Congress is doing it again: they’re proposing overbroad regulations that could have dire consequences for our Internet ecology. The Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act of 2011 (H.R. 3523), introduced by Rep. Mike Rogers and Rep. Dutch Ruppersberger, allows companies or the government1 free rein to bypass existing laws in order to monitor communications, filter content, or potentially even shut down access to online services for “cybersecurity purposes.” Companies are encouraged to share data with the government and with one another, and the government can share data in return. The idea is to facilitate detection of and defense against a serious cyber threat, but the definitions in the bill go well beyond that. The language is so broad it could be used as a blunt instrument to attack websites like The Pirate Bay or WikiLeaks. Join EFF in calling on Congress to stop the Rogers’ cybersecurity bill.

Under the proposed legislation, a company that protects itself or other companies against “cybersecurity threats” can “use cybersecurity systems to identify and obtain cyber threat information to protect the rights and property” of the company under threat. But because “us[ing] cybersecurity systems” is incredibly vague, it could be interpreted to mean monitoring email, filtering content, or even blocking access to sites. A company acting on a “cybersecurity threat” would be able to bypass all existing laws, including laws prohibiting telcos from routinely monitoring communications, so long as it acted in “good faith.”

The broad language around what constitutes a cybersecurity threat leaves the door wide open for abuse. For example, the bill defines “cyber threat intelligence” and “cybersecurity purpose” to include “theft or misappropriation of private or government information, intellectual property, or personally identifiable information.”

Yes, intellectual property. It’s a little piece of SOPA wrapped up in a bill that’s supposedly designed to facilitate detection of and defense against cybersecurity threats. The language is so vague that an ISP could use it to monitor communications of subscribers for potential infringement of intellectual property. An ISP could even interpret this bill as allowing them to block accounts believed to be infringing, block access to websites like The Pirate Bay believed to carry infringing content, or take other measures provided they claimed it was motivated by cybersecurity concerns.

The language of “theft or misappropriation of private or government information” is equally concerning. Regardless of the intent of this language, the end result is that the government and Internet companies could use this language to block sites like WikiLeaks and NewYorkTimes.com, both of which have published classified information. Online publishers like WikiLeaks are currently afforded protection under the First Amendment; receiving and publishing classified documents from a whistleblower is a common journalistic practice. While there’s uncertainty about whether the Espionage Act could be brought to bear against WikiLeaks, it is difficult to imagine a situation where the Espionage Act would apply to WikiLeaks without equally applying to the New York Times, the Washington Post, and in fact everyone who reads about the cablegate releases. But under Rogers’ cybersecurity proposal, the government would have new, powerful tools to go after WikiLeaks. By claiming that WikiLeaks constituted “cyber threat intelligence” (aka “theft or misappropriation of private or government information”), the government may be empowering itself and other companies to monitor and block the site. This means that the previous tactics used to silence WikiLeaks—including a financial blockade and shutting down their accounts with online service providers—could be supplemented by very direct means. The government could proclaim that WikiLeaks constitutes a cybersecurity threat and have new, broad powers to filter and block communication with the journalistic website.

Read More at The Electronic Frontier Foundation By Rainey Reitman and Lee Tien, Electronic Frontier Foundation

Have you noticed that during Republican administrations homelessness was always in the news? I know you have. There were daily reports and weekly specials. Are we to assume that we no longer have a homeless problem in America? Did you notice that during George H. W. Bush’s administration that the press harped on unemployment numbers everyday and how bad the economy was? It was constant.

English scientist Charles Babbage (1791–1871) understood that scientists were often guilty of manipulating evidence to add credibility to a theory. He described three types of misconduct: forging (the outright invention of data), trimming (the cosmetic ‘massaging’ of data, so as to display them to best advantage), and cooking (discreetly losing the data that were out of line or did not help the hypothesis).[1]

What’s true of scientists is doubly true of politicians and their support staff. In order to boost President Obama’s election prospects in November, the unemployment numbers are being forged, trimmed, and cooked.

For example, the Labor Department reported that 227,000 new jobs were added in February. The claim is being made that this is the third consecutive month of job creation. All the reports from the mainstream media are telling us that this means the economy has finally dug itself out of the recession hole. President Obama’s policies are working. He deserves another four years.

Another set of numbers reports that our trade deficit has skyrocketed by $4.3 billion in January to $52.6 billion. This number is an indicator that we are not creating the type of jobs that indicate long-term growth. Many of the new jobs are in the service industry.

Read More at Godfather Politics

(Reuters) – Banks are foreclosing on America’s churches in record numbers as lenders increasingly lose patience with religious facilities that have defaulted on their mortgages, according to new data.

The surge in church foreclosures represents a new wave of distressed property seizures triggered by the 2008 financial crash, analysts say, with many banks no longer willing to grant struggling religious organizations forbearance.

Since 2010, 270 churches have been sold after defaulting on their loans, with 90 percent of those sales coming after a lender-triggered foreclosure, according to the real estate information company CoStar Group.

In 2011, 138 churches were sold by banks, an annual record, with no sign that these religious foreclosures are abating, according to CoStar. That compares to just 24 sales in 2008 and only a handful in the decade before.

The church foreclosures have hit all denominations across America, black and white, but with small to medium size houses of worship the worst. Most of these institutions have ended up being purchased by other churches.

Read More at Reuters By Tim Reid, Reuters

Many Republicans are worried about the presidential primary dragging on for weeks or more, a battle that has already inflicted wounds. Not Sen. Marco Rubio.

“We’re all impatient. We all want to know who the nominee is so we can get to work,” he said in an interview with the Buzz. “So certainly, yeah, the sooner the better. But I’m not concerned. This is the process and the process will work its way through. What I think is very important for Republicans is not to talk ourselves into this idea that somehow because we’re having a longer primary than we’ve had in past years that we’re somehow doomed to failure in November. We are going to have a nominee whether it’s next week, next month of three months from now. At that point, the election will be reframed. It will no longer be about the super PACs, or supporting Santorum vs. Romney or Gingrich or Paul. The election will become a choice between two very different people, between two very different views of America. And the election will become about the president’s record.”

Do you think it’s time for Newt Gingrich to drop out?

“I don’t think anybody should be told to drop out. I think people should run until they feel that either they don’t want to continue or they don’t see a path to victory. I’ve never been a believer in asking people to drop out of a race because I had a bunch of people ask me to drop out of a race.”

Will you rule out endorsing (in the primary)?

Read More at tampabay.com

The rally for what could be World War III is in full swing.

In what amounts to a grotesque instance of outright pandering, Department of Defense head Leon Panetta recently spoke at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee’s annual conference and assured the audience that “we will keep all options – including military action – on the table to prevent (Iran) from obtaining a nuclear weapon.” You know you live in a kleptocracy when one of the heads of the federal government openly appeases perhaps the most influential and financially flush lobbying groups in the country.

Panetta’s assurance confirmed what the majority of Americans have long feared- that their government stands ready and willing to involve itself in another war despite public opinion being in opposition of such an excursion.

If the Republican presidential primary has proven anything, besides the propensity for politicians to offer only vague pronouncements and crowd pleasing sound bites on complex issues, it’s that the bloodthirsty urges of the GOP are incapable of being quenched. For years, the neoconservatives who make up the Republican establishment have been pounding the war drums over Iran. About 33,000 American military deaths in Iraq and over 1 million Iraqi casualties have done nothing to dissuade the warmongering rhetoric of the candidates (with the exception of Ron Paul).

On the same day as Panetta’s address to AIPAC, presidential candidate Mitt Romney laid out a “comprehensive” plan to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon in a Washington Post editorial. What does this “comprehensive” plan entail the reader may ask? Simple; just throw more money at a defense department already blowing through its coffers at a sum higher than the top 14 military spenders in the world combined. Armed with political theorist Frederic Bastiat’s invaluable concept of the “unseen,” one can only begin to imagine the technological breakthroughs and consumer satisfying goods such money could have been invested towards if not being pilfered into nation building, military contractor boondoggles, and supporting imperial aggression abroad.

Read More at zerohedge.com By Tyler Durden, zerohedge.com