Laws for 21st century: A guide to Canada’s proposed cyber investigation bills

Kathryn Blaze Carlson Oct 22, 2011 – 10:35 AM ET | Last Updated: Oct 23, 2011 11:01 AM ET


Canadians spend more time online than anyone else in the world — an average of 44 hours per month — and nearly a third of the population owns a smartphone, spending more than 17 hours on the device each week. So when the Conservative government reintroduces three pieces of lawful access legislation aimed at giving police greater powers and more tools to conduct investigations using new technologies, Canadians should have a clear understanding of what is on the table. However, much of the rhetoric circulating online about the legislation is patently untrue, distracting from the meat of the bills and the very real privacy implications at stake. Although it is unclear whether the bills will appear exactly as they did when they were first tabled in the spring, Public Safety Minister Vic Toews said this month his government is committed to reintroducing the lawful access legislation. Post reporter Kathryn Blaze Carlson has studied the previous legislation and spoken to experts. Here, she offers up eight things it would do — and three it would not:

1. CREATING “BACK DOORS” FOR POLICE INTERCEPTION The Investigative Powers for the 21st Century Act would require telecommunications and Internet service providers to be capable of decrypting, decoding, and preserving historic and real-time online and telephone communications, essentially creating built-in “back doors” for police interception. Some providers already have this capability, but they preserve information on their servers for different lengths of time depending on company policy. Some smaller providers do not have this capability at all, particularly certain ones in northern Ontario and Quebec, said Christopher Parsons, a doctoral candidate at the University of Victoria studying digital surveillance. Tom Stamatakis, president of the Canadian Police Association, said it is “very frustrating from an investigative perspective” when police obtain a court order to intercept communications, only to learn the relevant Internet service provider is technically incapable of digging up the communications data. The act would also give the RCMP and CSIS the authority to conduct background security checks on any employees who are involved in intercepting communications. Mr. Parsons said it is unclear whether the legislation will target anything more than the “low-hanging fruit” because savvy criminals will be able to evade authorities by encrypting their messages and sending them through several network nodes.


2. OBTAINING BASIC CUSTOMER INFORMATION WITHOUT A WARRANT Police could demand that telecommunications and Internet service providers turn over a customer’s name, address, telephone number, email address, and Internet protocol address — and they could do so without a warrant under exceptional circumstances. “When Internet service providers hear ‘exceptional circumstances,’ they hear ‘whenever (police) want,’” Mr. Parsons said. Michael Geist, chair of Internet and E-commerce Law at the University of Ottawa, said that sort of customer information could be linked with other bits of information to build a detailed profile. It can also be used to “out” someone using a pseudonym in an online chat forum. “All of a sudden, you go from ‘HoneyBunny14’ or ‘BlackAnarchist’ to ‘John Smith’ living at a particular address with a particular phone number,” Mr. Parsons said, adding that social activists are concerned police will use the provision to monitor people organizing legal protests or expressing dissent online. Beyond that, the target is not necessarily the only person using a particular Internet protocol address, so others could be inadvertently monitored at a later stage in the investigation. Mr. Stamatakis said this sort of additional power would be exercised to investigate only the most serious crimes, including child pornography, organized crime and terrorism. “The legislation recognizes the technology criminals are using today,” he said, echoing Mr. Toews comments earlier this month that the Criminal Code contains out-of-date language such as the word “telegraph.”

3. CREATING NEW POLICE POWERS TO OBTAIN COMMUNICATIONS DATA Without a warrant, police could make a “preservation demand” requiring telecommunications and Internet service providers to single out a customer and preserve for 90 days what Dwayne Winseck, a Carleton University communications professor who has studied the Internet for two decades, called “meta data.” So-called meta data is communications information generated during the creation, transmission or reception of a communication including the type, time, duration, origin, and destination of the communication. Police would then have to ask a judge for a “production order” to actually obtain the preserved information. Once police get the court order, they could, for example, find out who a person called on their cell phone, the duration of the call, and when the call was placed. Importantly, the proposed legislation excludes the actual content of the conversation. Once police have a copy of what they want, the service providers must destroy the information. The warantless provision is a welcome one, Mr. Stamatakis said, because it acts as a stop-gap measure while police work to obtain a warrant — a lengthy, labour-intensive process at times.

4. CUSTOMERS MAY NEVER KNOW IF, OR WHY, THEY WERE TARGETED The proposed surveillance legislation says authorities could prohibit telecommunications and Internet service providers from telling a customer that he or she was the subject of information disclosures. The potential cumulative effect of all this legislation, said Mr. Geist, is self-censorship: “What we’re creating is nothing like the Chinese firewall … but I think it could have a chilling effect in terms of people’s willingness to express themselves online, even if they’re not doing anything illegal.”

5. POSSIBLY INCREASED COSTS FOR CELL PHONE AND INTERNET SERVICE If telecommunications and Internet service providers are forced to upgrade their technology and train their staff to use it, then their capital and operating costs will inevitably climb. “Customers might end up paying the added cost for something that could be used against them at any time,” Mr. Parsons said, adding the requirement could also squeeze out smaller, cash-strapped providers.

6. TRACKING DIALED NUMBERS WITHOUT A WARRANT The proposed legislation would allow police to install and use number recorders without a warrant in “exigent circumstances.” A number recorder, which records the telephone numbers associated with outgoing and incoming calls, would be installed remotely by a telecommunications provider at their call centre hub. The installation can last up to 60 days, but it could be extended to one year if a warrant is obtained and if the investigation involves organized crime or terrorism.

7. COVERTLY ACTIVATING DEVICES TO TRACK CELL PHONES AND VEHICLES The proposed legislation brings police powers into the 21st century by tacitly acknowledging that vehicles and mobile phones — and therefore the people using them — can be tracked using GPS or cell towers. The Criminal Code currently says police can, with a warrant or without one in an emergency, “install, maintain and remove a tracking device in or on any thing, including a thing carried, used or worn by any person.” The proposed bill would extend that list to include the power to “activate” a device, “including covertly.” Mr. Parsons said this allows police to “take advantage of existing technologies,” and said he would not object to the provision if it ensured there would be court oversight.

8. OPENING THE DOOR TO “FISHING EXPEDITIONS” The legislation surrounding preservation and production orders would allow police to get information from telecommunications and Internet service providers based on “reasonable grounds to suspect” the information would “assist an investigation.” The existing Criminal Code does not offer a similarly vague suspicion, but rather stipulates “reasonable grounds to believe” an offence “has been or is suspected to have been committed” or that the information will “afford evidence respecting the commission of the offence.” Mr. Winseck said this opens the door for police to go on “fishing expeditions” and potentially “turns the relationship between the cops and (Internet Service Providers) into a routine one.”

… AND THREE MISCONCEPTIONS

1. HYPERLINKING TO HATE PROPAGANDA WILL BE CRIMINALIZED When the legislative summary of one of the bills surfaced saying “the offences of public incitement of hatred and willful promotion of hatred may be committed… by creating a hyperlink that directs web surfers to a website where hate material is posted,” onlookers criticized the bill as overly far-reaching. However, the actual bill makes no explicit reference to hyperlinking, instead expanding the definition of “communicating” hate material to include “making available.” It is true the vague definition of “communicating” could capture posting a link to another website, but a recent Supreme Court libel decision will likely quiet that fear: The judges decided unanimously this week that a person cannot be held responsible for what appears on a hyperlinked site.

2. POLICE WILL GET NEW POWERS TO LISTEN IN ON PRIVATE COMMUNICATIONS
The legislation does not extend police powers to intercept the actual content of private communications, for example what was said in a telephone call or written in an email. Mr. Toews has said those claims — put forward by online privacy activists — are a “complete fabrication.” Also, the Criminal Code already allows police to intercept private communications without a warrant, so long as the situation is urgent and the interception could prevent serious harm to a person or property.

3. INTERNET PROVIDERS WILL MONITOR ALL CANADIANS, ALL THE TIME
The government has been accused of embarking on warrantless online wiretapping where Canadians will be constantly monitored, but Mr. Geist said on his blog these charges amount to “political softball.” Yes, telecommunications and Internet service providers will need the capability to preserve information on all users, regardless of whether or not they are subject to an investigation. But those providers must only preserve and produce information relating to users who are actually targeted by police.

National Post kcarlson@nationalpost.com

Who here thinks YOU aren't being spied on ?

 Taken from WIRED
Which Telecoms Store Your Data the Longest? Secret Memo Tells All By David Kravets Email Author September 28, 2011 | 6:30 am |

________________________________________________________________

The nation’s major mobile-phone providers are keeping a treasure trove of sensitive data on their customers, according to newly-released Justice Department internal memo that for the first time reveals the data retention policies of America’s largest telecoms.

The single-page Department of Justice document, “Retention Periods of Major Cellular Service Providers,” is a guide for law enforcement agencies looking to get information — like customer IP addresses, call logs, text messages and web surfing habits – out of U.S. telecom companies, including AT&T, Sprint, T-Mobile and Verizon.

The document, marked “Law Enforcement Use Only” and dated August 2010, illustrates there are some significant differences in how long carriers retain your data.

Verizon, for example, keeps a list of everyone you’ve exchanged text messages with for the past year, according to the document. But T-Mobile stores the same data up to five years. It’s 18 months for Sprint, and seven years for AT&T.

That makes Verizon appear to have the most privacy-friendly policy. Except that Verizon is alone in retaining the actual contents of text messages. It allegedly stores the messages for five days, while T-Mobile, AT&T, and Sprint don’t store them at all.

The document was unearthed by the American Civil Liberties Union of North Carolina via a Freedom of Information Act claim. (After the group gave a copy to Wired.com, we also discovered it in two other places on the internet by searching its title.)

“People who are upset that Facebook is storing all their information should be really concerned that their cell phone is tracking them everywhere they’ve been,” said Catherine Crump, an ACLU staff attorney. “The government has this information because it wants to engage in surveillance.”

The biggest difference in retention surrounds so-called cell-site data.

That is information detailing a phone’s movement history via its connections to mobile phone towers while its traveling. Verizon keeps that data on a one-year rolling basis; T-Mobile for “a year or more;” Sprint up to two years, and AT&T indefinitely, from July 2008.

The document also includes retention policies for Nextel and Virgin Mobile. They have folded into the Sprint network.

The document release comes two months before the Supreme Court hears a case testing the government’s argument that it may use GPS devices to monitor a suspect’s every movement without a warrant. And the disclosure comes a month ahead of the 25th anniversary of the Electronic Privacy Communications Act, an outdated law that the government often invokes against targets to obtain, without a warrant, the data the Justice Department document describes.

“I don’t think there there is anything on this list the government would concede requires a warrant,” said Kevin Bankston, a staff attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation. “This brings cellular retention practices out of the shadows, so we can have a rational discussion about how the law needs to be changed when it comes to the privacy of our records.”

Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont) has proposed legislation to alter the Electronic Privacy Communications Act to protect Americans from warrantless intrusions. Debate on the issue is expected to heat up as the anniversary nears, and the Justice Department document likely will take center stage.

For all you geeks out there.....

Make sure to read the comments ;)

Your Daily TESTOSTERONE Dose - 100 Greatest Movie Threats of All Time

Procrastination Flow Chart

Click Me

My Drunk Kitchen - Brunch ?

I am sure that everybody reading this can relate. Hillarious and sadly, too common !!

Rogers - The demon spawn of Telcos

There was once a time when customer service could be summed up with the phrase "The Customer is ALWAYS right." Those days are long gone at Rogers, a Canadian TelCo, CableCo and general corporate badass.

I was recently forced to "upgrade" from my iPhone at Rogers because mine had stopped working (I couldn't dial out). Rogers, in it's infinite wisdom decided that they would only offer me an early "upgrade" to a BlackBerry because iPhones were out of stock, too expensive and I wasn't worth the effort. If I had been a new customer off the street they would've sold me the iPhone for $99 but they wanted to charge me $399 (after 12 years as a customer of theirs).

Long story short, Rogers gets me a new Blackberry, it's not what I wanted and not what I could afford based on their unique (lets screw the people already on contract) pricing structure but it's the best they would offer me and hey, I need a working phone so I agreed to it.

Well, the Blackberry and I had a couple of weeks of teething problems but in time I got used to using it though I did sorely miss the iPhone. The only saving grace of the BlackBerry is the size of the handset and the physical keys but I digress.

Anyways, just recently my BlackBerry stopped syncing with my online calendar and like any self respecting geek, I went to the handset's setup application to check the settings and try to diagnose the problem. Big Mistake. The BlackBerry told me I had to upgrade my "Email Setup Application" and so I started and voila, 30 minutes later, my now 6 week old Blackberry is crashed, bricked, fubar, a paperweight. The RIM/Rogers software upgrade managed to crash the handheld's operating system making the whole thing completely unusable.

"WHAT THE FUCK ?!?!?" I shouted at the handset and laptop as I scrambled to figure out what had happened.

So I call Rogers on a landline (I was visiting someone who still had an actual phone with a cord) and proceeded to deal with the tech support person. After about 90 minutes of very garbled english and an even more garbled attempt to diagnose the problem and offer a solution, I finally gave up on Rogers and went to the RIM (BlackBerry's Maker) support website to see if I could do this on my own seeing as how the Rogers tech seemed to have no idea what he was doing, let alone a basic grasp of english pronunciation.

A few hours later, I managed to get the phone limping back to life. Still not sure what happened to it and it still wasn't working properly but at least I could dial out on it and it WAS giving me email. Problem is, all the data I had entered into the phone (Bookmarks, Passwords, Calendar entries, Contacts, Memos, Notes etc.) were ALL GONE !! Those backups I'd been making every week "just in case" ? Well, they were worth shit as the phone didn't want to restore them. BAH !!

Then yesterday, like an idiot I go back to RIM's website and read up a bit more on the issue looking for some glimmer of hope in terms of getting my phone back up & running. I am delusional, I know this but I truly thought that in todays day & age, the manufacturer's site would be the best source of information and advice. Pffft...was I ever an innocent lamb in the woods.

Following the advice of other RIM customers I thought that I would try the app update one more time, the very same thing that caused this whole problem to begin with, but this time I knew the steps to recover and had read of some people who had successfully installed the upgrade and were merrily BB'ing forth. I wanted into that promised land of email, calendar AND phone in my palm so, as I said above, like an idiot I tried one more time. Can you guess where this is headed ?

Last night at precisely 6:49pm, I proved that man should not be allowed to mess with the primeval forces of BlackBerry, especially a man as obviously gullible as me. Once again I had transformed a semi-working BlackBerry into a $300 paperweight, but hey, I at least did it in record time....Yippie !! (insert laugh track here)

So 7:00pm rolls around and I'm on a landline talking with a Rogers Tech support person AGAIN. Only this time he's asking me to use a Windows computer. Funny, I don't remember seeing a label on the BB that said it didn't roll with the Mac OS-X crowd but apparently, if you wanna be a BB geek, Windows is the only way to roll. So I get Windows installed on my Mac Laptop, do as the tech suggests, try installing this and that, connecting, refreshing, pulling batteries out of the handset over and over, rebooting, installing, waiting and seething.

One hour later and I completely loose it on the tech.

I tried using a chronology to explain things to him like you would to a two year old.
1. I am trying to get a calendar and email to work on a phone that was doing this fine until last week
2. I read the manual and tried to use the Blackberry provided program that sets this whole thing up in the first place.
3. The Blackberry program demands that it be upgraded before it can proceed so........I upgrade
4. The upgrade breaks my phone, crashing it and causing data loss
5. I then get to spend 45 minutes reinstalling the system to get back to step 1 without fixing the original problem

I paid good money for the handset, I pay good money every month for the services and I now have a handset that makes calls only. Unacceptable, I demand service, a solution, a fix and I expect someone to compensate me for my wasted time, lost data and productivity...etc....

What does Rogers offer me ? A tech who wants to experiment on my phone and when I lose it on him and demand a manager, he gets me on to someone from Customer Service. Now these people are the cream of the crop, you know the ones...They can give you free texting or knock $5 off your bill. These are the real "fixers" at Rogers. The people who are endowed with that extra thick skin and the ever so slightly condescending voice that basically says "We'll throw you a little bone but never admit we screwed you over".

This woman proved to be nothing of the sort. She was from the get go a brick wall, I could have mistaken her for a voice recording, some pavlovian response was all she could muster.

"It's a technical issue and you'll have to deal with them"

"Well, I had been, for the last several hours you dim-wit !!" (I think I was a bit more polite though)

"Well what would you like me to do sir"

"Fix it, get me a new phone that works, that does what I am paying you to have it do......"

"It's a technical issue and you'll have to deal with them"

"Well, I had been, for the last several hours you dim-wit !!" (I was becoming less polite now)

LATHER, RINSE, REPEAT....45 minutes later......

"Rogers Technical Support....How can I help you......."

AARRGGHHHHHHHHHHH !!!

Mesmerizing

According to the RIAA, we should blame Napster & the Web for everything.

Seems the enlightened folks over at the RIAA (the dark overlord of idiot self interested industry groups) has found a direct correlation between everything in the world that's going to hell and the internet, Napster and well, you....the lazy, net connected social miscreant.

Taken without permission from TechDirt but all credit and material is their's I'm just doing what us net-ziens do, blatantly ripping off someone else and giving them credit
__________________________________________________________________________________

The RIAA has stepped up its game in the final stages of its lawsuit against Limewire, where the focus is on determining damages. As part of this, it has cranked out an illuminating chart showing that the decline of the music business rests entirely on file sharing. Nowhere among the multi-colored lines will you find any references to an aging record-buying demographic, the proliferation of thousands of independent labels or even the ultimate game-changer itself, the internet.

As you well know, the internet was invented in 1991 by billionaire tycoon, Al Gore. In its infancy, the internet was nothing more than a forum for conspiracy theorists to exchange anti-government writings and ASCII porn. However, everything changed in 1998 with the simultaneous debut of Napster and the mp3, both invented by Shawn Fanning. With this new "distribution system," the music industry could no longer afford to ignore the looming force of the internet, at least not for more than the next half-decade. Now, with billions at stake, the RIAA has unleashed its ultimate weapon: the line chart. Below is their devastating 

Exhibit A: filed in the lawsuit against Limewire:

Broken down bizarrely into "Albums per Capita," the RIAA's chart takes care to point out two things:

1. Napster.

2. All else being equal, record sales will grow indefinitely.

But that's not all. The number crunchers over at the RIAA have also entered the following charts as eye-catching evidence of the havoc wreaked by file sharing. 

Exhibit B: Napster vs. Kerosene Sales

Kerosene usage dropped off considerably before the 1990's, but was still growing slowly for most of the decade. As this previously unpublished RIAA chart clearly shows, 1999 (1 P.N.*) was kerosene's peak, which was then followed by a decade-long slide. Consulting economists from George Mason University have stated that Napster's arrival "didn't have a goddamn thing to do with kerosene's decline." This testimony has been stricken from the record as "irrelevant," as no economist consulted was a former employee of the major labels. Conclusion: the world would be a better (if slightly more odorous) place if Napster had never existed.

*Post-Napster

Exhibit C: The Internet vs. Vehicle Theft

With this chart, obviously the RIAA intends to show a clear correlation between the internet's introduction and the decline of vehicular theft, an unfortunate situation that has put many honest car thieves out of work. It is also hoping to prove the old adage that "illegal downloading is exactly like stealing a car -- which is why car theft declined as file sharing increased."

As the data shows, vehicle theft followed the music industry's decade-long climb from 1986-1996. Or tried to, anyway. Vehicle theft peaked in 1991 at an unsustainable level of .0066 vehicles stolen per capita. Unfortunately, the web turned these hard-working car thieves into lazy music thieves, thwarting a vehicular theft pattern that should have risen to epidemic levels over the next decade. The data points to one damning fact: you can do more financial damage with a single internet connection than has been done in the entirety of human history up to 1998.

Exhibit D: The RIAA and the Honest American Farmer

As everyone knows, Real Americans Don't Share™. And nothing is more American than farming, one of the first victims of the internet's cruel efficiency. The American farm has been on a decline since well before records were kept (ca. 1992, apparently), and the arrival of file sharing decimated both of the U.S.A.'s prime cash crops: compact discs and popcorn.

The fate of these declining industries are apparently forever intertwined, much like the essentially meaningless overlaid chart above. Both lines run downhill in an indictment of, well, everything un-American. In fact, if you look closely enough, you can see the two graph points bravely embracing each other as they weather the onslaught of progress.

And there you have it: incontrovertible proof that copyright infringement is killing American institutions one download at a time.

Mac or PC - Where do you fit in ?

Break out the chain mail and shields. 300 has nothing on this !!

Be a Mench or just a Nice Person

In case you didn't know, I volunteer at a local community centre/soup kitchen. Times are tight and without any government funding, they live on donations and opportunities like this....It's a shameless plug but PLEASE vote, frequently.

We're hoping to win the $25K prize. If you can't or choose not to vote, at least get out and help your own local community.

http://www.refresheverything.ca/stfelixcentre

What has WikiLeaks ever taught us ?

(Blatantly copied verbatim from OpenDemocracy.net)

"What has Wikileaks ever taught us?" ... Read on ...

Ryan Gallagher, 17 February 2011
How often have we been told in world-weary tones that Wikileaks has revealed nothing new - especially by those who want to appear to be in the know? Here is an aide-mémoire of a few of the highest profile revelations.
About the author
Ryan Gallagher is a freelance journalist based in London.

Since 2006, the whistleblowers' website WikiLeaks has published a mass of information we would otherwise not have known. The leaks have exposed dubious procedures at Guantanamo Bay and detailed meticulously the Iraq War's unprecedented civilian death-toll. They have highlighted the dumping of toxic waste in Africa as well as revealed America's clandestine military actions in Yemen and Pakistan.

The sheer scope and significance of the revelations is shocking. Among them are great abuses of power, corruption, lies and war crimes. Yet there are still some who insist WikiLeaks has "told us nothing new". This collection, sourced from a range of publications across the web, illustrates nothing could be further from the truth. Here, if there is still a grain of doubt in your mind, is just some of what WikiLeaks has told us:

• American planes bombed a village in Southern Yemen in December 2009, killing 14 women and 21 children (see Amnesty)
• The Secretary of State's office encouraged US diplomats at the United Nations to spy on their counterparts by collecting biographic and biometric information (see Wired)
• The Obama administration worked with Republicans to protect Bush administration officials facing a criminal investigation into torture (see Mother Jones)
• A US Army helicopter gunned down two Reuters journalists in Baghdad in 2007 (see Reuters)
• US authorities failed to investigate hundreds of reports of abuse, torture, rape and even murder by Iraqi police and soldiers (see the Guardian)
• In Iraq there were scores of claims of prison abuse by coalition forces even after the Abu Ghraib scandal (see the Bureau of Investigative Journalism)
• Afghan President Hamid Karzai freed suspected drug dealers because of their political connections (see CBS News)
• Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu expressed support for the concept of “land swaps” (see Yahoo News)
• The United States was secretly given permission from Yemen's president to attack the Al-Qaeda group in his country (see the Guardian)
• Then-Secretary of Defence Donald Rumsfeld and his top commanders repeatedly knowingly lied to the American public about rising sectarian violence in Iraq beginning in 2006 (see the Daily Beast)
• The US was shipping arms to Saudi Arabia for use in northern Yemen even as it denied any role in the conflict (see Salon.com)
• Saudi Arabia is one of the largest origin points for funds supporting international terrorism
• A storage facility housing Yemen's radioactive material was unsecured for up to a week (see Bloomberg)
• Israel destroyed a Syrian nuclear reactor in 2007, fearing it was built to make a bomb (see the Sunday Times)
• Top officials in several Arab countries have close links with the CIA (see the Peninsula)
• Swiss company Trafigura Beheer BV dumped toxic waste at the Ivorian port of Abidjan, then attempted to silence the press from revealing it by obtaining a gagging order (see WikiLeaks)
• Pakistan's government has allowed members of its spy network to hold strategy sessions on combating American troops with members of the Taliban (see the New York Times)
• A stash of highly enriched uranium capable of providing enough material for multiple "dirty bombs" has been waiting in Pakistan for removal by an American team for more than three years (see CBS News)
• US military Special Operations Forces have been conducting offensive operations inside Pakistan, despite repeated denials from US officials (see the Nation)
• China was behind the online attack on Google (see ZDNet)
• North Korea is secretly helping the military dictatorship in Myanmar build nuclear and missile sites in its jungles (see CBS News)
• The Indian government "condones torture" and systematically abused detainees in the disputed region of Kashmir (see CBS News)
• The British government has been training a Bangladeshi paramilitary force condemned by human rights organisations as a "government death squad" (see the Guardian)
• BP suffered a blowout after a gas leak in the Caucasus country of Azerbaijan in September 2008, a year and a half before another BP blowout killed 11 workers (see the Guardian)
• Saudi Arabia's rulers have deep distrust for some fellow Muslim countries, especially Pakistan and Iran (see CBS News)
• Saudi Arabia’s King Abdullah repeatedly urged the United States to attack Iran (see the Guardian)
• Iranian Red Crescent ambulances were used to smuggle weapons to Lebanon's militant Hezbollah group during its 2006 war with Israel (see CBS News)
• Dozens of US tactical nuclear weapons are in Germany, the Netherlands and Belgium (see Jerusalem Post)
• The Libyan government promised "enormous repercussions" for the UK if the release of Abdel Baset al-Megrahi, the Lockerbie bomber, was not handled properly (see CBS News)
• Pope Benedict impeded an investigation into alleged child sex abuse within the Catholic Church (see MSNBC)
• Sinn Fein leaders Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness carried out negotiations for the Good Friday agreement with Irish then-prime minister Bertie Ahern while the two had knowledge of a bank robbery the Irish Republican Army was planning to carry out (see CBS News)
• Anglo-Dutch oil giant Royal Dutch Shell PLC has infiltrated the highest levels of government in Nigeria (see the Guardian)
• A US official was told by Mexican President Felipe Calderon that Latin America "needs a visible US presence" to counter Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez's growing influence in the region (see Yahoo News)
• Cuba's economic situation could become "fatal" within two to three years (see Business Week)
• McDonald's tried to delay the US government's implementation of a free-trade agreement in order to put pressure on El Salvador to appoint neutral judges in a $24m lawsuit it was fighting in the country (see the Guardian)
• British officials made a deal with the US to allow the country to keep cluster bombs in the UK despite the ban on the munitions signed by Gordon Brown (see Politics.co.uk)
• The British government promised to protect America's interests during the Chilcot inquiry into the Iraq war (see the Guardian)
• The US government was acting on behalf of GM crop firm Monsanto in 2008, when the US embassy in Paris advised Washington to start a military-style trade war against any European Union country which opposed genetically modified (GM) crops (see the Guardian)
• Pfitzer tested anti-biotics on Nigerian children, contravening national and international standards on medical ethics (see Medical News Today)
• Prisoners at Camp Delta (Guantanamo Bay) were denied access to the Red Cross for up to four weeks (see the Telegraph)
• More than 66,000 civilians suffered “violent deaths” in Iraq between 2004 and the end of 2009 (see the Telegraph)
• Russia is a “virtual mafia state” with rampant corruption and scant separation between the activities of the government and organised crime (see the Guardian)
• The Obama administration tried to “sweet-talk” other countries in to taking Guantanamo detainees, as part of its (as yet unsuccessful) effort to close the prison (see the New York Times)

Time Magazine's - Revolution by 0's and 1's

Next week's Time Magazine features several stories about the revolution in Egypt and the people who helped make it happen. Recognition well deserved.

Libya goes dark

See the report below. For those that don't speak "geek" it basically means that Libya has turned off it's internet. This is what Egypt tried and look how successful that was for them.


Insha' Allah (Arabic: إنشالله‎)

Libyan Disconnect

By James Cowie on February 18, 2011 8:56 PM | No Comments | No TrackBacks

Renesys confirms that the 13 globally routed Libyan network prefixes were withdrawn at 23:18 GMT (Friday night, just after midnight Saturday local time), and Libya is off the Internet. One Libyan route originated by Telecom Italia directly is still BGP-reachable, but inbound traceroutes appear to die in Palermo. A minority of our peers report some surviving paths through the peering connection between Level3 and Telecom Italia, but traceroutes into those prefixes fail, suggesting that the Libyan cutoff is complete.

We wondered whether anyone would repeat Egypt's strategy. Tonight, it appears that we have our answer.

Updates to follow.