According to The Washington Post, although Daniel happens to be a budget official, he’s been placed highly in the role of managing security and “has overseen classified programs being run by U.S. spy agencies and the Defense Department. He has also coordinated the budgets for the government’s cybersecurity programs.”

The statement from the White House includes numerous accolades for Daniel, noting that he’s been involved in “virtually every major issue affecting the Intelligence Community.” His work with the Defense Department means that he should be aware of what’s rolling around in the minds of the military and the NSA. As cybersecurity coordinator, he will be advising the President as to new policies and legislation arising on this topic.

“I am very honored to be asked to take on such an important role, especially at a time when cybersecurity issues are so prominent,” said Daniel in a statement. “The challenges in this area are real and serious, but I have the benefit of building on the progress Howard has made through his leadership and I look forward to continuing my career in public service in a new way.”

Already we’ve seen some poorly received legislation pass the House in the form of the Cybersecurity Information Sharing and Protection Act—or CISPA—which displays a culture of misunderstanding of what makes security by opening up the door to huge privacy concerns. Any cybersecurity coordinator taking the role right now will need to stay abreast of our nation’s attempts to secure itself from cyberthreats both foreign and domestic and at the same time weigh those risks against the necessity for privacy.

Much of the current lawmaking attention is being directed towards national infrastructure and data services with legislators calling for policies that operate electric power plants, water supply, banking systems subject themselves to the basic cybersecurity standards. However, cybersecurity is more than just a moving target, it’s a case-by-case systems paradigm that depends on many factors so it might be difficult to write these requirements into law.

The idea is to avoid possible events similar to what was feared to have happened to a water pumping station in Illinois—discovered to be an overreaction—or what happened to medical records in Utah. Infrastructure would be a favorite target for hackers as will be any large-enough database of information available online (social security records, medical records, law enforcement archives.) As we’ve seen the hacker mayhem group LulzSec made a mockery of several different law enforcement agencies by breaking into their e-mail archives on more than one occasion and they’re not even professionals.

Daniel will find himself walking into an atmosphere of political struggle about how the nation should approach problems such as LulzSec and Anonymous as much as concerns about foreign powers looking to steal state secrets. While it’s unlikely that cyberterrorism will be at our door anytime soon—it’s not exactly a lucrative operation to hit another country’s power grid in this era, especially the United States—but it would be foolish to even connect the control system of a water pump or a power grid to general communications.

Still, we have a climate of uncertainty moving into the future and cybersecurity is a quickly growing industry. A budget official will probably keep that in mind as he advises the President about who to listen to about making laws to that effect.

White House Chooses Budget Official as Successor for Cybersecurity Chief is a post from: SiliconANGLE We're now available on the Kindle! Subscribe today.

In the same vein:

• U.S. Cybersecurity Czar Howard Schmidt to Step Down
• U.S. and Chinese Militaries Practice Cyberwar and Play House
• Online Threat Growing Rapidly, Can Destroy Companies, says FBI Cyber Security Head
• Cyberthreat Weekly: CISPA Passes House, New Hacker Group, Android Malware on the Rise, and More
• Is Encryption the Answer to Data Security in the Cloud?
• LulzSec Leaked VMware Code Raises Concerns and Implications

Schmidt is a former Air Force officer and previously chief information officer at Microsoft making him a fairly good call for the job. Now that he’s stepping down, members of the White House are hoping that he stays on long enough to guide current legislation working its way through the House and Senate related to homeland cybersecurity.

His job of late has been overshadowed by another position, that of Keith Alexander, director of the National Security Agency and head of the military’s Cyber Command, especially with arguments about the role of the NSA and the Department of Homeland Security in cybersecurity.

With Schmidt stepping down from his position, he will be succeeded by Michael Daniel, chief of the White House budget office’s intelligence branch.

His stepping down from his office of two and a half years comes during a tumultuous time with cybersecurity with lawmakers and the executive branch of the government. Malware is on the rise, corporate espionage has been brought to the media as the next-big-narrative, Anonymous is used as a bogeyman…and CISPA passed the U.S. House. Said bill before the government is considered to be an unthinking disaster for cybersecurity by much of the security industry and privacy watchdogs.

We have even seen the rise of expectations that cybersecurity will take a fundamental role in future warfare and terrorism. As recently as November 2011, fears of cyberterrorism led to questions about a software failure at an Illinois water pump and possible sabotage; although that turned out to be an overreaction it raises questions about networked and Internet-wired infrastructure security.

According to The Washington Post, Schmidt will leave behind a legacy of newfound thinking about our nation’s cybersecurity:

During Schmidt’s tenure, the White House unveiled its first international strategy for cyberspace, which stated that the United States will respond to hostile acts in cyberspace as it would to any other threat to the country, reserving the right to use “all necessary means,” including diplomatic and military, to defend the country.

Schmidt also led the creation of the National Strategy for Trusted Identities in Cyberspace — a program aimed at developing methods for people and businesses to authenticate their identities online that are safer than using passwords, which can be stolen by hackers.

The United States’ growing dependence on digital networks for daily commerce, energy production and military operations has made cybersecurity a prime national-security issue.

Schmidt is 62 years old and has been at this job for over two years.

After retiring, he intends to spend more time with his family, ride his Harley-Davidson motorcycle, and settle down in his home near Seattle. He has extended family in Wisconsin, and looks forward to a sixth grandson on the way.

We at SiliconANGLE bit him a farewell and wait to vet the next chief of cybersecurity and see how they will shape our nation’s forward-looking policies.

U.S. Cybersecurity Czar Howard Schmidt to Step Down is a post from: SiliconANGLE We're now available on the Kindle! Subscribe today.

In the same vein:

• White House Chooses Budget Official as Successor for Cybersecurity Chief
• U.S. and Chinese Militaries Practice Cyberwar and Play House
• USA PATRIOT Act May Put Microsoft Cloud in the Doghouse with the European Union
• U.S. State Department Hacks al-Qaeda Webpages
• Online Threat Growing Rapidly, Can Destroy Companies, says FBI Cyber Security Head
• Cyberthreat Weekly: CISPA Passes House, New Hacker Group, Android Malware on the Rise, and More

The copyright phase of the Oracle-Google trial concluded last week after two weeks of presenting evidence and witnesses from both parties.  Oracle is suing Google for infringing their Java patents when they built the Android platform, claiming that Java APIs are copyrighted and Google was the only one who used them without getting a license from Sun Microsystems, who created Java and was bought by Oracle.  Google argued that a license wasn’t needed since Java is an open source and Sun knew what they were doing and at that time, happy for Google’s efforts and even considered creating a phone with Google, but the partnership fell through. Now Oracle wants Google to pay for damages, setting out to get their share of Android’s revenue.

The thing is, the jury involved in the Oracle-Google case is not well-versed in information technology and they are now having a hard time deliberating as to whether or not Google violated Oracle’s copyright.

Last Thursday, the jury asked U.S. District Judge William Alsup as to what would happen if they couldn’t reach a decision unanimously.  The presiding judge asked them to take the rest of the day off and continue deliberations on Friday.  Unfortunately, the deliberations on Friday were also uneventful so another day was given for deliberations.  The jury is expected to come up with a unanimous decision today, but if they still can’t resolve the remaining issue, the judge is willing to accept a partial verdict.  But this decision is not yet final. The jury needs to unanimously answer the four questions in the verdict form.

“If there is hope for reaching a verdict on all the questions, we should take advantage of that hope and spend one more day deliberating,” Alsup told the jury in federal court. “So what I’m going to ask you to do is do exactly that.”

Surprising twist

While a jury mulls over the ability to copyright an API in the U.S., Europe has already made a decision on the matter. of A report from Wired reveals that a European court ruled that APIs aren’t copyrightable, which has its own implications for the Google-Oracle case.  Judge Alsup asked both parties how that ruling should be viewed with regards to the ongoing lawsuit, giving Google and Oracle until May 14 to comment on the European ruling.  

So it seems like the copyright phase of the trial won’t receive a verdict until the European ruling had been addressed in court, and it appears Alsup may have something to say on the matter as well.  The jury is not responsible in determining if APIs are copyrightable, that’s the judge’s problem.

The Court of Justice of the European Union ruled that APIs aren’t copyrightable in the SAS Institute Inc. v World Programming Ltd case, stating that “neither the functionality of a computer program nor the programming language and the format of data files used in a computer program” are expressive enough to qualify for copyright protection.

“To accept that the functionality of a computer program can be protected by copyright would amount to making it possible to monopolise ideas, to the detriment of technological progress and industrial development,” the court said.

Industry pundits think that it would be destructive if the U.S. court concludes that APIs are copyrightable.  A lot of the things we know now might change if the court favors Oracle.  CEO of the Computer & Communications Industry Association (CCIA) Ed Black, a tech industry lobbying group that counts Google as a member but not Oracle, offered the EU ruling as a lesson for the U.S courts.

“This ruling should be instructive in the Java litigation in the U.S.,” said Black in a statement. “Improperly extending copyright protection to building blocks of innovation could cripple domestic software development and drive innovation abroad. We hope the ECJ’s correct decision will help guide U.S. courts to get this right, as now America’s competitiveness is at stake.”

Oracle v. Google Case Impacted by EU Ruling: APIs Not Copyrightable is a post from: SiliconANGLE We're now available on the Kindle! Subscribe today.

In the same vein:

• RIM Launches NFC Music Streaming Device
• Three Years of Kickstarter: A Rewarding History
• Facebook Unveils Mobile App Center, Samsung Galaxy Note Gets ICS
• Rackspace Open-Sources A Node.js Library for Creating and Parsing XML Documents
• Adaptly Raises $10.5M as Facebook Ecosystem Faces Rival in Pinterest
• Google Wants Retrial For Copyright Phase

Hammond is accused of being the lead coordinator on the attack on the Arizona DPS in mid-2011 and the Stratfor attacks that took place between December of 2011 and March of this year.  The Arizona DPS attack included a trove of hacked emails, and internal documents that were subsequently released.  Many of the documents were considered sensitive and covered law enforcement training, plans, and other delicate internal topics.  In the case of the Stratfor attack, the records of over 860,000 clients were stolen, along with a reported 60,000 credit card numbers, complete with security codes and dates of expiration.  Also revealed in the indictment, the accused are reported to have used those credit card accounts to the tune at least $700,000 through unauthorized charges.  During the transaction of stolen data, some of this was shared with and through servers under monitoring by FBI operations and under the control of indicted FBI informant Hector Xavier Monsegur, also known as “Sabu”.

Hammond is a 27 year old well-known political activist and is the founder of a computer security training website, known as “HackThisSite”, often criticized as encouraging nefarious hacking activities.  With his historical background and public statements, it is hardly a surprise that he now stands accused as the mastermind of these acts.  In fact, at the yearly DEF CON event back in 2004, Hammond delivered a talk on the topic of “Electronic Civil Disobedience”.

Some of the juicier lead comments describe electronic civil disobedience as: “A means of fighting of social justice by putting direct pressure on politicians and institutions” and it should be “legitimate act of online protest”.  Hammond boasts an arrest record littered with disorderly conduct charges and property damage charges dating back to 2003 in public protests.  Stratfor is not off the hook and should be quite embarassed as the disturbing disclosure of the fact that complete credit card information was stored at Stratfor is a violation of PCI compliance.  Rules around this are strict and violations typically are revenue-impacting loss of credit-card processing and significant fines.

#Antisec Mastermind Anarchaos Indicted in Lulzsec Cases is a post from: SiliconANGLE We're now available on the Kindle! Subscribe today.

In the same vein:

• Thousands of Identities Compromised by AntiSec Law Enforcement Hack
• Another Boastful Anonymous Hacker Arrested in Utah
• McAfee Secures MySQL Databases with Free Audit Plug-ins
• The Anonymous Impact: Hacktivism in 2011 Exceeded Criminal Breaches
• Malware Infiltrating Anonymous Not So Different from Any Other Trojan Trickery
• Anonymous Members Spoke At SXSW About “We Are Legion” Documentary

“Thanks to the High Court and the fact that the news was on the BBC, we had 12 MILLION more visitors yesterday than we had ever had before,” a Pirate Bay insider informed TorrentFreak Wednesday.

On hearing the news a Pirate Bay insider told TorrentFreak that the measure will do very little to stop people accessing the site and predicted that “the free advertising” would only increase traffic levels.

It’s not possible to buy advertising “articles” from leading UK publications such as the BBC, Guardian and Telegraph, but yesterday The Pirate Bay news was spread across all of them and dozens beside, for free. The news was repeated around the UK, across Europe and around the world reaching millions of people. The results for the site were dramatic.

“We should write a thank you note to the BPI,” he added.

The Pirate Bay, of course, used their sudden extra publicity to write up more information on how to bypass blocks—including different domain names, IP addresses, TOR, and VPN services.

“Another thing that’s good with the traffic surge is that we now have time to teach even more people how to circumvent Internet censorship,” the insider continued.

First, The Pirate Bay advises that people switch to a cheap, but well respected VPN service such as iPredator or similar service that houses no connection logs (important for privacy.) As you’ll see below, this is advise that a multitude of file sharers and even social media savvy moguls have taken to heart since 2009.

They go on to add that using the privacy-enabling TOR network will also function as a workaround, but only for the initial access to the .torrent file. The TOR network does function nicely for anonymizing connections and protecting privacy but it does not play well with torrents and if people used it for that. If people attempt to use TOR to torrent files it would slow them to terrible levels and affect everyone else using TOR so it’s a poor choice for torrenting itself.

Finally, it’s about time to start jumping out of the DNS provided by ISPs—oftentimes that can be used by the service provider to detect where users are visiting and even block them from sites (if provided for by law or whim)—so The Pirate Bay suggests that people switch to DNS offered by OpenDNS or even Google. As a result, if the ISP is redirecting or not responding to DNS queries to The Pirate Bay via their own DNS, this will circumvent that.

Young Internet Users Avoiding Prying Eyes with VPN Services

In the wake of the High Court’s decision, news media is hooking into surveys of Internet users and their privacy habits. In particular, the BBC reports from a survey via the Cybernormsl group at Sweden’s Lund University that there has been a 40% rise in the number of 15-25-year-olds using VPN services since 2009.

“VPNs could become the next front in the battle against piracy,” predicted independent music analyst Mark Mulligan.

He pointed to the growing popularity of VPNs such as BT Guard – in this case, BT stands for bit torrent not British Telecom.

Increasingly services such as the bluntly named HideMyAss have been taking extra measures to protect their users, he added.

“Some providers have already starting putting anonymity systems in place, such as not tracking IP addresses and deleting logs after seven days.”

Of course, sociologists and privacy experts see recent legislation that cracks open Internet privacy as vehicles towards even further users buying into paid VPN services.

Måns Svensson, PhD in Sociology of Law at Lund and study manager, has spoken out that more users will seek refuge in privacy and anonymization services. And pointed out that this will become even more true as further legislation breathes on the neck of Internet users.

“If the [recent] European Court of Justice opinion leads to an intensified hunt for file sharers, there is evidence that the use of these types of services for anonymity will grow even faster,” says Svensson.

While most of the researchers at Lund believes that legislation is a primary factor in pushing users to anonymity services, they are tracking many more factors involved especially revealing monitoring by extra-governmental sources. Legislation appears to be a big motivator because it gets picked up quickly by the media and has a global impact; but in the US the advent of censorship enabling bills (such as the now-dead SOPA) or privacy breaking bills (such as CISPA.)

All of these elements make the public more aware of their vulnerability online when a multitude of eyes could be peering in at them.

Since legislation will continue to make mistakes about censorship, puncture private citizens expectation of privacy, and expand powers to monitor—often for cynical private interests such as the music industy—citizens seeking better protections for their anonymity with endure and blossom.

The Pirate Bay Experiences Traffic Boost After Block; Youth Look into Privacy via VPN is a post from: SiliconANGLE We're now available on the Kindle! Subscribe today.

In the same vein:

• The Pirate Bay Delivers Tongue-lashing to Anonymous over Virgin Media DDoS
• UK High Court Rules That ISPs Must Block The Pirate Bay
• The Battle Over The Pirate Bay Censorship Rages On Across Europe
• Comcast Users Unable to Reach The Pirate Bay, ISP Says “It’s Not Us”
• Holographic Airport Staff Introduced at London Luton Airport
• EU Sues UK for Breaching Internet Privacy Policies

“Nokia is a leader in many technologies needed for great mobile products,” said Louise Pentland, chief legal officer at Nokia. “We have already licensed our standards essential patents to more than 40 companies.  Though we’d prefer to avoid litigation, Nokia had to file these actions to end the unauthorized use of our proprietary innovations and technologies, which have not been widely licensed.”

According to Reuters, Nokia filed complaints in the US International Trade Commission (ITC) against HTC, filed lawsuits in the Federal District Court of Delaware against HTC and Viewsonic,  filed a case against HTC and RIM in the Regional Court in Dusseldorf, Germany and in the Regional Courts in Mannheim and Munich, Germany against all three companies.  A total of 45 patents were named in one or more of Nokia’s complaints.

Nokia claims that the technology these companies use to enable hardware capabilities such as dual function antennas, power management and multimode radios, as well as to enhance software features including application stores, multitasking, navigation, conversational message display, dynamic menus, data encryption and retrieval of email attachments on a mobile device are all patented innovations of Nokia.

“Many of these inventions are fundamental to Nokia products,” Pentland concluded. “We’d rather that other companies respect our intellectual property and compete using their own innovations, but as these actions show, we will not tolerate the unauthorized use of our inventions.”

It is unclear whether Nokia wants to ban these products or settle for a licensing deal with royalties.

In other Nokia news, aside from announcing that the Nokia 808 PureView will be available to consumers this May, they also announced the continuous partnership with Carl Zeiss with an exclusive deal to make high-end cameraphones. Nokia also announced that they would be launching a new-top-of-the-range-model this month.

The quality of cameras that accompany smartphones plays a crucial role in enticing consumers to buy a certain product.  The better the quality of photos and videos taken with the cameraphone makes it a must-buy item.

“Manufacturers will continue to improve the cameras with higher resolutions, better focus, and several other features to differentiate their devices on a crowded market where touch screen smartphones look alike,” IDC analyst Francisco Jeronimo said, noting that the deal is good for Nokia.

Nokia Files Patent Suits Against HTC, RIM and Viewsonic is a post from: SiliconANGLE We're now available on the Kindle! Subscribe today.

In the same vein:

• Apple Drops 4G iPad Label in Australian, UK Markets
• Will Apple and Samsung Finally Settle?
• Top 5 Smartphone Brands @ MWC 2012
• Scorching Hot Devices at MWC 2012: Nokia PureView, HTC One X and More
• Amazon’s Kindle In Jeopardy as Tablet Takeover Continues
• Samsung and Visa’s Official Olympics Phone with PayWave

We’ve been following this particular legal thunderstorm for quite some time now and so far the solutions for blocking TPB have boiled down to blocking their domain name (which only led to the addition of new domain names.)

According to TorrentFreak, the High Court order covers a request by the labels that ISPs must create a blockade that stops The Pirate Bay under Section 97A of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act.

As one of the ISPs ordered to block The Pirate Bay, Virgin Media told the BBC that they’d comply, but they felt the block wouldn’t work unless the media industry sought other legal alternatives as well,

“As a responsible ISP, Virgin Media complies with court orders addressed to the company but strongly believes that changing consumer behaviour to tackle copyright infringement also needs compelling legal alternatives, such as our agreement with Spotify, to give consumers access to great content at the right price.”

Of course, the Internet community well-knows by now that it’s difficult to impossible to successfully erase anything from cyberspace—worse it will just draw attention to the blockade and people interested in seeking the media they want will just circumvent it. Furthermore, the High Court and the UK in general will be looked upon as suborning censorship rather than doing anything worthwhile.

TorrentFreak outlines an obvious clash between technology and copyright cartels with quotes from the British Phonographic Industry music industry group in contention with the Open Rights Group:

Music industry group BPI, on the other hand, sees today’s verdict as a major victory.

“The High Court has confirmed that The Pirate Bay infringes copyright on a massive scale. Its operators line their pockets by commercially exploiting music and other creative works without paying a penny to the people who created them,” BPI boss Geoff Taylor said.

The Open Rights Group says the court-ordered block represents the thin end of the wedge.

“Blocking the Pirate Bay is pointless and dangerous. It will fuel calls for further, wider and even more drastic calls for Internet censorship of many kinds, from pornography to extremism,” ORG Executive Director Jim Killock said.

“Internet censorship is growing in scope and becoming easier. Yet it never has the effect desired. It simply turns criminals into heroes.”

The problem with compelling ISPs to blockade a website is not just that it doesn’t work, but that it disarms the citizens from making their own decisions as to what information they want to access. In the case of sites such as The Pirate Bay it also stifles and chills a great deal of legitimate sharing, distribution, and useful indexing of torrents. It’s been argued before that the backbone of search on the Internet, Google, Bling, and etc. all could be shown to facilitate copyright infringement in the same way that tracker sits such as TPB do.

Of course, all this attention to TPB is just increasing their notoriety.

In what will probably be the outcome of the “you must block” decision by the High Court, a spokesperson for The Pirate Bay said this to TorrentFreak,

“This will just give us more traffic, as always. Thanks for the free advertising.”

UK High Court Rules That ISPs Must Block The Pirate Bay is a post from: SiliconANGLE We're now available on the Kindle! Subscribe today.

In the same vein:

• The Pirate Bay Delivers Tongue-lashing to Anonymous over Virgin Media DDoS
• Finnish Music Industry Sues ISP to Censor The Pirate Bay
• The Pirate Bay Experiences Traffic Boost After Block; Youth Look into Privacy via VPN
• The Battle Over The Pirate Bay Censorship Rages On Across Europe
• Physibles Come to Town with First Downloaded, 3D Printed Pirate Bay Ship
• Pirate Bay Founders Found Guilty in Sweden Amidst Web Copyright Drama

FCC vs Google

In May 2007, Google deployed custom-equipped autos for their Street View project to collect images, but it also collected wireless data such as e-mail, text messages, passwords, Internet-usage history and “other highly sensitive personal information,” which aren’t needed for the project.

The FCC investigated the matter, which led to a delay in the project.  The investigation ended when Google promised that they would improve company safeguards.  The US Justice Department also stated last year that they “would not pursue a case for violation of the Wiretap Act.”

But on April 13 of this year, the FCC threatened to fine Google $25,000 for delaying their probe on the Street View project, which the search giant agreed to pay just so the inquiry would end.  Unfortunately, agreeing to pay the penalty made Google look guilty.

“In promising to pay the bureau’s penalty, the company has rightly admitted wrongdoing,” Tammy Sun, an FCC spokeswoman, said in an e-mail. “Going forward, important concerns about the privacy of unencrypted Wi-Fi communications remain.”

Others also want the investigation to be re-opened, contesting the Justice Department’s decision not to pursue a case for the violation of the Wiretap Act.

“Google downloaded the private communications of millions of users with Wi-Fi routers in theUnited States,”  Marc Rotenberg, executive director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center who requested the FCC probe, said. “That is not permissible under the federal wiretap act. It can’t be.”

As of today, the Google Street View investigation is closed.

FTC vs Google

The FTC is questioning Google’s search technology – they believe that Google is manipulating the search results in order to put Google’s product or services on top of the search, making them anti-competitive.

There’s no formal case against Google yet, but the hiring of Beth A. Wilkinson, a former Justice Department prosecutor, makes it appear as if the FTC is gearing up for a court battle.

“It’s a watershed moment when you hire someone like this,” said David Wales, a former Federal Trade Commission official now in private practice with Jones Day. “This shows Google that if it doesn’t give you the remedy you want, you’re going to litigate.”

Wilkinson is known for the cases against Colombian narcoterrorist Dandeny Muñoz Mosquera, McVeigh and Terry Nichols, all of which she won.  She was awarded with the Attorney General’s Exceptional Service Award, the Justice Department’s highest honors, for the Mosquera case.  Having her on the FTC’s team means this is serious business, and Google better watch out.

“It increases the likelihood that there will be a case,” said Douglas Broder, a law partner at K&L Gates in New York and the author of several textbooks and articles on antitrust law.

The FTC stated that they hired Wilkinson because in a case as serious as this, you want a thorough investigation which could only be made by a “world-class litigator” like Wilkinson.

“Technology is transforming our society,” Ms. Wilkinson said in an interview. “It affects people at every level. As a mother, I see it with my kids. As a professional, I see it affecting our work. And in society, it impacts privacy, competition, our interactions with other people — just about everything.”

“Working on the investigation will be a great challenge. I don’t underestimate Google,” Wilkinson added.

Google Faces FTC and FCC Probe is a post from: SiliconANGLE We're now available on the Kindle! Subscribe today.

In the same vein:

• FCC Forum on iPhone, Android Data Concerns
• FTC Closes Street View Investigation against Google
• Google Comes Clean with Controversial Street View Project
• FTC Says Deal With Google’s New Privacy Policy, Bill For Taxing Violent Games Trashed
• How Do We Protect Kids’ Data in Mobile Apps?
• Google’s “Share Plus Your World” Raises More Privacy Issues

Schwartz defends Google

Jonathan Schwartz was the former CEO of Sun Microsystems before they were acquired by Oracle.  And he’s Google’s most crucial witness in the trial.  Why?  If you haven’t been following the trial here’s the simple explanation: when Google announced Android, the platform which Oracle is suing Google for using Java codes without acquiring a license, Schwartz congratulated the search giant in their achievement.

Schwartz sent his regards to Google via a blog post.  Below  is part of Schwartz post.  The whole post can be found here.

Congratulations Google, Red Hat and the Java Community!
I just wanted to add my voice to the chorus of others from Sun in offering my heartfelt congratulations to Google on the announcement of their new Java/Linux phone platform, Android.  Congratulations!

Back to the ongoing case, Schwartz appeared in court and stated that Java is an open platform, free to use by anyone but stated that they, Sun, weren’t happy about how Google used Java, had no plans of stopping them at the time.

Schwartz defined the difference between the Java open platform and the Java brand, stating that Google built the Dalvik virtual machine which mimicked Java, aiming to become an alternative to the Java open platform, that’s why they didn’t go after the search giant.  He also stated that from the start, Sun knew Google was using Java in developing the Android platform and they did not require Google to acquire a license since Java is free to be used by anyone.  But they also didn’t like the competition, so they tried to partner up with Google. Things feel through when Schwartz wanted to protect the Java brand – the name and the icon of steaming hot coffee – not the software code that defined the application programming interfaces (APIs) for the Java platform.

“[Android] added to the community because it added more Java. But it didn’t add to our brand. It was simultaneously a threat and an opportunity,” he said. “You have open APIs and compete on implementations.”

Oracle contradicted Schwartz’s statements saying that Oracle controls the Java APIs as part of the acquisition, and showed e-mails from Schwartz which stated that he was not pleased with Google.  Schwartz admitted that he wasn’t happy with what Google did, they used Java but did not give credit to it nor contributed to it, but stated that at least Google didn’t go to Microsoft’s Windows – at least with Android, they’re still part of the Java community.

“That was our way of bypassing the monopoly,” Schwartz said of Java in relation to Microsoft. “The way that you build trust with … partners is you say, ‘All these specifications are going to be built in the open’…. Then we can go on and build our own products.”

The former Sun CEO also discussed how they planned to have a Sun-Google phone because they wanted the revenue.  Schwartz claimed that at that time, they wanted a big licensing fee from Google  so they can call the device a “Java phone”.  But the release of the iPhone changed all that, Google decided to venture out into the mobile scene on their own terms.

“As soon as you take a license to someone else’s technology, you’re married. You have to get along,” Schwartz said.

Though Schwartz appeared calm and collected while giving his testimony in Google’s favor, there were times when he became unsettled – when Oracle’s lawyer belittled him, stating that he was not qualified to answer legal questions about Java since he only knows the business side of it.  Oracle’s lawyer even went as far as stating that the company saved Sun from financial ruins with the acquisition.

Former Sun CEO Schwartz Defends Google’s Use of Java in Court is a post from: SiliconANGLE We're now available on the Kindle! Subscribe today.

In the same vein:

• Schmidt Says They Only Copied API Names, Not Implementation
• Sun Ex-CEO Looks to “Leverage Technology in Pursuit of Better Health.”
• Facebook Unveils Mobile App Center, Samsung Galaxy Note Gets ICS
• Google Wants Retrial For Copyright Phase
• Oracle v. Google Case Impacted by EU Ruling: APIs Not Copyrightable
• Google Admits to Removing Java Code from Android after Oracle Lawsuit

The bill has been forwarded by supporters as a way for companies to take part in national cybersecurity by sharing information about “cyber threats.” It also enables ISPs and companies to secretly and voluntarily hand over confidential and private data to the government, NSA, FBI, and military. All of this would be done when a potential cyber threat is in play and the provider of that data is not required to sanitize any personally identifying material from the dump when they do so.

Critics cite the bill as dangerous because it shields from criminal or civil liability any ISP or company who hands over this information to government agencies under the provisions of the bill. Written into CISPA is also an immunity that quenches privacy laws and contracts in order to expedite the transfer of information on present or ongoing cyberattacks.

Wired reports that the bill’s sponsor, Rep. Mike Rogers used patriotic language to urge the floor to a vote and accused detractors of obfuscation,

Moments before the vote was taken during a daylong hearing, Rogers urged his colleagues to “stand up for America. Support this bill.” He said those who were opposing the measure — groups that include the American Civil Liberties Union and the Electronic Frontier Foundation — were practicing “obfuscation.”

The bill is supported by many corporations, some of whom who were seen in the battle-lines of SOPA such as Microsoft and Facebook, and others in telecommunication such as AT&T, Verizon, and Oracle.

Mere moments after the bill’s passage, the ACLU and EFF stood up to denounce its current form:

“Cybersecurity does not have to mean abdication of Americans’ online privacy. As we’ve seen repeatedly, once the government gets expansive national security authorities, there’s no going back. We encourage the Senate to let this horrible bill fade into obscurity,” said Michelle Richardson, ACLU legislative counsel.

These concerns are mirrored by the current admiration as well. While executives in the White House had come out against CISPA last week, only yesterday did an official statement arrive stating in no uncertain terms that the President’s senior advisors would council him to veto the bill should it pass in its current form.

“Legislation should address core critical infrastructure vulnerabilities without sacrificing the fundamental values of privacy and civil liberties for our citizens, especially at a time our Nation is facing challenges to our economic well-being and national security…” an official from the executive office wrote. “[F]or the reasons stated herein, if H.R. 3523 were presented to the President, his senior advisors would recommend that he veto the bill.”

The next step will take CISPA to the U.S. Senate for a vote, but before then people might want to make themselves aware of what it will do to their personal privacy, and potentially the trust that they put in social media, search engines, and any other Internet service.

CISPA Passed by U.S. House of Representatives in Last Minute Vote is a post from: SiliconANGLE We're now available on the Kindle! Subscribe today.

In the same vein:

• The ACLU is Filing Suit Over Warrantless Border Laptop Searches
• Understanding CISPA: How the Internet Must Take its Privacy Back
• Apple and Dropbox Join Hands for Electronic Privacy
• “Unethical and Greedy”: Free Software Foundation on Oracle vs. Google
• Cyberthreat Weekly: CISPA Passes House, New Hacker Group, Android Malware on the Rise, and More
• The Pirate Bay Experiences Traffic Boost After Block; Youth Look into Privacy via VPN