[governance] Tangential / Is Copyright Infringement Now Seen As Terrorism?

Diego Rafael Canabarro diegocanabarro at gmail.com
Mon Mar 4 23:39:50 EST 2013 

For sure. But does that make those computers and servers "critical
infrastructure"? If disabled, they compromise the viability of the country?
Or only the IT infrastructure directly connected to the dam or power plant
in question (to quote just the things that were not prospective, i.e. 'new
plane', 'new industrial process')?

On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 11:30 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian
<suresh at hserus.net>wrote:

>  You will find that are strictly enforced controls about keeping data
> within the usa and restricting access only to US citizens with a mandatory
> security clearance
>
> --srs (htc one x)
>
> On 5 March 2013 9:45:31 AM Diego Rafael Canabarro ** wrote:
>
> The mere fact of storing that classified information makes the computer
> part of the "critical infrastructure of a country"? How to deal with the
> fact that R&D in the US is heavily conducted by contractors? Are the
> computers of RAND, Lockheed Martin, and Raytheon part of the critical
> infrastructure of the US? And if those computers are located abroad?
>
> On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 5:06 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian <suresh at hserus.net>wrote:
>
>> The proposal to set up a clearinghouse for Internet threat data is
>> actually a good one.  And seems to have nothing to do with either copyright
>> infringement.
>>
>> What can be considered critical infrastructure is necessarily a broad
>> definition,
>>
>> The article doesn't connect the dots between that and copyright
>> infringement. IP theft .. what do you call it when a computer network is
>> penetrated and  the plans for a new fighter plane, control data for a dam
>> or power plant, blueprints for a new industrial process etc stolen?
>>
>> --srs (iPad)
>>
>> On 04-Mar-2013, at 21:47, Riaz K Tayob <riaz.tayob at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>  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>.
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> 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
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> 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
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Diego R. Canabarro
> http://lattes.cnpq.br/4980585945314597
>
> --
> diego.canabarro [at] ufrgs.br
> diego [at] pubpol.umass.edu
> MSN: diegocanabarro [at] gmail.com
> Skype: diegocanabarro
> Cell # +55-51-9244-3425 (Brasil) / +1-413-362-0133 (USA)
> --
>
>


-- 
Diego R. Canabarro
http://lattes.cnpq.br/4980585945314597

--
diego.canabarro [at] ufrgs.br
diego [at] pubpol.umass.edu
MSN: diegocanabarro [at] gmail.com
Skype: diegocanabarro
Cell # +55-51-9244-3425 (Brasil) / +1-413-362-0133 (USA)
--
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130304/ad5a9cb0/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