Blog Kang Ricky

CESA (Cyberspace Electronic Security Act of 1999) is a bill enacted by the US Congress that allows the government the ability to harvest keys used in encryption. The Cyberspace Electronic Security Act (CESA) gives law enforcement the right to gain access to encryption keys and cryptography methods. The initial version of this act allowed federal law enforcement agencies to secretly use monitoring, electronic capturing equipment and other technologies to access and obtain information. These provisions were later stricken from the act, although federal law enforcement agencies were given a large amount of latitude to conduct investigations relating to electronic information. This act is generating a lot of discussion about what capabilities should be allowed to law enforcement in the detection of criminal activity.

Cyberwarfare has been defined by government security expert Richard A. Clarke, in his book Cyber War (May 2010), as "actions by a nation-state to penetrate another nation's computers or networks for the purposes of causing damage or disruption.":6 The Economist describes cyber warfare as "the fifth domain of warfare," and William J. Lynn, U.S. Deputy Secretary of Defense, states that "as a doctrinal matter, the Pentagon has formally recognized cyberspace as a new domain in warfare . . . [which] has become just as critical to military operations as land, sea, air, and space." In 2009, President Barack Obama declared America’s digital infrastructure to be a "strategic national asset," and in May 2010 the Pentagon set up its new Cyber Command (Cybercom), headed by General Keith B. Alexander, director of the National Security Agency (NSA), to defend American military networks and attack other countries’ systems. The United Kingdom has also set up a cyber-security and "operations centre" based in Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ), the British equivalent of the NSA. In the U.S. however, Cyber Command is only set up to protect the military, whereas the government and corporate infrastructures are primarily the responsibility respectively of the Department of Homeland Security and private companies. The Economist writes that China has plans of “winning informationised wars by the mid-21st century”. They note that other countries are likewise organizing for cyberwar, among them Russia, Israel and North Korea. Iran boasts of having the world’s second-largest cyber-army. James Gosler, a government cybersecurity specialist, worries that the U.S. has a severe shortage of computer security specialists, estimating that there are only about 1,000 qualified people in the country today, but needs a force of 20,000 to 30,000 skilled experts. At the July 2010 Black Hat computer security conference, Michael Hayden, former deputy director of national intelligence, challenged thousands of attendees to help devise ways to "reshape the Internet's security architecture, explaining, "You guys made the cyberworld look like the north German plain." Methods of attack Cyberwarfare consists of many different threats Espionage and national security breaches Cyber espionage is the act or practice of obtaining secrets (sensitive, proprietary or classified information) from individuals, competitors, rivals, groups, governments and enemies also for military, political, or economic advantage using illegal exploitation methods on internet, networks, software and or computers. Classified information that is not handled securely can be intercepted and even modified, making espionage possible from the other side of the world. See Titan Rain and Moonlight Maze. General Alexander notes that the recently established Cyber Command is currently trying to determine whether such activities as commercial espionage or theft of intellectual property are criminal activities or actual "breaches of national security. More Info:wikipedia

CyberCrime adalah istilah yang mengacu kepada aktivitas kejahatan dengan komputer atau jaringan komputer menjadi alat, sasaran atau tempat terjadinya kejahatan. Termasuk ke dalam kejahatan dunia maya antara lain adalah penipuan lelang secara online, pemalsuan cek, penipuan kartu kredit, confidence fraud, penipuan identitas, pornografi anak, dll. Walaupun kejahatan dunia maya atau cybercrime umumnya mengacu kepada aktivitas kejahatan dengan komputer atau jaringan komputer sebagai unsur utamanya, istilah ini juga digunakan untuk kegiatan kejahatan tradisional dimana komputer atau jaringan komputer digunakan untuk mempermudah atau memungkinkan kejahatan itu terjadi. Contoh: kejahatan dunia maya atau CyberCrime di mana komputer sebagai alat adalah spamming dan kejahatan terhadap hak cipta dan kekayaan intelektual. Contoh kejahatan dunia maya di mana komputer sebagai sasarannya adalah akses ilegal (mengelabui kontrol akses), malware dan serangan DoS. Contoh kejahatan dunia maya di mana komputer sebagai tempatnya adalah penipuan identitas. Sedangkan contoh kejahatan tradisional dengan komputer sebagai alatnya adalah pornografi anak dan judi online.

The Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (ACPA), 15 U.S.C. § 1125(d), is an American law enacted in 1999 and established a cause of action for registering, trafficking in, or using a domain name confusingly similar to, or dilutive of, a trademark or personal name. The law was designed to thwart “cybersquatters” who register Internet domain names containing trademarks with no intention of creating a legitimate web site, but instead plan to sell the domain name to the trademark owner or a third party.Critics of the ACPA complain about the non-global scope of the Act and its potential to restrict free speech. Background Before the ACPA was enacted, trademark owners relied heavily on the Federal Trademark Dilution Act (FTDA) to sue domain name registrants. The FTDA was enacted in 1995 in part with the intent to curb domain name abuses. The legislative history of the FTDA specifically mentions that trademark dilution in domain names was a matter of Congressional concern motivating the Act. Senator Leahy stated that “it is my hope that this anti-dilution statute can help stem the use of deceptive Internet addresses taken by those who are choosing marks that are associated with the products and reputations of others. For example, in Panavision Int’l L.P. v. Toeppen, 141 F.3d 1316 (9th Cir. 1998), Dennis Toeppen registered the domain name Panavision.com. Panavision, the trademark owner, learned that Toeppen had registered their trademark when they attempted to register the trademark “Panavision” as a domain name. Toeppen was using the domain panavision.com to display photographs of Pana, Illinois and, when asked to cease, he offered to sell the domain name to Panavision for $13,000. After Panavision refused to buy the domain name from Toeppen, he registered their other trademark, Panaflex, as a domain name. The Court held that the Federal Trademark Dilution Act could be violated without the traditional tarnishing or blurring the courts had required. Rulings like this extended the Federal Trademark Dilution Act substantially, making the law a less-than-ideal fit for protecting trademark owners against cybersquatters. Overview of the ACPA Under the ACPA, a trademark owner may bring a cause of action against a domain name registrant who (1) has a bad faith intent to profit from the mark and (2) registers, traffics in, or uses a domain name that is (a) identical or confusingly similar to a distinctive mark, (b) identical or confusingly similar to or dilutive of a famous mark, or (c) is a trademark protected by 18 U.S.C. § 706 (marks involving the Red Cross) or 36 U.S.C. § 220506 (marks relating to the “Olympics”). A trademark is famous if the owner can prove that the mark “is widely recognized by the general consuming public of the United States as a designation of source of the goods or services of the mark's owner. “Trafficking” in the context of domain names includes, but is not limited to “sales, purchases, loans, pledges, licenses, exchanges of currency, and any other transfer for consideration or receipt in exchange for consideration.” The ACPA also requires that the mark be distinctive or famous at the time of registration. In determining whether the domain name registrant has a bad faith intent to profit a court may consider many factors including nine that are outlined in the statute: 1. the registrant’s trademark or other intellectual property rights in the domain name; 2. whether the domain name contains the registrant’s legal or common name; 3. the registrant’s prior use of the domain name in connection with the bona fide offering of goods or services; 4. the registrant’s bona fide noncommercial or fair use of the mark in a site accessible by the domain name; 5. the registrant’s intent to divert customers from the mark owner’s online location that could harm the goodwill represented by the mark, for commercial gain or with the intent to tarnish or disparage the mark; 6. the registrant’s offer to transfer, sell, or otherwise assign the domain name to the mark owner or a third party for financial gain, without having used the mark in a legitimate site; 7. the registrant’s providing misleading false contact information when applying for registration of the domain name; 8. the registrant’s registration or acquisition of multiple domain names that are identical or confusingly similar to marks of others; and 9. the extent to which the mark in the domain is distinctive or famous. The ACPA does not prevent the fair use of trademarks or any use protected by the First Amendment, which includes gripe sites. In Mayflower Transit, L.L.C. v. Prince, 314 F. Supp. 2d 362 (D.N.J 2004), the court found that the first two prongs of Mayflower's ACPA claim were easily met because (1) their registered trademark was distinctive and (2) Defendant’s “mayflowervanline.com” was confusingly similar to Plaintiff’s Mayflower trademark. However, when the court was examining the third prong of Plaintiff’s ACPA claim, whether Defendant registered its domain name with the bad faith intent to profit from Plaintiff, the court found Defendant had a bona fide noncommercial use of the mark, therefore, the ACPA claimed failed. “Defendant’s motive for registering the disputed domain names was to express his customer dissatisfaction through the medium of the Internet. The domain name registrar or registry or other domain name authority is not liable for injunctive or monetary relief except in the case of bad faith or reckless disregard. While § 1125 protects trademark owners, 15 U.S.C. § 1129 protects any living person from having their personal name included in a domain name, but only when the domain name is registered for profitable resale. In rem Jurisdiction The ACPA also provides that the trademark owner can file an in rem action against the domain name in the judicial district where the domain name registrar, domain name registry, or other domain name authority registered or assigned the domain name is located if (1) the domain name violates any right of the trademark owner and (2) the court finds that the owner (a) is not able to obtain in personam jurisdiction over the person who would have been a defendant under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(d)(1); or (b) through due diligence was not able to find a person who would have been a defendant under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(d)(1) by sending a notice of the alleged violation and publishing notice of the action. This provision is rarely used, however, because many trademark owners can achieve the same results through a Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) proceeding. ACPA v. UDRP Instead of suing in federal court under the ACPA, a trademark owner can choose to pursue an administrative proceedings under ICANN’s Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP). The UDRP allows a trademark owner to challenge domain name registrations in expedited administrative proceedings. A UDRP proceeding can be faster and cheaper for trademark owners than an ACPA lawsuit. Also, UDRP outcomes tend to be pro-plaintiff because many UDRP arbitrators are trademark lawyers. However, some trademark owners prefer to bring ACPA claims because they offer more remedies than the cancellation or transfer of the domain name (the only remedies available under UDRP proceedings) and a court ruling can lead to a final resolution of the matter. Also, a suit under the ACPA may deter future cybersquatters more effectively than a UDRP proceeding. Domaining and the ACPA While the ACPA contemplated the purchase of domain names for resale to trademark owners, it did not contemplate the more modern practice of domaining. Domaining is the business of registering a domain name, parking it or placing pay-per-click ads on it. Domainers rely on type-in traffic, which is when Internet surfers type in the domain name rather than using a search engine to find what they are looking for. Domainers can make a lot of money in this business of buying and selling domain names. Some domainers rely on domain tasting, which involves placing pay-per-click ads on the domain for five days (or less) to determine whether the ads will make more than the annual cost of the domain. If the domain is dropped within the five day grace period, no fee is incurred. An industry has grown up out of this business with domainers taking part in these mass registrations. Domain tasting has become much less popular since 2009, when ICANN began raising fees to registrars with excessive domain tasting. In Verizon California, Inc. v. Navigation Catalyst Systems, 568 F. Supp. 2d 1088 (C.D. Cal. 2008), the domainer lost under the ACPA. One of the defendants, Basic Fusion, Inc. argues that they were not cybersquatters, but as an Internet registrar accredited by ICANN they could register domain names on behalf of its customers and it specialized in “bulk registration." Navigation Catalyst Systems, another defendant and customer of Basic Fusion, used their “proprietary automated tool” to find domain names that were not already registered and then registered them using Basic Fusion. Navigation used the five days following the registration (the “add grace period”) to put advertisements on the websites making money from the advertisements even when they dropped the domain name registration before the five day window closed. Plaintiff Verizon argued that defendants “registered” 1,392 domain names that were confusingly similar to plaintiff’s trademarks. The Court found that defendants used the confusingly similar domain names with a bad faith intent to profit.