The bill slated to replace ECPA contradicts CISPA
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/03/new-bill-would-ensure-law-enforcement-get-warrant-reading-email
Discussion on:
View:
Show:
As one of the billions of users who thankfully live outside the jurisdiction of the USA I follow such stories with detached interest. Attempts to put the genie of the internet back in the bottle will always fail whilst the majority of internet users live outside America. Those of us in Europe, not to mention China, India, Russia, the Far East etc don't take kindly to interference so I hope your Congress don't imagine they can get away with expanding such schemes outside of your borders.
If I understand correctly, the traffic you sent to this forum could/would have been scanned under CISPA.
Any time you connect to servers based in the US this law would affect you. Due to the nature of how the Internet works any law that deals with it tends to affect a much larger audience than just the citizens of that country. The down side is that usually non-citizens have little say or influence in the decision making process.
Bill
Bill
Citizens have certain rights. Most people don't exercise them, but they exist. It's better than nothing.
If voting could really change anything, it would be illegal. Hell, exercising most of your rights is illegal.
That when the US Authorities don't like something you send through the US or to any US Based Servers they apply for Extradition to the US for you to face the charges.
Because they need to extradite you to the US you may very well be a Runner so you get to spend the time between arriving in the US and facing Trial on Remand held in Custody to prevent you running.
You need to understand that to prevent this from happening you should never send anything which will be considered as Suspect through a E-Mail, Text Upload or so on and to be really sure you need to live in a Country Without an Extradition Treaty with the US. Not many developed countries in the West who don't have one of those though.
Like all countries the US also scans all messages that pass over it's borders from outside as well as all internal data transfers be that Cell Phone traffic both Voice, Text and Data, Fax Transmissions, E-Mail, All Data Downloads no matter the type and so on.
Different countries have different names for the agencies which do this for them but all developed countries do this in the name of security. So what happens in the US is a precursor of what happens in most countries to improve Internal Security and keep the Citizens of the country safe.
Personally I don't have any problem with it either.
Col
Because they need to extradite you to the US you may very well be a Runner so you get to spend the time between arriving in the US and facing Trial on Remand held in Custody to prevent you running.
You need to understand that to prevent this from happening you should never send anything which will be considered as Suspect through a E-Mail, Text Upload or so on and to be really sure you need to live in a Country Without an Extradition Treaty with the US. Not many developed countries in the West who don't have one of those though.
Like all countries the US also scans all messages that pass over it's borders from outside as well as all internal data transfers be that Cell Phone traffic both Voice, Text and Data, Fax Transmissions, E-Mail, All Data Downloads no matter the type and so on.
Different countries have different names for the agencies which do this for them but all developed countries do this in the name of security. So what happens in the US is a precursor of what happens in most countries to improve Internal Security and keep the Citizens of the country safe.
Personally I don't have any problem with it either.
Col
Was what type of communications is this limited to, if any. This could be really far reaching covering everything -- voice to fax to digital.
Though the stuff may be scanned by computers for Flagged terms, words or whatever first before being passed on to Humans to look deeper.
For instance an easy one is saying something like Nuke the unit where the word "Nuke" would be flagged and then be ruled out with the following Boot & Nuke being used in the same sentence or very soon after. That way it would pick up the difference between referring to a computer program commonly used and a fission weapon.
Though using the words Nuke & Fission Weapon in the same sentence is defiantly going to raise lots of Red Flags.
So in this case as I'm in AU the above would be scanned by the Australian Defense Force Directorate in Western Australia and the US Base at Pine Gap before leaving AU and then by another CIA Base when it enters the US. Both Pine Gap and whichever CIA scanning station which is being used would then forward the data onto a area to investigate more deeply to see that No Further Action is Required and then finally the FBI through one of the other Homeland Security Agencies would also scan the message when it was sent internally within the US.
As both the CIA and FBI as well as any other Internal Security Agencies don't share Information the process is replicated and the costs increased accordingly.
Of course if this transmission was directed through one or more other countries like somewhere in Europe the message would be scanned going into each country, being transmitted across that country and again as it left that country, though depending on the country/s involved it may very well be scanned by the same agency.
In AU the AD FD and Pine Gap share Data though depending on the current situation the sharing may be more complete today than at other times. It all depends on just how "Complex" the current Political Situation actually is.
Col
For instance an easy one is saying something like Nuke the unit where the word "Nuke" would be flagged and then be ruled out with the following Boot & Nuke being used in the same sentence or very soon after. That way it would pick up the difference between referring to a computer program commonly used and a fission weapon.
Though using the words Nuke & Fission Weapon in the same sentence is defiantly going to raise lots of Red Flags.
So in this case as I'm in AU the above would be scanned by the Australian Defense Force Directorate in Western Australia and the US Base at Pine Gap before leaving AU and then by another CIA Base when it enters the US. Both Pine Gap and whichever CIA scanning station which is being used would then forward the data onto a area to investigate more deeply to see that No Further Action is Required and then finally the FBI through one of the other Homeland Security Agencies would also scan the message when it was sent internally within the US.
As both the CIA and FBI as well as any other Internal Security Agencies don't share Information the process is replicated and the costs increased accordingly.
Of course if this transmission was directed through one or more other countries like somewhere in Europe the message would be scanned going into each country, being transmitted across that country and again as it left that country, though depending on the country/s involved it may very well be scanned by the same agency.
In AU the AD FD and Pine Gap share Data though depending on the current situation the sharing may be more complete today than at other times. It all depends on just how "Complex" the current Political Situation actually is.
Col
In order to extradite a non-US citizen from their country (or any treaty contry for that matter) the US Government would have to demonstrate they have a reasonable chance of succesfully prosecuting an indictable, criminal offence. I'd suggest they'd need a lot more than some captured "cyber-traffic" intel in order to do that.
As an honest citizen of a non-US "developed" country I don't really care what you do with the information about me that crosses the border into the US if it helps to protect that information from criminals who would seek to use that information for their own gain. At some stage we have to have some faith that our governments are more trustworthy than organised crime. Otherwise what's the point in having an ordered society - we might as well go back to unfettered tribal warfare!
As an honest citizen of a non-US "developed" country I don't really care what you do with the information about me that crosses the border into the US if it helps to protect that information from criminals who would seek to use that information for their own gain. At some stage we have to have some faith that our governments are more trustworthy than organised crime. Otherwise what's the point in having an ordered society - we might as well go back to unfettered tribal warfare!
The information will be shared with other certified entities as well. Verizon could share with AT&T and so on. Government most likely has all it needs already. One source expects to see an increase in spam from entities never contacted by a user.
The US was chasing a Mentally retarded person for Hacking their Military looking for proof of UFOs from the UK.
I believe that they got that one though it did take a couple of years and I have heard no more reported about it either.
That is just one example of where things can go wrong particularly if you do not realize you are Hacking into a Secure Environment. After all None have a Big Warning on the front door Caution Do not Enter list name of Federal Agency here.
The current problem with the US and Computer Security is that they have none, they expect you not to do the wrong thing and give you no warning that you maybe straying into places that you really don't want to be.
Example Bradley Manning who has just pleaded Guilty was given a computer that had a Record-able Optical Drive and was allowed to enter his work area with Blank Media and then remove it after his shift was finished basically unchecked and most defiantly never challenged.
Back in the days when I worked in areas like that the systems had no ability to write to media other than internal Media and while you could take any record-able Media onto the Base if you tried to take any off the base for any reason but Authorized Data Transfers you where in a World of Hurt with lots of Explanations being asked from from the MP's.
Try to remove anything from the base even with the right paperwork and you knew all about it. Why isn't that happening today? I can answer that and it's because it costs money.
The same applies to a lot of Supposedly Secure Environments they are Secure in Name Only it's just the same as stamping Top Secret on a document and that prevents it from being copied, stolen or otherwise distributed. Security by Fear of Reprisals is no Security at all.
Col
I believe that they got that one though it did take a couple of years and I have heard no more reported about it either.
That is just one example of where things can go wrong particularly if you do not realize you are Hacking into a Secure Environment. After all None have a Big Warning on the front door Caution Do not Enter list name of Federal Agency here.
The current problem with the US and Computer Security is that they have none, they expect you not to do the wrong thing and give you no warning that you maybe straying into places that you really don't want to be.
Example Bradley Manning who has just pleaded Guilty was given a computer that had a Record-able Optical Drive and was allowed to enter his work area with Blank Media and then remove it after his shift was finished basically unchecked and most defiantly never challenged.
Back in the days when I worked in areas like that the systems had no ability to write to media other than internal Media and while you could take any record-able Media onto the Base if you tried to take any off the base for any reason but Authorized Data Transfers you where in a World of Hurt with lots of Explanations being asked from from the MP's.
Try to remove anything from the base even with the right paperwork and you knew all about it. Why isn't that happening today? I can answer that and it's because it costs money.
The same applies to a lot of Supposedly Secure Environments they are Secure in Name Only it's just the same as stamping Top Secret on a document and that prevents it from being copied, stolen or otherwise distributed. Security by Fear of Reprisals is no Security at all.
Col
There is no doubt in my mind that as government flails away not solving the real problems, they are putting in place an infrastructure to radically restrict the privacy of Americans. This goes all the way from foreign bank accounts to the ability to surveil from drones without warrants to no notice warrants to inspecting every bit in every message to saving all electronic communications in Utah.
We really need to ask why the government is putting all this in place.
We really need to ask why the government is putting all this in place.
One has to wonder if any of these measures would have prevented any of the attacks, cyber or otherwise?
I don't know if this law will prevent a cyber attack, but it may help to limit the scope and effect of the attack. If you find an unusual number of companies in the same sector that are comprised by a similar piece of malware they it would be possible to issue an advisory that may help other company detect or defend against similar attacks. This could limit the total number of compromises and help detect and cleanup existing ones. I'm not for or against this law yet (haven't read enough), but information sharing is a very powerful tool and can be used for good or for bad.
Bill
Bill
It's more of an intelligence-gathering project than anything, at least that's what I have been gleaning from the reports.
Intel helps determine what is happening and why which can help limit and stop an attack. If it's real good intel it may be able to prevent an incident all together.
Bill
Bill
All of this is busy work. It is designed to keep us from seeing what the governement is really doing for *their* masters and allows them to control the information when someone starts to see through the FUD.
Say no to CISPA.
Say no to CISPA.
Just get every company to forward all firewall block logs, intrusion detection alerts, network scan probes etc to the Feds and watch them drown under the noise.
The problem with your statement Jason is that right now there is so much computer power availlable to the goverment that they won't drown in the data flood...
Safety in numbers is a passed station
Safety in numbers is a passed station
If it would overwhelm them. According to many they have the capability, or are close to it already in Utah (http://www.sltrib.com/ci_12735293).
How do you find attacks that aren't logged by defensive devices? If firewalls and IDS's were enough then there wouldn't be a need for this legislation.
Bill
Bill
The jest of this bill is to find out about attacks before they occur -- hence the term intelligence.
Here are the definitions for Cyber threat and cyber intelligence from the bill:
"(4) CYBER THREAT INFORMATION-
(A) IN GENERAL- The term cyber threat information means information directly pertaining to--
(i) a vulnerability of a system or network of a government or private entity;
(ii) a threat to the integrity, confidentiality, or availability of a system or network of a government or private entity or any information stored on, processed on, or transiting such a system or network;
(iii) efforts to deny access to or degrade, disrupt, or destroy a system or network of a government or private entity; or
(iv) efforts to gain unauthorized access to a system or network of a government or private entity, including to gain such unauthorized access for the purpose of exfiltrating information stored on, processed on, or transiting a system or network of a government or private entity.
(B) EXCLUSION- Such term does not include information pertaining to efforts to gain unauthorized access to a system or network of a government or private entity that solely involve violations of consumer terms of service or consumer licensing agreements and do not otherwise constitute unauthorized access.
(5) CYBER THREAT INTELLIGENCE-
(A) IN GENERAL- The term cyber threat intelligence means intelligence in the possession of an element of the intelligence community directly pertaining to--
(i) a vulnerability of a system or network of a government or private entity;
(ii) a threat to the integrity, confidentiality, or availability of a system or network of a government or private entity or any information stored on, processed on, or transiting such a system or network;
(iii) efforts to deny access to or degrade, disrupt, or destroy a system or network of a government or private entity; or
(iv) efforts to gain unauthorized access to a system or network of a government or private entity, including to gain such unauthorized access for the purpose of exfiltrating information stored on, processed on, or transiting a system or network of a government or private entity.
(B) EXCLUSION- Such term does not include intelligence pertaining to efforts to gain unauthorized access to a system or network of a government or private entity that solely involve violations of consumer terms of service or consumer licensing agreements and do not otherwise constitute unauthorized access."
If you notice the "efforts to deny access" statement? This indicates some type of network attack. It may be a limited attack probing for vulnerabilities or to test responses. This bill isn't just about scanning peoples email to see if they are threatening the US or some company. Intelligence isn't just listening in on conversations, it's about looking for indicators. Indicators could be an increase in port scan's from a particular IP address or an oddly crafted IP packet. Will this involve scanning email? Probably, but then again email is a very common means of gaining an initial foothold in an organization.
Bill
Edited and completely changed point
"(4) CYBER THREAT INFORMATION-
(A) IN GENERAL- The term cyber threat information means information directly pertaining to--
(i) a vulnerability of a system or network of a government or private entity;
(ii) a threat to the integrity, confidentiality, or availability of a system or network of a government or private entity or any information stored on, processed on, or transiting such a system or network;
(iii) efforts to deny access to or degrade, disrupt, or destroy a system or network of a government or private entity; or
(iv) efforts to gain unauthorized access to a system or network of a government or private entity, including to gain such unauthorized access for the purpose of exfiltrating information stored on, processed on, or transiting a system or network of a government or private entity.
(B) EXCLUSION- Such term does not include information pertaining to efforts to gain unauthorized access to a system or network of a government or private entity that solely involve violations of consumer terms of service or consumer licensing agreements and do not otherwise constitute unauthorized access.
(5) CYBER THREAT INTELLIGENCE-
(A) IN GENERAL- The term cyber threat intelligence means intelligence in the possession of an element of the intelligence community directly pertaining to--
(i) a vulnerability of a system or network of a government or private entity;
(ii) a threat to the integrity, confidentiality, or availability of a system or network of a government or private entity or any information stored on, processed on, or transiting such a system or network;
(iii) efforts to deny access to or degrade, disrupt, or destroy a system or network of a government or private entity; or
(iv) efforts to gain unauthorized access to a system or network of a government or private entity, including to gain such unauthorized access for the purpose of exfiltrating information stored on, processed on, or transiting a system or network of a government or private entity.
(B) EXCLUSION- Such term does not include intelligence pertaining to efforts to gain unauthorized access to a system or network of a government or private entity that solely involve violations of consumer terms of service or consumer licensing agreements and do not otherwise constitute unauthorized access."
If you notice the "efforts to deny access" statement? This indicates some type of network attack. It may be a limited attack probing for vulnerabilities or to test responses. This bill isn't just about scanning peoples email to see if they are threatening the US or some company. Intelligence isn't just listening in on conversations, it's about looking for indicators. Indicators could be an increase in port scan's from a particular IP address or an oddly crafted IP packet. Will this involve scanning email? Probably, but then again email is a very common means of gaining an initial foothold in an organization.
Bill
Edited and completely changed point
I included those points in my article, actually. What you are talking about is already supposedly being done by government agencies. What has advocates worried is the sharing of this information between companies, which have immunity if they act in good faith, which is not defined.
Isn't that the PROBLEM here? 
Not to mention the fox-hen house thing.
Not to mention the fox-hen house thing.
Each category of personal data that is specifically protected from distribution under CISPA is there because someone made a stink about it being distributed during the debates over prior legislation, such as the "PATRIOT" act or what has come to be known as "Obamacare" (I don't remember the formal name of that bill-- and can't quite be bothered to look it up).
I think CISPA's proponents learned from those prior debates what types of personal info Americans hold dearest (and most private) and tried to defuse the most rancorous part of this debate by taking them off the table.
I think CISPA's proponents learned from those prior debates what types of personal info Americans hold dearest (and most private) and tried to defuse the most rancorous part of this debate by taking them off the table.
To be honest, I would have thought credit-card and more immediate financial information would be of importance.
If credit card info isn't encrypted then there is already a problem. Without doing SSL inspection (basically a man-in-the-middle attack) it is extremely costly (if not impossible) to look at encrypted traffic. Most financial traffic is encrypted, but if someone does a search for a medical condition then that could be shared with the government without a clause in the act.
Bill
Bill
If your web browser has a mobile web browser, the MitM attack may already be in place:
http://www.techrepublic.com/blog/security/redirection-and-decryption-of-mobile-traffic-is-your-browser-a-mitm/9115?tag=content;blog-list-river
http://www.techrepublic.com/blog/security/redirection-and-decryption-of-mobile-traffic-is-your-browser-a-mitm/9115?tag=content;blog-list-river
If you don't think having an infrastructure capable of manufacturing millions of devices and handling gig's of traffic isn't expensive then maybe we are in different tax bracket's. Sure, you also could have keyloggers built into the firmware, but not every company has either of these capabilities.
Talking about costs, the backlash from this could cost Nokia a good chunk of money. For a large well known company to perform these types of actions is gambling. Look at the Sony root kit or DigiNotar. If you don't think these actions cost them lots of money then we will have to agree to disagree on that point.
Bill
Talking about costs, the backlash from this could cost Nokia a good chunk of money. For a large well known company to perform these types of actions is gambling. Look at the Sony root kit or DigiNotar. If you don't think these actions cost them lots of money then we will have to agree to disagree on that point.
Bill
Only a chosen few need to scan, the information could then be shared. And what backlash, they have immunity and I don't see how anyone will know, as does the EFF.
Same way that people find out about companies doing illegal activities. The backlash is people not buying their products, ie DigiNotar.
It seems like your own example shows the process. Someone notices something odd, researches it and then releases the info. Is what Nokia is doing a socially acceptable, legal process with or without CISPA? I am betting that someone at the company had the conversation about creating an intentional man-in-the-middle process before this project even started. If the CISPA passes then there may be a larger chunk of the population that suddenly realizes they don't want their data shared with other entities and goes out and buys HTC or motorola or samsung or (insert name here) phones. So then Nokia either changes their process or loses market share.
This still doesn't reduce the cost or the risk except for 3rd parties. I really don't see people being ok with this for very long and if this goes badly for Nokia then I don't see other manufacturers following suite (or they will change their way quickly). Ubuntu has been dealing with similar issues due to their Amazon search feature.
The CISPA doesn't condone or make MitM legal or acceptable. It just add a broader impact to the process and could make the public outcry louder. Where it could really have an impact is in companies that require it. A number of companies have set up SSL inspection for protection purposes, but people should know what is happening. If they choose to do banking knowing that their data could be recorded then it was a voluntary action.
Bill
It seems like your own example shows the process. Someone notices something odd, researches it and then releases the info. Is what Nokia is doing a socially acceptable, legal process with or without CISPA? I am betting that someone at the company had the conversation about creating an intentional man-in-the-middle process before this project even started. If the CISPA passes then there may be a larger chunk of the population that suddenly realizes they don't want their data shared with other entities and goes out and buys HTC or motorola or samsung or (insert name here) phones. So then Nokia either changes their process or loses market share.
This still doesn't reduce the cost or the risk except for 3rd parties. I really don't see people being ok with this for very long and if this goes badly for Nokia then I don't see other manufacturers following suite (or they will change their way quickly). Ubuntu has been dealing with similar issues due to their Amazon search feature.
The CISPA doesn't condone or make MitM legal or acceptable. It just add a broader impact to the process and could make the public outcry louder. Where it could really have an impact is in companies that require it. A number of companies have set up SSL inspection for protection purposes, but people should know what is happening. If they choose to do banking knowing that their data could be recorded then it was a voluntary action.
Bill
FOIA is about ensuring transparency in the government not about accessing your personal files maintained by the government. The Privacy Act addresses this and under it you have the right to see records about yourself. How you would go about requesting data collected under CISPA I don't know, but, in theory, if you can find the right button then you should be able to request access to your file. This is a quote from a government web site about the privacy act:
http://publications.usa.gov/epublications/foia/foia.htm
"How do I know if an agency has a file on me?
If you think a particular agency has a file pertaining to you, you may write to the Privacy Act Officer. Agencies are generally required to inform you, upon request, whether or not they have files on you. In addition, agencies are required to report publicly the existence of all systems of records they keep on individuals. The Office of the Federal Register makes available on the internet a compilation of each agencys systems of records notices, including exemptions, as well as its Privacy Act regulations. The Privacy Act Issuances Compilation includes most systems, is updated every two years, and can be found at www.gpoaccess.gov/privacyact/index.html."
Personal data is specifically not releasable under FOIA to protect individuals privacy. If the Inspector Generals report was specific enough to identify individuals then it too would not be releasable, nor would you want it to be. ID theft is bad enough without the government intentionally giving out large amounts of personal data.
Bill
http://publications.usa.gov/epublications/foia/foia.htm
"How do I know if an agency has a file on me?
If you think a particular agency has a file pertaining to you, you may write to the Privacy Act Officer. Agencies are generally required to inform you, upon request, whether or not they have files on you. In addition, agencies are required to report publicly the existence of all systems of records they keep on individuals. The Office of the Federal Register makes available on the internet a compilation of each agencys systems of records notices, including exemptions, as well as its Privacy Act regulations. The Privacy Act Issuances Compilation includes most systems, is updated every two years, and can be found at www.gpoaccess.gov/privacyact/index.html."
Personal data is specifically not releasable under FOIA to protect individuals privacy. If the Inspector Generals report was specific enough to identify individuals then it too would not be releasable, nor would you want it to be. ID theft is bad enough without the government intentionally giving out large amounts of personal data.
Bill
I do not see that going far enough. They can collect anything that you send over the internet. They could claim it was not private or personal, but it came from you.
Your article only talked about FOIA which is the wrong way to go about trying to determine if the government is recording data about you. Sure, the Privacy Act may not go far enough, but that really wasn't the focus of my comment.
Bill
Bill
I was just passing along what the bill said.
"The EFF does acknowledge the legal process, but adds:
.... An individual could not even use transparency laws, like FOIA (Freedom of Information Act), to find out, because the information shared is exempt from disclosure."
The bill says nothing about how people would discover mis-use. That was the EFF. I think I pointed it out because you chose that direct quote to answer the "What can I do to stop the government from misusing my private information?"
FOIA could NEVER be used to determine mis-use of PERSONAL information (Purposely upper case for emphasis). The EFF really needs to read and understand the difference between FOIA and the Privacy Act. FOIA is agency created data, Privacy Act is PII. There was a big debate in Oregon recently because PERS release the names and dollar figures for people with the largest retirement benefits. I think the only reason the info was release (after years of court battles) is because PERS creates the formula's that generate the dollar figures.
http://www.oregonlive.com/politics/index.ssf/2011/11/top_beneficiary_of_oregon_publ.html
Bill
.... An individual could not even use transparency laws, like FOIA (Freedom of Information Act), to find out, because the information shared is exempt from disclosure."
The bill says nothing about how people would discover mis-use. That was the EFF. I think I pointed it out because you chose that direct quote to answer the "What can I do to stop the government from misusing my private information?"
FOIA could NEVER be used to determine mis-use of PERSONAL information (Purposely upper case for emphasis). The EFF really needs to read and understand the difference between FOIA and the Privacy Act. FOIA is agency created data, Privacy Act is PII. There was a big debate in Oregon recently because PERS release the names and dollar figures for people with the largest retirement benefits. I think the only reason the info was release (after years of court battles) is because PERS creates the formula's that generate the dollar figures.
http://www.oregonlive.com/politics/index.ssf/2011/11/top_beneficiary_of_oregon_publ.html
Bill
When I want to increase security, I always spread all my sensitive data around to as many entities not under my direct control as possible, too!
Oh, wait, no I don't.
There is no trade-off between privacy and security here. It's downhill for both when bills like these pass. The only "security" these jackasses in Congress are really trying to achieve is job security, which depends far more on marketing and appearances than actual effective policy. Counterproductive policies like CISPA are right up that alley.
Oh, wait, no I don't.
There is no trade-off between privacy and security here. It's downhill for both when bills like these pass. The only "security" these jackasses in Congress are really trying to achieve is job security, which depends far more on marketing and appearances than actual effective policy. Counterproductive policies like CISPA are right up that alley.
The way things are going, I think a name change is in order. Any government agency with the word "security" in it would have the word replaced with "suppression". Example: The DHS (Department of Homeland Security) should be renamed to the Department of Homeland Suppression (same initials)!! The following definitions from Wikipedia would justify the change!
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The term suppression may refer to:
Oppression, the exercise of authority or power in a burdensome, cruel, or unjust manner, also an act or instance of oppressing
Censorship, the suppression of public communication considered objectionable to the general body of people as determined by a government or media outlet
Voter suppression, a strategy to influence the outcome of an election by discouraging or preventing people from exercising their right to vote
Cultural suppression, occurs when a culture is suppressed, usually coinciding with the promotion of another culture, often related to cultural imperialism
Religious intolerance, intolerance against another's religious beliefs or practices by individuals, private groups, government agencies or the whole government
Suppression of dissent, occurs when an individual or group tries to censor, persecute or otherwise oppress the other party rather than communicate logically
Thought suppression, the process of deliberately trying to stop thinking about certain thoughts, associated with obsessive-compulsive disord
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The term suppression may refer to:
Oppression, the exercise of authority or power in a burdensome, cruel, or unjust manner, also an act or instance of oppressing
Censorship, the suppression of public communication considered objectionable to the general body of people as determined by a government or media outlet
Voter suppression, a strategy to influence the outcome of an election by discouraging or preventing people from exercising their right to vote
Cultural suppression, occurs when a culture is suppressed, usually coinciding with the promotion of another culture, often related to cultural imperialism
Religious intolerance, intolerance against another's religious beliefs or practices by individuals, private groups, government agencies or the whole government
Suppression of dissent, occurs when an individual or group tries to censor, persecute or otherwise oppress the other party rather than communicate logically
Thought suppression, the process of deliberately trying to stop thinking about certain thoughts, associated with obsessive-compulsive disord
My friend and colleague Robert X. Cringley has a great piece on CISPA:
http://www.infoworld.com/t/cringely/cispas-second-serving-even-worse-the-first-215192?source=IFWNLE_nlt_notes_2013-03-25
http://www.infoworld.com/t/cringely/cispas-second-serving-even-worse-the-first-215192?source=IFWNLE_nlt_notes_2013-03-25
- Keyboard Shortcuts:
- Prev
- Next
- Toggle
