=Garamond><FONT size=2><SPAN
class=043121415-28042012> </SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN><FONT size=2
face=Tahoma>-----Original Message-----<BR><B>From:</B>
governance-request@lists.igcaucus.org
[mailto:governance-request@lists.igcaucus.org] <B>On Behalf Of
</B>parminder<BR><B>Sent:</B> Saturday, April 28, 2012 8:07 AM<BR><B>To:</B>
governance@lists.igcaucus.org<BR><B>Subject:</B> Re: [governance] Cispa
cybersecurity bill passed by House of Representatives<BR><BR></P></FONT>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px" dir=ltr><FONT color=#0000ff size=2
face=Arial></FONT><BR>This is merely a formalisation of the existing, and
far-reaching, collaboration between the US gov and US digital/Internet
business in the 'national security' space. In the same way as SOPA or no SOPA,
whether through the intervention of courts or just through executive decrees
or 'requests', a global infrastructure of collaboration between US gov and US
Internet companies is already in place in the area of global IP enforcement
(read economic extraction), and keeps getting strenghtened. <BR><BR>We see the
clear and unmistakable building of a unipolar power system anchored in the US,
whereby the architecture of the Internet (technical as well as
socio-technical) is being shaped and put into service for consolidation of
political, military, economic, social and cultural power. Does this have no
implications on people's political, economic, social and cultural rights,
individually and collectively? <BR><BR>What response does the civil society in
IG space has to such huge geo-political/ -economic/ -social/ -cutural
tectonics, which is shaping the power equations of a new world? I am sure it
can do better than just employing its ammunition against an India, Brazil or
South Africa (IBSA) when these countries raise alarm over the unipolar
concentration of power in the information society employing the Internet, and
seek a democratic global platform where these issues can be discussed and if
needed contested. <BR><BR>Unfortunately, another most significant information
society change is the emergence of a new global middle class, especially in
developing countries, that sees their social and political identity and
constituency as an amalgamated global rich or richness-aspirant class. This
new class is ready to cede political leadership to the US, in preference to
the political establishments in their home countries, even if they are largely
or considerably democratic (at least no less than the US is). And this
emergent class is so powerful in their 'home' countries that they can
influence their political establishments in the wrong directions, often
blinding them to what is manifestly happening in terms of consolidation of all
kinds of power with and in the US, and the role of Internet, and Internet (non
?) governance in this process. <BR><BR>Just my two cents of home made theory
:).<BR><BR>parminder<BR><BR><BR><BR>On Saturday 28 April 2012 01:08 AM, Riaz K
Tayob wrote:
<BLOCKQUOTE cite=mid:4F9AF5B1.6080202@gmail.com type="cite">
<DIV id=article-header>
<DIV id=main-article-info>
<H1 itemprop="name">Cispa cybersecurity bill passed by House of
Representatives</H1>
<P id=stand-first class=stand-first-alone
itemprop="description">Republican-controlled House defies Obama over
legislation to prevent electronic attacks on US</P></DIV>
<UL id=content-actions class="share-links trackable-component"
data-component="comp: r2: Share tools">
<LI class=share-links>
<UL>
<LI class="third-party-tool full-line facebook"><SPAN
class=facebook-share><A class=facebook-share-btn
href="http://www.facebook.com/dialog/feed?app_id=180444840287&link=http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2012/apr/27/cispa-cybersecurity-bill-passed-senate&display=popup&redirect_uri=http://static-serve.appspot.com/static/facebook-share/callback.html&show_error=false"
data-link-name="Facebook Share"
data-href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2012/apr/27/cispa-cybersecurity-bill-passed-senate"
moz-do-not-send="true"><SPAN class=facebook-share-icon></SPAN><SPAN
class=facebook-share-label></SPAN></A><FONT color=#0000ff size=2
face=Arial></FONT></SPAN><BR></LI></UL></LI></UL></DIV>
<DIV id=content>
<UL class="article-attributes b4">
<LI class=byline>
<DIV class=contributer-full>Associated Press in Washington </DIV>
<LI class=publication><A href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/"
moz-do-not-send="true">guardian.co.uk</A>, <TIME pubdate=""
datetime="2012-04-27T10:12BST">Friday 27 April 2012 10.12 BST</TIME>
<LI style="DISPLAY: list-item" class=history><A
class="rollover history-link"
href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2012/apr/27/cispa-cybersecurity-bill-passed-senate#history-link-box"
moz-do-not-send="true">Article history</A> </LI></UL>
<DIV id=article-wrapper>
<DIV id=main-content-picture><FONT color=#0000ff size=2
face=Arial></FONT><BR>
<DIV class=caption>House speaker John Boehner: 'The White House believes the
government ought to control the internet.' Photograph: Jacquelyn
Martin/AP</DIV></DIV>
<DIV id=article-body-blocks>
<P>The House of Representatives has ignored objections from Barack Obama's
administration and approved legislation aimed at helping to thwart
electronic attacks on critical US infrastructure and private companies.</P>
<P>On a bipartisan vote of 248-168, the Republican-controlled House backed
the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (<A
title="More from guardian.co.uk on Cispa"
href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/cispa"
moz-do-not-send="true">Cispa</A>), which would encourage companies and the
federal government to share information collected on the <A
title="More from guardian.co.uk on Internet"
href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/internet"
moz-do-not-send="true">internet</A> to prevent electronic attacks from
cybercriminals, foreign governments and terrorists.</P>
<P>"This is the last bastion of things we need to do to protect this
country," Republican Mike Rogers, chairman of the House intelligence
committee, said after more than five hours of debate.</P>
<P>More than 10 years after the September 11 terror attacks in 2001,
proponents cast the bill as an initial step to deal with an evolving threat
of the internet age. The information-sharing would be voluntary to avoid
imposing new regulations on businesses, an imperative for Republicans.</P>
<P>The legislation would allow the government to relay cyber threat
information to a company to prevent attacks from Russia or China. In the
private sector, corporations could alert the government and provide data
that could stop an attack intended to disrupt the country's water supply or
take down the banking system.</P>
<H2><BR></H2>
<P>The <A title="More from guardian.co.uk on Obama administration"
href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/obama-administration"
moz-do-not-send="true">Obama administration</A> has threatened a veto of the
House bill, preferring a Senate measure that would give the homeland
security department the primary role in overseeing domestic cybersecurity
and the authority to set security standards. That Senate bill remains
stalled.</P>
<P>The Republican House speaker, John Boehner, said the administration's
approach was misguided.</P>
<P>"The White House believes the government ought to control the internet,
government ought to set standards and government ought to take care of
everything that's needed for cybersecurity," Boehner told reporters at his
weekly news conference. "They're in a camp all by themselves."</P>
<P>Faced with widespread <A
title="More
from guardian.co.uk on Privacy"
href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/privacy"
moz-do-not-send="true">privacy</A> concerns, Rogers and Republican CA
"Dutch" Ruppersberger , the intelligence panel's top Democrat, pulled
together an amendment that limits the government's use of threat information
to five specific purposes: cybersecurity; investigation and prosecution of
cybersecurity crimes; protection of individuals from death or serious bodily
harm; protection of minors from child pornography; and the protection of
national security.</P>
<P>The House passed the amendment by 410 votes to three.</P>
<P>The White House, along with a coalition of liberal and conservative
groups and lawmakers, strongly opposed the measure, complaining that
Americans' privacy could be violated. They argued that companies could share
an employee's personal information with the government, data that could end
up in the hands of officials from the National Security Agency or the
defence department. They also challenged the bill's liability waiver for
private companies that disclose information, complaining it was too
broad.</P>
<P>"Once in government hands, this information can be used for undefined
'national security' purposes unrelated to cybersecurity," a coalition that
included the American Civil Liberties Union and former conservative
Republican representative Bob Barr, lawmakers said on Thursday.</P>
<P>Echoing those concerns were several Republicans and Democrats who warned
of potential government spying on its citizens with the help of
employers.</P>
<P>"In an effort to foster information sharing, this bill would erode the
privacy protections of every single American using the internet. It would
create a 'wild west' of information sharing," said Bennie Thompson of
Mississippi, the leading Democrat on the House homeland security
committee.</P>
<P>Republican representative Joe Barton said: "Until we protect the privacy
rights of our citizens, the solution is worse than the problem."</P>
<P>Countering criticism of Big Brother run amok, proponents argued that the
bill does not allow the government to monitor private networks, read private
emails or close a website. It urges companies that share data to remove
personal information.</P>
<P>"There is no government surveillance, none, not any in this bill," Rogers
said.</P>
<P>Among the amendments the House approved was one by Republican Justin
Amash that put certain personal information off limits: library, medical and
gun sale records, tax returns and education documents.</P>
<P>"I don't know why the government would want to snoop through library
records or tax returns to counter the cybersecurity threat," Amash said.</P>
<P>The House approved his amendment by 415-0.</P>
<P>Trumping any privacy concerns were the national security argument, always
powerful in an election year, and Republicans' political desire to complete
a bill that would then force the Democratic-led Senate to act.</P>
<P>The Obama administration backs a Senate bill sponsored by senators Joe
Lieberman, an Independent, and Republican Susan Collins, that gives homeland
security the authority to establish security standards.</P>
<P>However, that legislation faces opposition from senior Senate
Republicans.</P>
<P>Arizona senator John McCain, the leading Republican on the Senate armed
services committee, said during a hearing last month that the homeland
security department was "probably the most inefficient bureaucracy that I
have ever encountered" and was ill-equipped to determine how best to secure
the nation's essential infrastructure. McCain has introduced a competing
bill.</P>
<P>• This article was amended on Friday 27 April to correct a mistake in the
headline. It originally said the bill had been passed by the Senate. This
has been
corrected.</P></DIV></DIV></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>