Veni | Вени

Bulgaria is a member of the European Union for more than three years, but it still behaves sometimes as if it does not belong there.

Here’s a recent, and most troubled example:

On July 29 one of the leaders of the ruling parties and a member of the Bulgarian Parliament, Mr. Volen Siderov, of the right wing “Ataka”, called in the Bulgarian National Radio (BNR, more or less the equivalent of the US Public National Radio), and created a huge fuss about the interview that took place on July 28 with the son of his wife, and a member of the European Parliament, Dimitar Stoyanov (who became notorious while an observer to the EU Parliament in 2006 with this insult towards a roma MEP).
The whole interview with Mr. Siderov is here (in Bulgarian), or via Google Translate here (in English).

Radio anchor, Diana Yankulova, who is well know for her professionalism and high standards of journalist ethics, apparently was shocked by the words of the Bulgarian politician, who finished his tirade with the words, “in conclusion, I want to say, that the Bulgarian National Radio will be an objective media, when it gets rid of the people of BSP and DPS” (BSP stands for Bulgarian Socialist Party, DPS – Movement for Rights and Freedom; two of the ruling parties in the previous government, and currently in opposition in the Parliament).

The case obviously will have further development, as today the Bulgarian Prime Minister Boiko Borissov said that Ms. Yankulova is a political appointee of BSP in the National Radio. Mr. Borissov words are here (in Bulgarian), and here (in English, Google Translate)
The Prime Minister has said that indeed, there is a political appointment in the National Radio. He said, “There is tendentious behavior. I have been subject of such activities of other journalists, and I know how emotionally a man can take these things, especially when you know who they are working for” (allegedly, for the BSP)

BSP asked today the Parliament to vote on a declaration in defense of journalists. Mr. Siderov countered that Ms. Yankulova has been head of the press center of the Interior Ministry during the last two years of the previous cabinet, which influences her behavior today (note by Veni: head of press centers in the Bulgarian ministries often are journalists, who are familiar with the topics, and are respected in their profession; they are not necessarily political appointees). The declaration was not accepted by the Parliament.

The Bulgarian PM has always refused speculations, allusions, or any facts there is pressure upon journalists from the new government. Nevertheless, when a journalist from the New Television (a national TV channel) has found some sensitive information about a MP, Mr. Latchezar Ivanov, from the ruling party, and personal doctor to Mr. Borissov, she called in advance the PM to ask what she should do with the information. Only after Mr. Borissov let her use it, she made a story, which led to the resignation of Mr. Ivanov from deputy-chairman of the Parliament. Observers of the western media commented that going to the PM and political leader, and asking him what to do with such a story, is completely inappropriate.

I am writing about this case in English, because I don’t believe there’s enough energy, spirit, and independent media in Bulgaria, which will be able to cover the facts.

This latest pressure on the free media comes after a number of worrisome cases, involving journalists in the last years. Most recently Ivo Indzhev’s life was threatened, two years ago a journalist was beaten to a coma, however the case was closed by the prosecution.

The issue with Ms. Yankulova is most probably because she let people in the studio challenge a police operation in Kardjali, south Bulgaria, few days earlier. In the middle of the night, police raided a private house, and beat a family, including a young woman, who had skull injuries. The action of the police was justified by the minister, as normal, and that the injuries occurred, because the “police entered into the apartment’s bedroom somewhat hastily”. You can read more on that story at novinite.com, where the article ends with these words:

“At the end, as many times before, the public will never learn the truth and the case will be soon forgotten. Bad police work and the never ending attempts in Bulgaria to use everything and everyone for political gains make this just the latest hearsay saga – the words of the police officers against those of the family.
At least Bulgarians now know they must open doors inside their houses very cautiously at nighttime, otherwise they might get hit on the face.”

I think that, given the strong reaction against an independent journalist from the National Radio, by the ruling parties, the Bulgarian journalists already know they must not criticize the police, or for that matter, anyone from the ministers.

The question is what would the international human rights organizations do? The Bulgarian Helsinki Committee already reacted, but the voice of the European institutions is more important in Bulgaria, sigh.

As for the siege – this is not news. Every government in the last 20 years has come to power at the promise of keeping the media free and independent, and every government has stepped down not being able to fulfill its promise.

Just got this note, and know that people might be interested to see what’s going on in Israel:

“Dr. Yehiel Shabi, the spokesman for Israel’s Ministry of Communications, issued the following statement:
The Israeli Ministry of Communications supports importing and marketing any advanced device in Israel that benefits our citizens.
In the case of Apple’s iPAD, a specific issue is being handled right now by our technical teams. The device’s WiFi transmitter does not conform to the Israeli standards, which follow the European standards.
Accordingly, the operation of the device might have an adverse effect on other devices with WiFi capabilities that conform to the standards already in use in Israel.
The Ministry of Communications contacted Apple through its local representative to determine how and when the iPAD can be allowed for proper use in Israel at the earliest.
The Ministry expects Apple’s answer in a few days and believes that this issue will be resolved soon in a satisfactory way.”

The European Commission has published its most important document. Europe 2020.

However, after a lot of noise, and with minimum participation from European citizens (less than 500 responses, mainly from Spain, Poland, Germany, France and UK)*, the Barroso strategy Europe 2020 seems to let down the Internet users and businesses.

There is a whole section, Flagship Initiative: “A Digital Agenda for Europe” (more on it here), which seems as if written by the hands of the lobbyists, who one can meet in Brussels every minute. All the fields, where the EC says what it will do are cliches from the 20th Century textbooks. Certainly, the EC is capable of more, but why it has not delivered in this document is unknown.
The aim of the Digital Agenda is, “to deliver sustainable economic and social benefits from a Digital Single Market“. Could this really be the aim? Are not these the tools for achieving the aim? The aim can be building competitive Internet services, which should be delivered worldwide, and not only, as the “Strategy” suggest, in the European Union. These services will be provided by EU companies, which will create new jobs, create the first wave of EU IT-billionaires, bring the EU to the level of the USA. Or at least, try to do it.
The aim could (or should?) be to ensure the creation of European Amazon, European Goolge, European eBay – companies not copying these, but as big as they are. The European Union can certainly do better than just point towards high-speed Internet. The fast and ultra fast Internet is not an issue for Bulgaria (with majority of the people living in big cities having 100 Mpbs, and some even 1 Gbps connections at their homes. If Bulgaria can do it, even before joining the EU, what prevents the EU from doing it? Perhaps the fact that there is not enough entrepreneurship in the EU?

Most importantly – the whole strategy lacks even a single word about ensuring the security of the European Union cyberspace.

One can not but think that this lack of understanding of the importance of the cooperation in that area, is a symbol of the fact that the EU is, in some ways, living in the 19th century. In times, when EU citizens suffer from computer malware, hackers, cyber criminals, or just computer viruses, the European Commission is looking towards a “regulatory framework with clear rights regimes, the fostering of multi-territorial licenses, adequate protection and remuneration for rights holders“. So, instead of looking that there is hardly any content of interest for the people even in the EU itself, the Commission is already defending the interests of the big lobbyists.

The lack of vision for the EU and the EC in the field of cybersecurity is clear; the question is how to help EU Commissioner Kroes to engage more into that area. She responded in the hearings at the EU Parliament in January, among other things,

“Ivailo Kalfin (S&D, BG) elaborated on some other MEPs’ questions about the regulation of cyberspace and asked if she intends to create an office of EU cyberspace regulator, working with national counterparts in the Member States. Ms Kroes said she was aware of the scope of cybercrime, which was not limited by borders, and that she wanted Europe to become the safest place for internet consumers, but she was not keen on the idea of an EU cyberspace regulator and preferred more cooperation and a stronger role for ENISA, the European Network and Information Security Agency.”

If Mrs. Kroes indeed wants Europe to “become the safest place for Internet consumers”, the way to do it is not via ENISA, which states on its site, “Together with the EU-institutions and the Member States, ENISA seeks to develop a culture of Network and Information Security for the benefit of citizens, consumers, business and public sector organisations in the European Union.”

If the European Commission wants to have modern, secure, useful Internet for its citizens by 2020, it should do much more, than what’s written in the Europe 2020 agenda.

_____
* – I personally feel guilty for not participating, but I simply… didn’t know there’s such a discussion! Apparently, the EC needed to make this discussion better known. Veni.

German Working Group on Data Retention (AK Vorrat) has published the following press release (and accompanying information).
I copy it here, because the German Court decision is an important example of brilliant jurisprudence, and a great example what people can do together (there were 30 thousand people, who signed the motion to the Court!)!
The document below was originally sent by Patrick from Daten-Speicherung.de

“The Court’s summary of the ruling is as follows (roughly translated):

1. The preventive retention of communications data by private service providers on a permanent basis for a period of six months, as provided for by directive 2006/24/EC, is not as such incompatible with Article 10 of the German constitution [privacy of correspondence, see http://www.iuscomp.org/gla/statutes/GG.htm#10]; it is therefore irrelevant whether the directive has priority or not.

2. The principle or proportionality requires the legal enactment of such data retention to take into account the exceptional intensity of the interference with human rights that results of such a measure. Sophisticated and clear-worded rules with regard to data safety, data use, transparency and legal remedy are required.

3. [not internationally relevant]

4. With regard to data safety, legislation is required that provides for a high standard of safety in a clear-worded and compulsory way. It must in principle be legally ensured that this standard has regard to the technical state of art, is continuously adapted to new findings and is not fully made subject to a balancing against general financial aspects.

5. Access to and the direct use of the data is proportionate only if serving the protection of interests of preeminent importance. In the area of prosecuting crime a suspicion of a grave crime, based on specific facts, is required. Access for preventive and intelligence purposes may be allowed only on condition of an indication for a specific danger to the body, life or freedom of a person, to the existence or security of a state or of a common danger.

6. These requirements do not apply to the indirect use of the data by telecommunications operators where complying to official requests for the identification of the user of an IP address. The prosecution of administrative offenses will justify such use only in legally defined cases of exceptional importance.”

The Court ruling goes on to say that the German implementation of data retention did not satisfy the conditions set out. The provisions on data retention in German law were therefore ruled unconstitutional and invalid. This means that as of yesterday, no data must or may be retained under data retention rules in Germany (telcos mostly retain data for up to a week for “data safety” purposes however; this will continue even after yesterday’s ruling until the courts will have decided on that matter).

The conservatives in the government coalition are pushing for re-enacting data retention as soon as possible, meeting the conditions set out by the Court. The liberals in the government coalition say they are not in a hurry and want to see what will come of the revision of the data retention directive first. As the minister of justice, who is competent for drafting such a law, is a liberal, it is likely that we will be able to prevent a quick re-enactment of data retention in Germany. However it is crucial that the EU data retention requirement is revoked soon. I hope we will soon have the Commission’s reply on the formalities of a citizen’s initiative to that effect.

—

Press release by the German Working Group on Data Retention (AK Vorrat), 2 March 2010:

After data retention ruling: Civil liberties activists call for political end to retention of telecommunications data

+++ Data retention opposed by 70% of German population +++ European Citizens’ Initiative for repealing the EU directive on data retention announced +++ Legal action to be continued +++

The German Working Group on Data Retention has today announced a Europe-wide campaign to end Internet and telephone data retention. This follows the German Constitutional Court’s ruling on a mass complaint made by more than 34,000 citizens. According to a newly-published poll, 69.3% of all Germans oppose data retention, making it the most strongly rejected surveillance law.[1]

“The recording of confidential contacts and movements of the entire population in the absence of any suspicion is unacceptable and must stop immediately”, says Florian Altherr of the Working Group. “In starting an initiative to this end, the Federal Minister of Justice can count on the support of EU Commissioner Viviane Reding as well as of many states such as Austria, Belgium and Romania, all of which do not have data retention laws in place.”

“In order to bring the massive rejection of blanket data retention home to politicians we are in the process of preparing a European Citizens’ Initiative. With the signatures of one million opponents to the permanent logging of our Internet and phone use we want to persuade the EU to repeal its data retention directive”, announces data protection activist padeluun of the Working Group.

Patrick Breyer of the Group adds: “At the same time we will continue our legal fight against data retention. Today’s decision proclaiming the recording of the entire population’s behaviour in the absence of any suspicion compatible with our fundamental rights is unacceptable and opens the gates to a surveillance state.”

The German Working Group on Data Retention is making five political demands after today’s ruling:
1. The Federal Government, the Federal Minister of Justice and Parliaments must now cooperate with other like-minded states and bodies to take steps to repeal the redundant and detrimental data retention directive.
2. The German law on data retention, going far even beyond EU requirements and – according to the German Constitutional Court – unconstitutional, must not be re-enacted.
3. European citizens should be given the right to file constitutional complaints directly with the European Court of Justice.
4. The Federal Government must not agree to any further collection of information on citizens not suspected of any wrong-doing in the name of security, such as the air travelers file proposed by the EU. Mass data pools that were introduced in the past, such as the registration of Internet use by the Federal Office for Information Security or the employee information system ELENA, must be closed down.
5. An independent review of all existing “security” measures must take place in order to systematically examine their compatibility with our fundamental rights, their effectiveness, their cost, their harmful side-effects and alternatives.

Background information:

Communications data enables the tracing of who has contacted whom via telephone, mobile phone or e-mail. In the case of mobile calls or text messages via mobile phone, the user’s location is also logged. Data retention allows citizens’ movements to be traced and personal and business contacts to be monitored. Information regarding the content of communications such as personal interests and individual life circumstances can also be deduced.

A study commissioned in 2008 shows that data retention is acting as a serious deterrent to the use of telephones, mobile phones, e-mail and Internet. The survey conduced by research institute Forsa found that with communications data retention in place, one in two Germans would refrain from contacting a marriage counselor, a psychotherapist or a drug abuse counselor by telephone, mobile phone or e-mail if they needed their help. One in thirteen people said they had refrained from using telephone, mobile phone or e-mail at least once because of data retention, which extrapolates to 6.5 Million Germans in total.

German NGO Working Group on Data Retention (Arbeitskreis Vorratsdatenspeicherung) organised several protest marches against the scheme. Last year, 20.000 people protested against surveillance in Berlin.[2]
About Arbeitskreis Vorratsdatenspeicherung (German Working Group on Data Retention):

The Arbeitskreis Vorratsdatenspeicherung (AK Vorrat) is a Germany-wide organisation which campaigns against extensive surveillance in general and the blanket logging of telecommunications and other behavioral data in particular.

Homepage und contact details: http://www.vorratsdatenspeicherung.de

Footnotes and Links:
[1] Poll on data retention (in German, PDF)
[2] Protest march “Freedom not Fear”

About Arbeitskreis Vorratsdatenspeicherung (German Working Group on
Data Retention):
The Arbeitskreis Vorratsdatenspeicherung (AK Vorrat) is a Germany-wide
organisation which campaigns against extensive surveillance in general and the
blanket logging of telecommunications and other behavioural data in particular.
Homepage and contact details: http://www.vorratsdatenspeicherung.de

Previous press releases:
1. Unanimous rejection of proposed telecommunications data retention
(22/01/2007)
2. Thousands of people participated in nationwide protests against data retention (07/11/2007)
3. Constitutional complaint filed against German Telecomms Data Retention Act (31/12/2007)
4. Historic class-action lawsuit filed against telecommunications data collection (29/02/2008)
5. Data retention in Germany partly suspended by Constitutional Court – NGO demands resignation of Minister of Justice (19/03/2008)
6. After ruling on data retention: activists remain confident (10/02/2009)
7. Administrative Court: Data retention is “invalid” (16/03/2009)
8. Civil Liberties Groups Ask EU to Repeal Data Retention Directive
(01/12/2009)

More information:
1. Our mission statement
2. Joint statement on data retention
3. Class-action law suit against data retention

This press release on the Internet“

Because in Bulgaria there are similar attempts (the Parliament just passed a law, which, in my opinion, enhances the data retention beyond the scope of the EU Directive, and is stretching the Constitution wide), the decision of the German Court might be of importance to Bulgaria, as well. Internet Society – Bulgaria, which I have the honor of chairing, has tried to influence (see this section at our blog, and this opinion), to the degree possible, the process in drafting the legislation in the Bulgarian Parliament, but not to the point, which would have made us feel comfortable with the language of the law. We are considering other options in the future, and we’ll be sending later today a letter to the President, the Ombudsman of the Republic, and the Chief Prosecutor, all of whom can request that the Bulgarian Constitutional court announces a particular article in the law unconstitutional.

I got this as an email from a friend:

Veni,

How they can manufacture a good bottle of beer at Kamenitza AD, Plovdiv, 95, Kapitan Raicho Str., and transport it several thousand miles and deliver it to Trade Fair on 75th Street and 37th Avenue in Jackson Hts., New York City, and sell it to me for $1.49 (excluding deposit) is beyond me. But I thank all the people and processes that enable it.

Best,
Tom Lowenhaupt
P.S. Long live Kamenitza.nyc.*

_____
* about the .nyc: Tom Lowenhaupt is the enthusiast driving the bid for creating a new top-level domain for New York City, .nyc. Read more here. Wikipedia writes about the beer here.
** Needless to say, this posting is private, and has nothing to do with any of the organizations I work with, for, upon ;)

The United States has indicated that it will be stepping up enforcement of the requirements of the Visa Waiver Program (VWP). Travelers from VWP countries (see list below) may be denied boarding on flights to the United States if they have not properly registered using the online application tool under the U.S. Homeland Security’s Electronic System for Authorization (ESTA) which can be found at https://esta.cbp.dhs.gov/esta/esta.html

This may affect you if you are a non-US citizen traveling to the US.

Countries, which are part of the VWP:
Andorra, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Brunei, Czech, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Monaco, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, San Marino, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Korea, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, United Kingdom.

The Visa Waiver Program (VWP) enables the nationals of these countries to travel to the United States for tourism or business (visitor [B] visa purposes only) for stays of 90 days or less without obtaining a visa.

But that’s not all. The travelers to use the VWP, must also comply with these conditions:

* They have received an authorization to travel under the VWP through the Electronic System for Travel Authorization (ESTA)
* They present the appropriate type of passport valid for six months past their expected stay in the United States (unless country-specific agreements (pdf file) provide exemptions). This is a requirement in addition to other passport requirements for all categories of passports — regular, diplomatic, and official – when the traveler is seeking to enter the United States for business or tourist purposes, for a maximum of 90 days;
* The purpose of their stay in the United States is 90 days or less for tourism or business (Visitor (B) visa) purpose of travel. (If in doubt, travelers should check with the nearest Embassy or Consulate to verify that what they plan to do is considered tourism or business.) Transit through the United States is generally permitted. Important Notice: Foreign media representatives planning to engage in that vocation in the United States are not eligible for VWP travel, as the purpose of their stay does not qualify as “business”. These professionals must obtain a nonimmigrant media (I) visa. Note also that travelers planning to work or study cannot travel on VWP, and they must obtain the appropriate visa to travel to the United States.
* If arriving by air or sea, they are traveling on an approved carrier (See the approved carriers list /pdf/) and have a return trip ticket to any foreign destination;
* They can demonstrate the intent to stay 90 days or less in the United States and demonstrate sufficient funds to support themselves while in the United States.

In other words – for my fellow Bulgarians, and everyone, who is NOT from the 35 countries, listed above: you’re better off with a visa, than without one.

Good luck, and safe travels!

Here’s part of the report by the US Director of National Intelligence, Dennis C. Blair, to the US Senate. I publish this part, because it is interesting to see asset of the situation by other countries, namely Russia, China, but also the EU – do they share the seriousness of the warnings, and what do they do. For the EU, I know – they don’t do that much :-(

Far-Reaching Impact of the Cyber Threat
The national security of the United States, our economic prosperity, and the daily functioning
of our government are dependent on a dynamic public and private information infrastructure,
which includes telecommunications, computer networks and systems, and the information
residing within. This critical infrastructure is severely threatened.

This cyber domain is exponentially expanding our ability to create and share knowledge, but
it is also enabling those who would steal, corrupt, harm or destroy the public and private assets
vital to our national interests. The recent intrusions reported by Google are a stark reminder of
the importance of these cyber assets, and a wake-up call to those who have not taken this
problem seriously. Companies who promptly report cyber intrusions to government authorities
greatly help us to understand and address the range of cyber threats that face us all.
I am here today to stress that, acting independently, neither the US Government nor the
private sector can fully control or protect the country’s information infrastructure. Yet, with
increased national attention and investment in cyber security initiatives, I am confident the
United States can implement measures to mitigate this negative situation.

The Evolving Threat and Future Trends
The United States confronts a dangerous combination of known and unknown vulnerabilities,
strong and rapidly expanding adversary capabilities, and a lack of comprehensive threat
awareness. Malicious cyber activity is occurring on an unprecedented scale with extraordinary
sophistication. While both the threats and technologies associated with cyberspace are dynamic,
the existing balance in network technology favors malicious actors, and is likely to continue to
do so for the foreseeable future. Sensitive information is stolen daily from both government and
private sector networks, undermining confidence in our information systems, and in the very
information these systems were intended to convey. We often find persistent, unauthorized, and
at times, unattributable presences on exploited networks, the hallmark of an unknown adversary
intending to do far more than merely demonstrate skill or mock a vulnerability. We cannot be
certain that our cyberspace infrastructure will remain available and reliable during a time of
crisis. Within this dynamic environment, we are confronting threats that are both more targeted
and more serious. New cyber security approaches must continually be developed, tested, and
implemented to respond to new threat technologies and strategies.
We face nation states, terrorist networks, organized criminal groups, individuals, and other
cyber actors with varying combinations of access, technical sophistication and intent. Many
have the capabilities to target elements of the US information infrastructure for intelligence
collection, intellectual property theft, or disruption. Terrorist groups and their sympathizers have
expressed interest in using cyber means to target the United States and its citizens. Criminal
elements continue to show growing sophistication in their technical capability and targeting.
Today, cyber criminals operate a pervasive, mature on-line service economy in illicit cyber
capabilities and services, which are available to anyone willing to pay. Globally, widespread
cyber-facilitated bank and credit card fraud has serious implications for economic and financial
systems and the national security, intelligence, and law enforcement communities charged with
protecting them.
The cyber criminal sector in particular has displayed remarkable technical innovation with an
agility presently exceeding the response capability of network defenders. Criminals are
developing new, difficult-to-counter tools. In 2009, we saw the deployment of self modifying
malware, which evolves to render traditional virus detection technologies less effective. The
Conficker worm, which appeared in 2008 and created one of the largest networks of
compromised computers identified thus far, continues to provide a persistent and adaptable
platform for other malicious enterprises. Criminals are targeting mobile devices such as
“smartphones,” whose increasing power and use in financial transactions makes them potentially
lucrative targets. Criminals are collaborating globally and exchanging tools and expertise to
circumvent defensive efforts, which makes it increasingly difficult for network defenders and
law enforcement to detect and disrupt malicious activities
Two global trends within the information technology environment, while providing greater
efficiency and services to users, also potentially increase vulnerabilities and the consequences of
security failures. The first is network convergence—the merging of distinct voice and data
technologies to a point where all communications (e.g., voice, facsimile, video, computers,
control of critical infrastructure, and the Internet) are transported over a common network
structure—will probably come close to completion in the next five years. This convergence
amplifies the opportunity for, and consequences of, disruptive cyber attacks and unforeseen
secondary effects on other parts of the US critical infrastructure. The second is channel
consolidation, the concentration of data captured on individual users by service providers
through emails or instant messaging, Internet search engines, Web 2.0 social networking means,
and geographic location of mobile service subscribers, which increases the potential and
consequences for exploitation of personal data by malicious entities. The increased
interconnection of information systems and data inherent in these trends pose potential threats to
the confidentiality, integrity and availability of critical infrastructures and of secure credentialing
and identification technologies.
The Intelligence Community plays a vital role in protecting and preserving our nation’s cyber
interests and the continued free flow of information in cyberspace. As Director of National
Intelligence, I am creating an integrated and agile intelligence team to help develop and deploy a
defensive strategy that is both effective and respectful of American freedoms and values. In the
2009 National Intelligence Strategy, I focused the Intelligence Community on protecting the US
from a multi-vector cyber threat, covering malicious actors seeking to penetrate a network from
the outside, insiders, and potential threats hidden within the information technology supply
chain. We are integrating cyber security with counterintelligence and improving our ability to
understand, detect, attribute, and counter the full range of threats. I started this last summer
when I charged my new National Counterintelligence Executive to create a cyber directorate
within his office that would provide outreach for foreign intelligence threat warnings and ensure
insider threats are thwarted by the USG through use of technology and operational
countermeasures. I believe this emphasis can augment and improve existing cyber efforts toward
improving national and economic security for our nation.

We cannot protect cyberspace without a coordinated and collaborative effort that
incorporates both the US private sector and our international partners. The President’s
Cyberspace Policy Review provides a unifying framework for these coordinated efforts. The five
elements of the framework—leading from the top, building capacity for a digital nation, sharing
responsibility for cybersecurity, creating effective information sharing and incident response, and
encouraging innovation—serve to align the efforts of the Intelligence Community with its many
government and private sector partners. As Director of National Intelligence, I will continue to
ensure that information on these threats reaches executive and legislative leaders quickly, to
allow them to make informed national security decisions. I will also stay in touch with private
companies that provide network services so that we are both helping them stay secure and
learning through their experience.

Also, I continue to report to the President on the implementation of the Comprehensive
National Cybersecurity Initiative (CNCI), which was designed to mitigate vulnerabilities being
exploited by our cyber adversaries and provide long-term strategic operational and analytic
capabilities to US Government organizations. By enabling the development of these new
technologies and strategies, as a core component of a broad strategic approach to strengthening
cybersecurity for the nation, the CNCI will give the United States additional tools to respond to
the constantly changing cyber environment. Simultaneously, the CNCI stresses the importance
of the private sector as a partner through information sharing and other best practices to address
vulnerabilities. My Cyber Task Force produces quarterly reports on this government-wide effort,
providing a balanced assessment of its progress at improving the US Government’s cyber
security stance. The Congress funded most, but not all, of the Administration’s request last year.
We will need full funding of this program to keep close to pace with our adversaries.

Today, in a stunning development, Apple released yet even newer than the announced yesterday iPad – the iTotal. The media wrote yesterday, that “Apple is positioning its new tablet computer as something between a laptop and a smartphone.”

Following the nature of Apple, to release products in complete secrecy, the new iPotcomes as a real surprise. It is positioning itself as something between a laptop, a smartphone, and an even smarter phone.

The iPot is like the missing link between monkeys and humans. See for yourselves:

The device is less than a quarter of an inch thick (half the size of the new iPad), and with a few clicks changes into a full functioning, electrically warmed, blanket. Few more clicks, and it can serve for cooking basic food – scrambled eggs, toasted bread. Few more clicks, and it can be used as a cutting board.

But wait, that’s not all!

If you buy the new iPot in the next 24 hours, you will get a second one – completely free!

And that’s not all!

The iPot can work as a phone – few more clicks, and it becomes a rotary phone! The very fact that it misses the touch-tone functions of the current fixed phones immediately raised speculations, that there will be a new version released soon. Apple neither confirmed, nor denied these rumors.

The iPot comes in a box, packed with different gadgets – a laser-sharpened knife, pocket-size fork, and a specially designed by La Dzenga, the ultra-modern Brazilian designer, bag to carry the iPot. The bag, sized 35″ x 24″ x 8″ can fit into the overhead compartment in airplanes, and thus can be used not only to carry the iPot with all extras, but even to have several t-shirts, underwear, and socks in the carry-on luggage of the frequent fliers.

Yes, the iPot is ideal for the frequent traveler! With a few clicks, it turnes into a fully functioning 3-D super-sized movie screen. It is equipped with dolby (R) stereo speakers, active sub-woofer, 7.1 speakers, which are wireless, and yes – they are FCC and TSA-approved, and can be used on board of airplanes.

But that’s not all!

But 2 iPots in the next 15 minutes, and you will have the chance to participate in a special lottery, with a $ 1,000,000* award! Yes, that’s right: $ 1,000,000*.

_______
* The money can be used only towards buying more iPots, or accessories for them.
This offer is valid only in countries, where DEM is used, there is no trade or budget deficit, unemployment is as low as 0.2 %, health insurance is optional. Offer comes only if the customers commit to a 10-year plan with a mobile phone operators, chosen at the discretion of the seller, at a monthly fee not below $ 1500.25. The $ 0.25 should be used to cover 10 minutes parking space for the truck, delivering the iPot. Only one track per delivery, to avoid potential overload. Additionally, the customer is responsible for paying the rental for the crane, window replacement, and additional costs, related to delivering the iPot into the house or apartment of the customer. Due to health regulation, no men are allowed to even try to carry the iPot in its original package, which – in the first public version of the iPot – weighs 2500 pounds, and comes in special package, made by recycled steel from Soviet-made cars.
Use at your own risk. No responsibility whatsoever for Apple, or the author of this story. All trademarks belong to their respected owners. Note the category under which the story is published. The author expresses his regrets to all Apple fans, who might have wanted the iPot after reading the article.

I got this email from Jose Conde, a well known Cuban guitarist from New York. You can see pictures of Jose, and of the Gretsch here. I wanted him to tell me more about his Gretsch guitar. I’ve edited it a little bit, for clarity, and have included links to the names he mentions.

“Lets see my love ……my Gretsch! Ahhh.
A match made in Heaven….errr eBay that is. In the Winter of 2006 while hanging out in Miami I went to a store and played a Gretsch 6120 guitar. I had been listening quite a bit to old recordings of Cuban bands that used hollow body jazz guitars within the context of more modern Cuban dance bands (Los Bocucos with young Ibrahim Ferrer, Juanito Marquez, Manuel Galvan) and I became really interested in this sound.
When I played the guitar in the store, I instantly fell in love of the sound and the feel. It was powerful yet melodic, and it really cuts through with a signature sound. Its also so easy and fun to play. And such a handsome looking and well designed instrument. A true work of art I thought.
Of course, the store Gretsch was a new Japanese made replica of a vintage guitar, and still cost something near $ 2000. I had some money saved, and after thinking about it for months before, I decided I needed a musical change.
You see I had been performing traditional Cuban son for a while and I was about to release my first record that started to depart from that in a very funky way.
Getting a funky guitar to “skank” on was part of my plan to really express the rhythm that I feel. Acoustic guitar just wasn’t cutting it! So I needed a powerful majestic instrument.
Next I turned to eBay. I saw a bunch of instruments in there within my price range and beyond. When I saw the ad for a “Country Gentleman” 7160 up for auction in nearby Delray Beach (I was hanging out in Miami) I was very interested. It was being sold by a doctor who presumably bought it and closeted the guitar using it very little since 1976! So without ever playing a 7160 I went hard after it on eBay and won the auction at $2700, what I now see as a really great deal for a vintage quality guitar in pristine condition.
After winning the auction I drove up to Delray Beach to pick up my new love.
It was really striking, looked so new and even had a bag of the original strings inside the original guitar case. It was like going back in time. I wasn’t so happy to discover that this models neck is thinner, but I have adapted and become a better guitar player. One more thing, the guitar was sold to me as a “1976″ instrument. Because you asked me to write about it I just did some quick research and found that the serial number in fact tells me it is a 1974 instrument. In fact it is the 54th 7160 guitar made by the Gretsch factory in Nashville in August 1974! Now living happily with a Cuban in Brooklyn, NY.
My Gretsch first appears on my recording – EL CHACAL on the album (R)Evolucion. I actually bought the guitar December 2005, then recorded in the summer of 2006. My new record that I am working on is the first CD that I am playing a bunch of instruments and the Gretsch is all over the album. I am specifically using its signature sound and making it my own.”

I was thinking to write the usual wishes for the New Year, but this story is better.

I wish every friend of mine, and everyone who reads this, to find their signature voice in 2010.

Sometimes it may take a while, but we should never give up trying! With all the errors, all the difficulties, all the challenges, we should always try to get stronger when life tries to silence our voice. Because the world is full with people who can not speak up for they are being oppressed, or being afraid, we should always try to say what we think is right, and think what we say is right.

Happy New Year!

Eugene Kaspersky, CEO and co-founder of Internet security giant Kaspersky Lab said this week, as reported by ITWeb, that “terrorists could build a botnet that could bring down the entire Internet structure”. Mr. Kaspersky ended his speech with the statement that “a global cyber police force, and global cooperation between law enforcement agencies and governments is needed”.
This goes very much in accordance with some of the conclusions in the Cyberspace Policy Review, prepared by the White House, where a whole chapter is dedicated to international cooperation. We must also remember that on July 16, 2008, in West Lafayette, IN, Senator Obama said, that if elected as President, he “will make cyber security the top priority that it should be in the 21st century. He promised to “declare our cyber-infrastructure a strategic asset, and appoint a National Cyber Advisor who will report directly” to him.
While many today argue that the “cyber tzar” is still not appointed, and that’s bad for the country, let’s see what actually happened in the last few months on the cybersecurity front. The State Department, DHS, FBI, Secret Service and all other relevant agencies have actually started working on enhancing international cooperation, without waiting for the Cyber Tzar to be appointed. And that’s how it should be done.

Thanks to the efforts of the State Department and other US agencies and foreign governments, the last few months show several achievements, which were unthinkable just a year ago. Here are three examples just from the November alone:
1) The US proposed a UN-resolution, which was officially introduced to the UN General Assembly on November 25 in the Second committee. It is titled “Creation of a global culture of cybersecurity and taking stock of national efforts to protect critical information infrastructures”. And this time Russia, among others, has participated in the discussion, and has agreed with the text, a sign that the new US foreign policy of inclusion is better than the old one.
2) On November 23, Russia joined the Governmental Advisory Committee to ICANN, the Internet domain name and IP address body, based in California.
3) And in mid-November Russia sent a high-level experts delegation in Washington to talk on cybersecurity, and the way to continue the cooperation in that area.
Mr. Kaspersky believes that it will take 50 years to overcome the cyber criminals, and only if all countries act together.
My hope is it will be much less, if the US and Russia, and others, start acting together immediately. The next countries to be immediately included in this international cooperation effort should be China, Brazil, the Baltic republics, Kazakhstan, Ukraine, the Balkans – where many cybercriminals are situated.
The US must support the creation of regional cybersecurity cooperation centers, where law-enforcement officers, judges, prosecutors, and national IT-experts could be trained how to combat cybercrime, how to change their national laws, and build their own cybersecurity strategies. And if you wonder why the US must do that, when there are so many problems at home, don’t forget that the criminals are overseas, but the crimes take place on US soil. The botnet Mr. Kaspersky was talking about would cause more damages to the US than to any of the other countries. Last, but not least, the US has most of the experts in the area of cybersecurity, and can provide expertise, lecturers, books and training material without any hesitation. One of the aspects of being a leader is, that you, really, have to lead. And there will be hardly any better time than today to show leadership.