This And That: News in Brief

 There's a lot going on, and only a little time to write about it. So here's a few things that have been going on, but we haven't had the time to write about it in-depth.

With the Pandemic and US Presidential Election in the news lately, something called the CASE Act was almost unnoticed. Tacked onto the Coronovirus relief bill, the act was to "a small claims court-type system within the United States Copyright Office for copyright owners to seek damages under US$30,000 for copyright violations." It got the attention of one SL DJ whom was concerned as it sounded like streaming for public performance would become a felony under the bill.

A residential area, Baja Cove, closed down, "it was a beautiful New Jersey like beach."

Flash is no longer operating for computers, and with it, a number of browser games, and animated files are no longer playing.

We still have yet to write about the Silent Hill "Otherworld" area, an interactive horror area where monsters attack people as they explore an area. For those who can't wait for the article, you can check it out at Chief (42/87/691).

A new kind of breedable pet was recommended  to us to write about. We'll get to it soon.

Second Life's land area grew over the previous year according to Tyche Shepherd, from 24740 regions to 25555, with most of the increase being private sims.

Stay tuned for more on these, and other topics.

"EARN IT" Bill In Congress Could Mean Bad News For Internet Freedom

By Bixyl Shuftan

There's another Internet bill in Congress that could have potentially dire consequences for privacy expectations people online take for granted. Introduced "to establish a National Commission on Online Child Exploitation Prevention, and for other purposes," the "Eliminating Abusive and Rampant Neglect of  Interactive Technologies" Act, or EARN IT, "opens the door for the government to require new measures to screen users’ speech and even backdoors to read your private communications."

According to an article in Bloomberg, "The bipartisan measure, ... would affect a wide range of social media companies, cloud service providers, email and text platforms and other technology services. It could put Facebook in the government’s crosshairs for its plans to encrypt all of its messaging apps and undercut Apple’s refusal to create back doors into its devices and services." The article would go on to say, "The Justice Department has tentatively scheduled a Feb. 19 meeting on the future of the immunity known as Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act ... The provision protects platforms from responsibility for content posted by third parties. Although the measure doesn’t directly mention encryption, it would require that companies work with law enforcement to identify, remove, report and preserve evidence related to child exploitation -- which critics said would be impossible to do for services such as WhatsApp that are encrypted from end-to-end."

Companies would have to "certify that they are following the best practices set by the 15-member commission." If they don't to its satisfaction, "they would lose the legal immunity they currently enjoy under Section 230 relating to child exploitation and abuse laws. That would open the door to lawsuits for 'reckless' violations of those laws ..."

Supporters of the bill insist the ability to read encrypted messages is necessary, saying efforts to protect encryption, “will make it harder to detect -- and stop -- child abuse and similar crimes." Elliot Harmon of the Electronic Frontier Foundation retorted that if the bill became law, "the Attorney General could unilaterally dictate how online platforms and services must operate. If those companies don’t follow the Attorney General’s rules, they could be on the hook for millions of dollars in civil damages and even state criminal penalties. ... It opens the door for the government to require new measures to screen users’ speech and even backdoors to read your private communications.

"EARN IT undermines Section 230, the most important law protecting free speech online. Section 230 enforces the common-sense principle that if you say something illegal online, you should be the one held responsible, not the website or platform where you said it. Section 230 has played a crucial role in creating the modern Internet. Without it, social media as we know it today wouldn’t exist, and neither would the Internet Archive, Wikimedia, and many other essential educational and community resources. And it doesn’t just protect tech platforms either: if you’ve ever forwarded an email, thank Section 230 that you could do that without inviting legal risk on yourself." Harmon would call the bill an attack on Internet Security, entrepreneur innovation, and just plain unnecessary.

Facebook's CEO Mark Zuckerburg has stated his company will continue to be “standing up for encryption, against those who say that privacy mostly helps bad people.” Senator Ron Wyden has openly spoken in protest about the bill, "a tired, debunked plan to blow a hole in one of the most important security features protecting digital lives of the American people."

The website fightforthefuture.org/ has a petition calling on Congress to reject the bill. As of the writing of this article, it has over 8660 of the 12,800 signatures it set as a goal.

The Justice Department is currently led by Attorney General William Barr, whom lately has been the target of calls to resign for interfering with the trial of an ally of President Trump.

Sources: Electronic Frontier Foundation, Fight for the Future, Reuters, Bloomberg, Ron Wyden

Bixyl Shuftan

"A Dark Day For Internet Freedom" : EU Passes Vauge Copyright Bill

On Tuesday March 27, the European Parliament voted in favor of the "Copyright Directive," a controversial bill that advocates of Internet freedom charge is vague and threatens public rights of expression online. The vote was 348 to 274.

While not an immediate blow to those wishing to express themselves online, there are still a number of steps before the bill becomes law in Europe, the bill is still a threat. Particularly worrisome are Article 11, the "link tax," which could make it impossible for websites such as Wikipedia to function in countries affected, and Article 13 (which has been changed to Article 17) which would require websites and platforms that allow for content to be loaded to install "upload filters" as a preventive measure to stop copyrighted content.

The law is vague and subject to interpretation, but the potential consequences to Second Life are very bad. Linden Lab could be given a stark choice: the instillation of expensive and clumsy upload filters that would certainly anger it's users due to content creation becoming far more difficult if it involves bringing textures and other things into the virtual world and the fees jacked up greatly to make up for Linden Lab's expenses, or block the IP addresses of the affected countries.

The next step for the bill is when it goes to the European Council. While it previously looked like it would pass there easily, "one of two countries responsible for the final wording of Article 13 (/ 17) ... Germany is having something of a change of heart, with their Minister of Justice publicly opposing the idea of upload filters. ... five other member states – the Netherlands, Luxembourg, Poland, Italy, and Finland – have voiced public opposition to the Directive the vote. So should Germany, a key nation behind the legislation and of the EU, change its mind between now and April 9th, it would prevent a Council majority being reached." This would mean the bill would need to be renegotiated, and activists would have a chance to vote a number of legislators supporting it out of office.

As Inara Pey of Modem World put it, "while a significant battle against the EU Copyright Directive has been lost," the war's not over yet, but "it is going to be significantly harder to win."

Sources: The Verge, Modem World, BBC, CNet,

Image credit: Nydia Tungsten 

Bixyl Shuftan

European Union Copyright Directive Threatens Virtual Worlds, Internet, With Mass-Censorship

By Bixyl Shuftan

Lately it seems the Internet has been under assault. With the end of Net Neutrality in the United States, some companies have already started throttling traffic. In August, Verizon was caught throttling the Internet connection of California firefighters while dealing with a huge wildfire. One digital rights spokesman spoke of the incident, “If Verizon was willing to do this to a fire department during the state’s largest wildfire, when public safety should have been paramount, it’s easy to imagine what they are willing to do to everyday consumers.”

But unfortunately, the worst seems yet to come, and not from the United States. The European Union recently approved  legislation that has been described as threatening to "break the Internet," As Cory Doctorow explained in "New World Notes" and an "Electronic Frontier Foundation" article. Two parts of the bill, Article 11 and Article 13, have gotten the most attention. Article 11 is the "link tax," which requires platforms such as Facebook and Google to "to pay news outlets for the privilege of linking or quoting articles." Wikipedia, which would be badly hurt by the legislation, called it a threat to "freedom of expression ... online." Gizmodo commented the legislation would, "make it all but impossible for Wikipedia and other non-profit educational sources to do their work because of their reliance on links, quotes, and citation."

Article 13 would mean bad news for Second Life and other virtual worlds that allow users to create content. They would require any platform or website "that allow users to post text, sounds, code, still or moving images," etc. will have to create "upload filters" to compare all uploaded content to a database of copyrighted works, "that will be compiled by allowing anyone to claim copyright on anything, uploading thousands of works at a time. Anything that appears to match the 'copyright database' is blocked on sight, and you have to beg the platform's human moderators to review your case to get your work reinstated."

That the owners of Second Life and other platforms that fall under this bill are headquartered outside the EU won't necessarily protect them, "The EU has treaties with most of the world that allow for civil judgments to be collected in some circumstances; it's likely that future trade-deals with the EU (like the recently completed EU-Canada trade deal) would require that trading partners allow EU companies to sue and collect judgments under the EU Copyright Directive. That means that even non-EU companies could be forced to comply with these rules." And if they got in trouble with the EU over copyright issues, "those companies would not be able to establish sales/support offices in the EU, their executives would face civil and possibly criminal sanctions if they visited the EU, and they would be at risk of losing their ability to receive payments from EU customers."

Developing such a content filter in the first place wouldn't be cheap. "Google spent $60 million developing the ContentID filter system that is only capable of analyzing audio-tracks of video." Something that would analyze everything from pictures to meshes to avatars would be considerably more expensive. It would certainly be beyond the ability of smaller virtual worlds such as the OpenSim grids to pay.

And how good would it be? Most likely it would err on the side of caution, and much content that resembled copyrighted material instead of matching it would also be blocked. A content creator who found his goods blocked would have to appeal to a human moderator, and if that failed, the only recourse might be a lawsuit. Complicating the issue further are "copyright trolls" As Doctorow explained, ""[T]his is a boon for griefers. Since the rule has no penalties for abuse, griefers could claim copyright over public domain works, works that others had created, etc, and block other players from using them -- you could upload every military insignia, the logo of a rival clan, etc."

The bill doesn't go into effect right away. It will go into closed-door meetings between EU and national government representatives, then next spring the language gets voted on, then the 28 member states' governments debate on their own versions of the bill, and there are court challenges. But companies like Second Life's Linden Lab face a stark choice, either pay huge sums of money for filters that will anger their users, or block IP addresses from European countries with such bills. As Second Life has thousands of European residents, this would be a very sad, and costly, move for the Lab.

Sources: The Guardian,SaveYourInternet, New World Notes, Gizmodo, Wikimedia, Electronic Freedom Foundation   

Bixyl Shuftan

CISPA Passes US House, Stalling in Senate

While the nation's attention has been on the Boston bombers and questions about their links to Islamic terrorism, computer users faced some other worries. On Thursday April 18th, the CISPA Bill passed the US House of Representatives by a vote of 288-127.

CISPA, officially named the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act, was introduced supposedly as to help the government "investigate cyber threats and ensure the security of networks against cyberattacks." But it has been heavily criticized for being a threat to the public's right to privacy. This includes permitting authorities to search databases without warrants, and Internet service providers would be banned from making "legally binding" promises to protect users' privacy.

Fortunately for privacy activists, the bill's future is iffy, at least for the short term. The Senate has been preoccupied with other issues such as immigration and the right to buy firearms. The White House has also threatened to veto the bill if concerns about privacy issues were unanswered, "Citizens have a right to know that corporations will be held accountable, and not granted immunity, for failing to safeguard personal information adequately … " This is a similar course to what happened in 2012, and the bill was never taken up by the Senate that year.


Sources: ABC News (Chicago) , CNet, Wikipedia

Bixyl Shuftan

CISPA Internet Bill Passed in US House

According to Forbes.com, the CISPA Internet bill, which sparked privacy worries among numerous Internet freedom advocates, was passed in Washington. "In an earlier-than-expected vote Thursday evening, the House of Representatives voted 248 to 168 in favor of the bill."

According to writer Andy Greenman, Trevor Timm, a lawyer and activist with the Electronic Frontier Foundation, felt, "the House’s early vote on CISPA as an attempt by its author, representative Mike Rogers, to squeeze the bill through before its opposition grew any stronger." The bill was also amended before passage, "the House voted to amend the bill to actually allow even more types of private sector information to be shared with government agencies, not merely in matters of cybersecurity or national security, but in the investigation of vaguely defined cybersecurity 'crimes,' 'protection of individuals from the danger of death or serious bodily harm,' and cases that involve the protection of minors from exploitation." It was a move that raised further concerns from opponents. Techdirt.com's Leigh Beadon called it "an absolutely terrible change."

"Somehow, incredibly, this was described as limiting CISPA, but it accomplishes the exact opposite," Beadon wrote, "CISPA is now a completely unsupportable bill that rewrites (and effectively eliminates) all privacy laws for any situation that involves a computer. Far from the defense against malevolent foreign entities that the bill was described as by its authors, it is now an explicit attack on the freedoms of every American."

The bill still has to be passed in the Senate before heading to the White House, which has come out against it recently. Timm saw hope it would be beaten, "We’ve seen an explosion of a variety of groups and congressmen coming out against the bill,” he says. “As the Senate debates this, it’s good that privacy and civil liberties will be front and center.”

Sources: Forbes.com, Techdirt.com

Bixyl Shuftan

SOPA Act Two? CISPA to be Decided in US House as Soon as Today

Remember the mess over SOPA in December and January? This proposed law had the potential for becoming "The Great Firewall of America," possibly meaning the end of favorite places online such as Youtube, Facebook, and Second Life. Despite a Congress seemingly poised to approve it, opposition to it and it's sister bill PIPA grew in numbers. The backers of SOPA eventually shelved it from a vote, and the opponents had seemingly won.

However, a new bill, H.R. 3523,  has made it through committee: the "Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act," or CISPA. Intended to "allow the voluntary sharing of attack and threat information between the U.S. government and security cleared technology and manufacturing companies to ensure the security of networks against patterns of attack," the bill "has been criticized by advocates of Internet privacy and neutrality, such as the Electronic Frontier Foundation … because they feel it contains too few limits on how and when the government may monitor private information when it might become collaterally entangled in the process of passing threat information, and too few safeguards with respect to how the data may be used; they fear that such new powers may be used to find and punish file sharers and copyright infringers rather than the stated foreign spies or hackers."

An article in Forbes.com describes opposition to the bill as mounting, "On Monday, a group of more than fifty professors, entrepreneurs and information security professionals published an open letter to Congress calling on lawmakers to oppose CISPA and other overbroad cybersecurity bills like the SECURE IT Act … CISPA has a very different focus from SOPA and PIPA, the much-loathed antipiracy bills killed by a similar groundswell of Internet anger in February. Whereas SOPA and PIPA raised fears of censorship, CISPA’s vague data-sharing statutes are largely seen as a threat to privacy, although some are also interpreting the bill as allowing site blocking. And whereas SOPA pitted Silicon Valley against Hollywood, CISPA seems to have the support of many technology and Web-based companies, including Facebook, Microsoft, Symantec, and IBM."

Tim Berners-Lee, the inventor of the Web, spoke last week the bill "is threatening the rights of people in America, and effectively rights everywhere." Senator Ron Paul spoke out against the bill, saying it would make "government spies of Facebook and Google." Eighteen House Representatives signed a letter opposing the bill, at least in its current form. The White House has also come out against CISPA. Avaaz.org has a petition against the bill with three-quarters of a million signatures, with the goal of making it a million. Reddit has a number of "anti-CISPA discussions."

CISPA is expected to be voted on in the House of Represenatives today.


Sources: Wikipedia, Forbes.com, Electronic Frontier Foundation, Avaaz.org, Reddit,

Bixyl Shuftan