[governance] Tangential / Is Copyright Infringement Now Seen As Terrorism?
Riaz K Tayob
riaz.tayob at gmail.com
Mon Mar 4 11:17:57 EST 2013
Is Copyright Infringement Now Seen As Terrorism?
<http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013/03/copyright-infringement-now-seen-as-terrorism.html>
Posted on March 4, 2013
<http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013/03/copyright-infringement-now-seen-as-terrorism.html>
by WashingtonsBlog <http://www.washingtonsblog.com/author/washingtonsblog>
Government Uses Law As a Sword Against Dissent
We reported
<http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2012/02/ter%C2%B7ror%C2%B7ist-noun-anyone-who-disagrees-with-the-government-2.html>
last year:
The government treats copyright infringers as terrorists, and swat
teams have been deployed against them. See this
<http://news.cnet.com/Terrorist-link-to-copyright-piracy-alleged/2100-1028_3-5722835.html>,
this
<http://techliberation.com/2007/01/17/swat-teams-enforcing-copyright/>,
this
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversial_invocations_of_the_USA_PATRIOT_Act#Investigating_copyright_infringement>
and this <http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100129/0630057974.shtml>.
As the executive director of the Information Society Project at Yale
Law School notes
<http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/02/enough-already-the-sopa-debate-ignores-how-much-copyright-protection-we-already-have/252742/#bio>:
This administration ... publishes a newsletter about its efforts
with language that compares copyright infringement to terrorism.
*The American government is using copyright laws to crack down on
political dissent **just like China and Russia
<http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2011/12/americas-future-russians-and-chinese-use-copyright-crusade-to-crush-government-criticism.html>**.*
We noted last month that the "cyber-security" laws have /very little/ to
do with security
<http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013/02/the-white-house-is-judge-jury-and-executioner-of-both-drone-and-cyber-attacks.html>.
The Verge reported
<http://www.theverge.com/2013/2/14/3989686/white-house-says-cyber-threats-include-web-site-defacement-ip-theft>
last month:
In the State of the Union address Tuesday, President Obama announced
<http://www.theverge.com/2013/2/12/3982302/president-obama-signs-cybersecurity-order>
a sweeping executive order
<http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/02/12/executive-order-improving-critical-infrastructure-cybersecurity>
implementing new national cybersecurity measures, opening the door
for intelligence agencies to share more information about suspected
"cyber threats" with private companies that oversee the nation's
"critical infrastructure." The order is voluntary, giving companies
the choice of whether or not they want to receive the information,
and takes effect in four months, by June 12.
***
"Cyber threats cover a wide range of malicious activity that can
occur through cyberspace," wrote Caitlin Hayden, spokeswoman for the
White House National Security Council, in an email to /The Verge/.
"Such threats include web site defacement, espionage,*theft of
intellectual property*, denial of service attacks, and destructive
malware."
***
"The EO [executive order] relies on the definition of critical
infrastructure found in the Homeland Security Act of 2002," Hayden
wrote.
The Homeland Security Act of 2002 (PDF)
<http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/hr_5005_enr.pdf>, passed in the
wake of the September 11, 2001 terror attacks, was what created the
Department of Homeland Security. At that time, the US was still
reeling from the attacks and Congress sought to rapidly bolster the
nation's defenses, including "critical infrastructure" as part of
its definition of "terrorism." As the act states: "The term
'terrorism' means any activity that involves an act that is
dangerous to human life or potentially destructive of critical
infrastructure or key resources..."
But again, that act doesn't exactly spell out which infrastructure
is considered "critical," instead pointing to the definition as
outlined in a 2001 bill
<http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/5195c>, also passed in
response to September 11, which reads:
"The term "critical infrastructure" means systems and assets,
whether physical or virtual, so vital to the United States that
the incapacity or destruction of such systems and assets would
have a debilitating impact on security, national economic
security, national public health or safety, or any combination
of those matters."
This is the same exact definition that was originally provided in
the president's cybersecurity order
<http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/02/12/executive-order-improving-critical-infrastructure-cybersecurity>
as originally published on Tuesday, meaning that the White House
appears to be relying to some degree on circular reasoning
<http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/circular+reasoning> when it
comes to that definition. Some in Washington, including the
right-leaning think tank The Heritage Foundation
<http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/02/obama-s-cybersecurity-executive-order-falls-short>,
are worried that the definition is too broad and "could be
understood to include systems normally considered outside the
cybersecurity conversation, such as agriculture."
In fact, the Department of Homeland Security, which is one of the
agencies that will be sharing information on cyber threats thanks to
the order, includes 18 different industries
<http://www.dhs.gov/critical-infrastructure-sectors> in its own
label of "critical infrastructure," from agriculture to banking to
national monuments. There's an argument to be made that including
such a broad and diverse swath of industries under the blanket term
"critical" is reasonable given the overall increasing dependence of
virtually all businesses on the internet for core functions. But
even in that case, its unclear how casting such a wide net would be
helpful in defending against cyber threats, especially as there is a
limited pool of those with the expertise and ability to do so.
It's not just intellectual property. The government is widely using
anti-terror laws
<http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2012/02/government-uses-anti-terror-laws-to-crush-dissent-and-help-big-business.html>
to help giant businesses ... and to crush those who speak out against
their abusive practices
<http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2012/12/government-and-big-banks-joined-forces-to-violently-crush-peaceful-protests.html>,
labeling anyone who speaks out against as a potential bad guy
<http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2012/12/the-fbi-drowning-in-counter-terrorism-money-power-and-other-resources-will-apply-the-term-terrorism-to-any-group-it-dislikes-and-wants-to-control-and-suppress.html>.
This entry was posted in Business / Economics
<http://www.washingtonsblog.com/cat/business-economics>, Politics /
World News
<http://www.washingtonsblog.com/cat/politics-and-war-and-peace>.
Bookmark the permalink
<http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013/03/copyright-infringement-now-seen-as-terrorism.html>.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130304/88e80f26/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
For all other list information and functions, see:
http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
http://www.igcaucus.org/
Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
More information about the Governance
mailing list