The hacking community has taken notice to another hacker who claims to have internal documents on several governments from around the world including the US, Russia and several European countries. To prove it, the hacker released a small set of "preview" leaks which appear to be internal documents of embassies and government minister offices.

Heynow, This is a prerelease of a series we are going to make to reveal the biggest in history of European LE cyber operation Evidence exploitation and abuse. Thing's gonna get published and twittered all over anonymous and lulzsec community. Today we were granted with the Italian law enforcement Pandora box, we really think it shall be a new era of “regreaissance” to the almighty Homeland Security Cyber Operation Unit in EU. So we decided to leak everything they got since they were established as a full scale cyber taskforce named CNAIPIC. This corrupted organization gathered all the evidence from the seized property of suspected computer professional entertainers and utilized it over many years to conduct illegal operations with foreign intelligence agencies and oligarchy to facilitate their lust for power and money, they never used obtained evidence to really support ongoing investigations. Today we reveal a whole Load of stuff (estimated leak would be over 8Gb) from such owned institutions, just to make it clear all of this stuff was stored on CNAIPIC evidence servers for years while people are doing time in jail waiting for the trial while CNAIPIC used the evidence in the global spy game galore

Egypt: Ministry of Transport and Communication Australia: Ministry of Defence Russia: Atomstroyexport, Diaskan, Sibneft, Gazprom etc. Ukraine: several embassies and consulates on it’s territory Nepal: Ministry of Foreign Affairs Belarus: Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Belneftehim, Belspetzexport Gibraltar, Cyprus, Cayman Islands etc: Tecno Develp, Line Holdings, Dugsberry Inc, Alpha Prime, Alpha Minerals etc. Vietnam: PetroVietnam (PTSC), Ministry of Natural Resources (MONRE) USA: EXXON MOBIL, US Department of agriculture and hundreds of attorneys and DOJ accounts including: McCallion & Associates LLP, Goodkind, Labaton, Rudoff & Sucharow, LLP, and hundreds of bullshit agencies we don’t even know why we pay taxes to support all of them.

The Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE), the world's largest security-oriented intergovernmental organization has issued a report that explicitly states that a three strikes law is a disproportionate response to dealing with copyright infringement.

The increased use of so-called “three-strikes” legal measures to combat Internet piracy is worrisome given the growing importance of the Internet in daily life. “Three-strikes” measures provide a “graduated response” resulting in restricting or cutting off the users’ access to the Internet in cases where a user has attempted to download pirated material. The third strike usually leads to the user’s access to the Internet being completely cut off. This disproportionate response is most likely to be incompatible with OSCE commitment on the “freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers.” (55) In the Charter for European Security, the participating States in 1999 “reaffirmed the importance of independent media and the free flow of information as well s the public’s access to information [and committed] to take all necessary steps to ensure the basic conditions for free and independent media and unimpeded transborder and intra-State flwo of information, which [they] consider the be an essential component of any democratic, free and open society.” (56) Any interference with such a fundamental human right, as with any other human right, must be motivated by a pressing social need, whose existence must be demonstrated by the OSCE participating States and must be proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued. (57) Access to the Internet must be recognized as a human right, and therefore “graduated response” mechanisms which could restrict users’ access to the Internet should be avoided by the OSCE participating States.

(55) Paragraph 9.1. of the Final Act of the Copenhagen Meeting of the Conference on the Human Dimension of the CSCE, June 1990. http://www.osce.org/documents/odihr/2006/06/19392_en.pdf (56) Paragraph 26 of the Charter for European Security adopted at the OSCE Istanbul Summit 1999. See at http://www.osce.org/mc/17502. (57) See Paragraph 26 of the Final Document o fthe Moscow Meeting of the Conference on the Human Dimension of the CSCE, at http://www.osce.org/fom/item_11_30426.html. See also Olsson v. Sweden (No. 1), judgment of 24 March 1988, Series A no. 130, § 67, and Bladet Tromsø and Stensaas v. Norway [GC], no. 21980/93, ECHR 1999-III.

May and June of 2011 may be two months Sony would rather forget. It's pretty much next to impossible to really track just how many times the multinational company was hacked. Still, that doesn't mean there are efforts out there to show just how much the company got hacked.

LulzSec might be gone as an entity, but their effect, and leaks, are living on. This time, their latest leak is targeting several government servers. Anonymous clearly is picking up where LulzSec left off.

The Anti-counterfeiting Trade Agreement has certainly been the most famous and controversial international agreements surrounding copyright. It left many stakeholders anywhere between unsatisfied to vehemently opposed. Now, one country involved in the negotiations has had their congress rejected the trade agreement outright.

The Standing Committee of H. Congress, respectfully urges the Federal Executive Power for the scope of its powers, instruct the ministries and agencies involved in negotiating the Anti Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA), not to sign the agreement.

Rumours were apparently circulating that LulzSec was involved in hacking the UK government. These rumours were followed up by a supposed arrest of one of its members, but LulzSec has denied both today.

False accusations have long been a subject for those sceptical of a three strikes law. Given the complexity of tying an IP address to a subscriber is much too complicated for any form of automated system, it should come as no surprise for sceptics to find out that people are wrongfully receiving notices for copyright infringement.

This was due to a software failure caused when the clocks went back last October, it said.

The DPC said it was investigating the complaint "including whether the subject matter gives rise to any questions as to the proportionality of the graduated response system operated by Eircom and the music industry"

This is unsurprising - when the Eircom / IRMA three strikes settlement was being agreed the Data Protection Commissioner identified significant data protection problems with it. These problems remain, notwithstanding the deeply flawed High Court judgment which approved of the system - a judgment which, for example, decided on the question of whether or not IP addresses are personal data without once considering the views of the Article 29 Working Party. It is not surprising that the Data Protection Commissioner was not convinced by that judgment (the judgment was problematic at least in part because the Commissioner was not represented - the only parties before the court had a vested interest in the system being implemented). However, until a concrete complaint arose no further action could be taken. The complaint in this case has now triggered that action, and it seems likely that the Commissioner will reach a decision reflecting his previous views that using IP addresses to cut off customers' internet connections is disproportionate and does not constitute "fair use" of personal information. If so, the Commissioner has the power and indeed the duty to issue an enforcement notice which would prevent Eircom from using personal data for this purpose - which would ultimately seem likely to put the matter back before the courts.

He created a website that allegedly linked to copyrighted material. Now, the US wants Richard O'Dwyer, the former owner of TVShack, to face a US court over his websites activities prior to both domain seizures.

A source close to Richard said: “He’s in total disbelief over the charges against him and very anxious about the impact this may have on his studies since he has two years left of his degree. He’s daunted and frightened by the prospect of being extradited to America let alone the disruption to his career.” His mother Julia O’Dwyer said the decision to put him on trial in the US was ‘madness’. “Richard clearly has a talent for web design but was foolish in not understanding the implications of copyright,” she said. “Yet to try to haul him off to America for trial while he’s midway through his university studies is so utterly disproportionate it defies belief.”

Terms of his bail involved not entering ports or airports and not applying to register new domain names. On Tuesday, O'Dwyer appeared before the City of Westminster Magistrates' Court for a brief preliminary hearing. His lawyer said the extradition demands made by the US breached O'Dwyer's human rights and there was no basis for extradition. "The server was not based in the US at all. Mr O'Dwyer did not have copyrighted material on his website; he simply provided a link. The essential contention is that the correct forum for this trial is in fact here in Britain, where he was at all times," Cooper is quoted in the report as saying.

Where this becomes really troubling is that other, very similar sites have been found legal in the UK multiple times. Running a site that users use to put up links and which doesn't host any actual content, is not seen as illegal in the UK. So it seems particularly ridiculous that there's some sort of attempt to extradite the guy to the US to face charges here. As some have pointed out it appears to be "an attempt to make US federal laws applicable in the UK." Unfortunately, the details of the extradition request are a bit muddled in all of the UK papers reporting on it. Lots of them are comparing the situation to the famous Gary McKinnon situation, but I think this is clearly different. This just seems blatantly vindictive for no good reason.

For the past few months or so, there have been numerous stories about security breaches. Earlier in the saga of security breaches, Sony wound up becoming the centre of attention for people breaking in to whatever system Sony had some control over whether it be their network, their website or a host of other hacks. More recently, Sony has found itself in good company with other organizations who had their security breached. Drew Wilson argues that we should really be thanking some of these hackers who bring to attention security vulnerabilities and pay more attention to online security.

One expert, who is part of the investigation and wants to remain anonymous because the inquiry is at an early stage, told The New York Times he wondered how the hackers could have known to breach security by focusing on the vulnerability in the browser. He said: 'It would have been hard to prepare for this type of vulnerability.'

this quote is the single stupidest and most frightening things I have ever read on the internet.

this is NOT a hard vulnerability to prepare for. If the only method of user authentication you are doing is based off a string of characters received from the URL your not even qualified to build an ecommerce site for some mom-and-pop 2-sales-a-week company, let alone a bank.

any session allows them to go digging around willy nilly is so unbelievably stupid, I can't even find the words.

I don't understand how this could happen to a bank [...]. It's ridiculous.

Heads need to roll for this one... Amazing. Words escape me.

The fark are those IT people doing all day?

If you're working for a financial institution and you're passing account information in through the address bar, your whole department needs to be laid off.

You gotta be f***ing sh****ing me, that is what they pass off as security?

So for the last ten years I've been working in media, trying to raise awareness of the idea that maybe, just maybe, using insecure computers to hold your secrets, conduct your commerce and run your infrastructure is a sh***y idea. No one who mattered listened. Executives think it's FUD. They honestly think that if they keep paying their annual AV subscriptions they'll be shielded by Mr. Norton's magic cloak. Security types like LulzSec because they're proving what a mess we're in. They're pointing at the elephant in the room and saying "LOOK AT THE GIGANTIC F***ING ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM ZOMG WHY CAN'T YOU SEE IT??? ITS TRUNK IS IN YR COFFEE FFS!!!" There is no security, there will be no security. The horse has bolted, and it's not going to be the infrastructure that's going to change, it's going to be us.

The slow trickle of leaked diplomatic cables from Wikileaks may not be in the headlines as much as it was when it started, but revelations keep pouring out of the website. Recently, new diplomatic cables published on the site revealed just how, not only influential the US was, but just how much control the US had over the passage of the three strikes law in New Zealand.

Total costs: NZ $533,000 (US $386,158) Start-up costs: NZ $78,000 (US $56,510) Salaries: NZ $215,000 (US $155,768) Operating costs: NZ $240,000 (US $173,880) Start-up costs (NZ dollars): Furnishings $25,000 IT costs (equipment) $45,000 Sundries $8,000 Salaries (NZ dollars): Unit head $90,000 Intelligence and policy development $60,000 Licensing and enforcement officer $40,000 Administrative support $25,000 Operating costs (NZ dollars): Accommodations (rental, utilities) $55,000 IT support $15,000 Legal costs (investigation, prosecution)$75,000 Training (internet piracy, law) $50,000 Travel costs $35,000 Employer liabilities $10,000 NOTE: In U.S. dollars, legal costs would be $54,338 and training costs would be $36,225.

The New Zealand government has proposed amendments to the Copyright Act 1994 that would allow format-shifting, or the duplication of sound recordings to another format for a purchaser's private use without the copyright owner's permission. The amendments also would extend to all communication works a provision in the Copyright Act that permits time-shifting, or the recording of a broadcast or cable program for private use solely for the purpose of viewing or listening to the recording at a more convenient time or for making a complaint. The amendments were proposed and released as a cabinet paper in June 2003, after a review of how digital technology had affected the country's copyright law (see Paragraph 13). Legislation incorporating the amendments is being drafted and is expected to be introduced in Parliament in April. (ref D) As the International Intellectual Property Alliance noted in its Special 301 submission, these exceptions to copyright protection would send the wrong message to consumers and undermine efforts to curb unauthorized copying of CDs in New Zealand. They would cost the industry in revenue and profits and discourage innovation. However, Associate Minister of Commerce Judith Tizard still is discussing the issue with the music industry and has expressed a desire for a solution that satisfies all parties, although the format-shifting and time-shifting exceptions remain for now as proposed in the cabinet paper. We will continue to work with the government and industry on this issue. In the meantime, with discussions ongoing, we believe a Special 301 listing over this issue would not be helpful.

Post recommends that New Zealand (GNZ) not/not be placed on the Special 301 List in 2008. The country's overall commitment to the protection of intellectual property (IPR) is relatively high as compared to most countries cited in the Special 301 review. Despite the slower than anticipated pace of legislative progress, the government remains committed to updating its intellectual property laws to ensure compliance with international standards, with planned revisions of the Patents Bill and the Copyright Amendments Bill ("New Technologies and Performers' Rights Bill") progressing through the legislative queue. Some momentum has been lost over the past year due to slowdown in the legislative agenda as the Government shifts its attention to upcoming elections in 2008. Though New Zealand generally provides adequate and effective protection of intellectual property rights (IP) under current law, Post will continue to engage Members of Parliament, the Ministry of Economic Development and local IP industry in order to press our concerns that pending legislation reflects international IP standards and passage occurs in a timely fashion. To date issues raised about the draft Copyright Bill by IP industry are being considered by the government and will be monitored by Post. It's reasonable to anticipate a renewed commitment to the passage of IP legislation by the GNZ post election cycle. Placing New Zealand on the Special 301 list at this stage may prove to be counter-productive as it likely will result in a defensive rather than consultative exchange.

On February 23, five days prior to the full implementation of the ISP provisions (sections 92 a and c) in the new Copyright Bill, Minister of Commerce Simon Power suspended the ISP sections of the law from coming into full force for 30 days (end of March 2009). The Minister's action will give the IP rights holders represented by the Recording Industry Association of New Zealand (RIANZ) and the Australasian Performing Rights Association (APRA) additional time to negotiate with the ISP trade association, the Telecommunication Carriers Forum (TCF) a mutually agreeable code of practice for terminating the internet access of users accused of infringing copyrights. Once the code of practice is adopted, the government will monitor its efficacy during the first six months after the law's enactment.

The Copyright (New Technologies) Amendment Act 2008 was originally scheduled to go into full force on February 28, 2009 but in the weeks leading up to the deadline, public interest groups raised a chorus of concerns claiming that the law's requirement to terminate internet subscribers who allegedly "pirated" digital copyrighted materials over the internet would infringe on due process, freedom of speech and the public's right to access information. The negative publicity led to demonstrations staged in front of Parliament, organized by a group called the Creative Freedom Foundation. The publicity drew the attention of some minority party politicians who hoped to ride a new populist wave. The United Future Party's leader Peter Dunne wanted Parliament to strike section 92A entirely from the new copyright bill through an arcane legal maneuver which would have required the Governor General to quash the provision. ACT Party leader Rodney Hyde also joined in the chorus calling for repeal of the section while he castigated the previous Labour government for its "poor" drafting of the Bill. Both United and ACT are current members of the National led coalition government. In reaction, a core panel was formed within the Cabinet consisting of the Commerce Minister Simon Power, Communications/IT Minister Steven Joyce, Broadcasting Minister Jonathan Coleman and Attorney General Chris Finlayson to develop a game plan and dampen the negative publicity. Meanwhile, Dunne had been asked by Simon Power to consider reformulating the provision in language more acceptable to the ISPs instead of stripping the law entirely of its content. The response developed by the four ministers and announced by Simon Power as lead was to suspend section 92A for 30 days during which time the IP rights holders would hammer out a code of practice with the Telecommunication Carriers Forum (TCF - industry association representing NZ's major ISPs - Telecom, Telstra, Vodafone, Kordia and Callplus) which would serve as the regulatory foundation for section 92A. The law would then go into force at the end of March and after 90 days it would be reviewed as to its appropriate application.

Throughout the final stages of the law's (near) implementation, the Embassy continued to met with IPR stakeholders and GNZ officials to ascertain progress and encourage resolution. To determine how a "workable" section 92A provision can be secured, Econoff met with Rory McLeod, Director at Ministry of Economic Development (MED) with responsibility for IPR within GNZ along with Paula Wilson, Deputy Director for Trade Negotiations at MFAT, and was given assurance that the government remains committed to redrafting Section 92A. Embassy will continue to stress with GNZ officials the need for a shorter rather than protracted timeline for the redraft and will ascertain the details of a notice and comment period for public submissions once released by GNZ. During this hiatus we've proposed holding DVC(s) between NZ and U.S. interlocutors to possibly help with drafting and as a public diplomacy tool to dispel public misperceptions about proper role of IPR protection. U.S. agencies have the benefit of 10 years worth of experience in enforcing the U.S. Digital Millennium Copyright Act that may serve useful to New Zealand officials in their effort to implement section 92A.

Econoff learned from Tony Eaton of the NZ Motion Picture Association (MPA) that Minister Power met on May 12 with Eaton, Campbell Smith, CEO of the Recording Industry of NZ (RIANZ), Brett Cottle, CEO Australian Performing Rights Association NZ and lawyers from the Copyright Division of the Ministry of Economic Development (MED) to discuss Power's three-step plan to re-draft and enact section 92A by end of 2009.

Minister Power has made it clear to MED officials and to industry reps that the GNZ has no intention of going back on its commitment to strengthen NZ's copyright regime. He expressed privately that he wants to avoid some of the hysterical public reaction that accompanied the last attempt to revise S92A. His plan looks to be well thought out and with the input from a panel of top IPR experts the new provision will avoid the earlier criticism of poor draftsmanship. The Embassy in the meantime has repeated its offer of assistance to GNZ officials to offer consultations with USG copyright experts through a DVC.