Pirate Bay Phoenix Fans Return Speculation

Pirate Bay Phoenix Fans Return Speculation

Pirate Bay phoenix

Social media was buzzing after the Pirate Bay updated its home page for the first time in weeks, replacing a waving Jolly Roger flag with a phoenix symbol. The image is traditionally broadcast on the torrent website after high-profile raids as an indication that it will return in the coming days.

The hub of online piracy, where music, movies, TV shows, games and other media content can be downloaded for free, was taken offline in a high-profile raid in December, when Swedish police confiscated at least 50 servers utilized to keep the site online and evade law enforcement over the last decade. It’s hinted at a return since then by featuring a clock on top of the page counting down to Feb. 1, leading to the natural assumption that’s when it will return.

The countdown clock remained in place over the phoenix signal, though at press time Monday the search and download functions were still inaccessible. An image of a pirate ship sailing into a copyright “bay” has also been posted on the bottom of the homepage. There hasn’t been any official confirmation from the small, international group of administrators who run the Pirate Bay.

Iso Hunt and a number of rival piracy sites have paid tribute to the Pirate Bay by archiving the site’s old torrent files on mirror pages. Not among those wishing for the Pirate Bay’s return is Peter Sunde, one of the three original founders, who was recently released from prison after serving time for facilitating copyright infringement.

“The site was ugly, full of bugs, old code and old designs,” Sunde told TorrentFreak before criticizing the Pirate Bay’s method of making a profit. “It never changed except for one thing — the ads. More and more ads were filling the site, and somehow when it felt unimaginable to make these ads more distasteful, they somehow ended up even worse.” 

This article was written by Jeff Stone from International Business Times and was legally licensed through the NewsCred publisher network.

How to Mitigate Data Monetization Risks

How to Mitigate Data Monetization Risks

Collect all the data. Store all the data. Once you’ve got a massive reservoir of data, you’ll be able to answer all the questions the business wants to ask, right? Maybe you can even anonymize the data, package it and sell it, driving revenue to the bottom line.

Not so fast. Monetizing that data may well be the right decision for your company, but it’s important to recognize that your data may represent a massive liability from a legal and security perspective, says Jennifer L. Rathburn, partner with law firm Quarles & Brady and a specialist in data management, data breach and privacy and cybersecurity issues.

“Anyone who does cybersecurity and data breach work would say never to retain more than the minimum amount that you need because of the risk of a data breach,” she says. “It’s really a balancing act. Don’t just collect all the data you think you want. You have to have a good business justification for collecting it because it can be a liability.”

The Value of That Data

It’s clear that data initiatives offer myriad opportunities both internally (streamlining processes, customer insight, enabling new products, etc.) and externally (selling data to third parties). As an example of the latter, Rathburn points to Carolinas HealthCare System, which buys patient data (like credit card purchases) as a data source that it uses as part of an initiative to predict and prevent illness.

Such uses have the potential to transform your business, but they also may expose your organization to considerable risk. In a paper published last month, Rathburn and Associate Simone Colgan Dunlap note that regulatory issues may just be the tip of the iceberg.

“One of the biggest risks associated with use of big data stems from regulatory issues,” they write. “The regulation of data is complex and is shifting rapidly. Accordingly, a critical part of creating a successful data monetization strategy involves understanding regulatory constraints related to data acquisition, use and disclosure.”

The U.S., for instance, has a confusing array of federal and state laws that address privacy, mostly by industry. Violation of these laws can result in big fines, criminal penalties or lawsuits.

Rathburn and Colgan also note that the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has broadly interpreted its authority under Section 5 of the FTC Act, which empowers it to pursue enforcement actions against entities for “deceptive” or “unfair” practices. These enforcement actions can result in consent decrees that require periodic audits for up to 20 years, with fines for those that find themselves in violation.

“Chances are, if your organization is operating within a regulated industry, you are aware of applicable data privacy requirements,” Rathburn and Colgan write. “But, mitigating risk requires organizations to go beyond awareness to developing what the FTC has dubbed ‘privacy by design,’ or building and periodically re-evaluating workable privacy protections into policies, procedures and products.”

Who Owns the Data?

There are also contractual sources of risk to consider. Just because you have access to certain data, that doesn’t mean that you own the data or can use it in particular ways.

“Everyone thinks the data they have is their own,” Rathburn says. “Do you really own that data? Are you getting it from a company you contract with? Are there restrictions on how you can use that data? Do you have the legal authority to do what you want to do with it?”

Rathburn and Colgan note that restrictions on data use may be buried in ownership or confidentiality provisions, meaning your organization needs to conduct a careful review of existing contracts to determine the parameters of relevant restrictions and how they affect the intended uses of your data initiative. And going forward, your organization should determine how it wants to use data, how it needs to use data and then make sure all future contracts are negotiated with those wants and needs in mind.

“It’s really important that your legal documents, your contracts, your privacy policies and terms of use be aligned with your big data strategy,” Rathburn says. “It’s really about what you’re representing to individuals and how you’re contracting with other entities.”

That anticipates another potential source of risk: your relationship with consumers. It’s not enough to simply meet the legal requirements associated with your use of data, Rathburn says. Those requirements form a baseline, but you must balance the potential economic upside to your use of data against reputational harm.

“Keep in mind that angry consumers can do more than sheath their credit cards and tweet scathing reviews,” Rathburn and Colgan warn. “U.S. common law has handed consumers a serious weapon in the form of privacy torts — i.e., no caps on damages, potential for class-actions, torts with a capital ‘T’.”

“If you can’t lock down your big data and segregate it off, you really need to make sure you’re only keeping the minimum necessary amount of information,” Rathburn adds.

Big Data Questions to Ask

Here are some questions Rathburn suggests you answer with relevant stakeholders at the outset of a new data initiative:

  • How is the data collected?
  • What type of data is collected?
  • Is the data coming from outside the U.S.?
  • Are we a regulated entity (e.g., healthcare provider, financial institution, etc.)?
  • What does our Privacy Notice say?
  • Was consent obtained from individuals?
  • If de-identified data is being used, how is de-identification being accomplished and is it in accordance with applicable law?
  • What do our contracts provide about data use and monetization?
  • How and where is the data stored?
  • What purpose do you want to use or disclose the data for?
  • Do we have cyber, privacy and breach notification policies and procedures in place?
  • Are we periodically conducting risk assessments related to data?
  • Will we receive any remuneration for the data?

Rathburn stresses that you shouldn’t allow yourself to become too gunshy to use data — “No risk, no reward,” she says — but it is essential that you stay aware of the risks and plan for them.

Follow Thor on Google+

This article was written by Thor Olavsrud from CIO and was legally licensed through the NewsCred publisher network.

Malaysia Airlines site hacked by Lizard Squad

Malaysia Airlines site hacked by Lizard Squad

This article originally appeared on The Next Web

MA Hack

Malaysia Airlines ‘ website has been hacked today by the cyber-attack group Lizard Squad, which now appears to be calling itself ‘Official Cyber Caliphate’.

The national carrier’s site shows a header that says ‘404 – Plane Not Found’, likely a reference to the loss of Flight MH370 last March and the shooting down of Flight MH17 in July.

However, Malaysia Airlines says that its servers are intact and have not leaked any user data, and that it has solved the issue which appears to have been a DNS attack. The company says its site will become fully operational in about 22 hours from now, and that travelers can book flights as usual via this page.

The site also has the familiar Lizard Squad avatar, links to three Twitter accounts (@LizardMafia, @UMGRobert and @UmgChris) and a rap song that plays automatically, celebrating Lizard Squad’s achievements including its recent takedowns of online gaming services Xbox Live and PlayStation Network.

While Malaysia Airlines says that it hasn’t lost any data, Lizard Squad tweeted that they have found something on the company which they will share shortly.

Going to dump some loot found on http://t.co/D9XYneQoaK servers soon

— Lizard Squad (@LizardMafia) January 26, 2015

It’s not immediately apparent why Esports company UMG Gaming’s owner Robert Terkla’s Twitter account, along with what appears to be CEO Chris Tuck’s account, are listed on the site. Terkla said on Twitter that he had nothing to do with the attack.

Malaysia Airlines [via Reuters]

This article was written by Abhimanyu Ghoshal from The Next Web and was legally licensed through the NewsCred publisher network.

A traffic light you are not allowed to stop at

-----Original Message-----
From: "Dave Herald" x3Cdrherald@bigpond.net.aux3E
Sent 9/7/2010 10:34:22 PM
To: today@canberratimes.com.au
Subject: A traffic light you are not allowed to stop at
The attached photo is of a traffic light at the intersection of
King Edward 
Terrace and Flynn Drive, on the corner closest to the National
Library.

 

What is noteworthy is the attached sign, relating to the region in
front of 
the lights. It is a 'No Stopping' sign. You might expect a
no-parking sign, 
or a no-standing sign - to ensure you don't have motorists blocking the
road. 
But a No Stopping sign is a prohibition against stopping.  It
poses 
the interesting conundrum. Which has priority - a red traffic light, or
the No 
Stopping sign? If a Parking Inspector stations himself just before the
traffic 
lights, can he issue infringement notices to anyone who stops at the
traffic 
lights? Would it be a defense to going through a red traffic light that
you were 
avoiding

Hackers could infiltrate NSW traffic and sewage systems, Auditor-General Grant Hehir warns

Hackers could infiltrate Sydney’s traffic light network and cause accidents or road chaos, an official investigation has found, raising serious doubts over the preparedness of the state’s vital infrastructure to ward off cyber attacks.

The technology controlling Sydney’s water supply and sewers should also be more secure, and the privatisation of water treatment hampers checks on cyber security, the probe by NSW Auditor-General Grant Hehir found. He called on government operators of other critical infrastructure to heed the lessons learnt.

Recent cyber attacks on Sony Pictures in Hollywood and the US military’s Twitter and YouTube accounts have highlighted the threat posed by cyber criminals.

Such attacks in Australia are not unheard of. In Queensland in 2000, a disgruntled computer expert hacked into Maroochy Shire sewerage system and released raw sewage into parks and waterways.

The Auditor-General’s findings released last week assessed the security of systems managing the state’s roads, in particular its 4000 sets of traffic lights.

He found that the systems managing traffic signals “are not as secure as they should be”.

“There is the potential for unauthorised access to sensitive information and systems that could result in traffic disruptions, and even accidents,” the report said.

Devices are in place preventing simultaneous green lights or green-yellow lights at intersections. However, traffic lights could still be disabled entirely, including through physical tampering of roadside controls.

A security plan in place for the Transport Management Centre, where the state’s roads are centrally monitored, does not extend to the whole traffic light system.

A Transport for NSW spokesman noted the “opportunities to improve” its systems. The agency implemented best-practice controls and “only a select few staff, with high-level clearance, have access to the traffic light system”, he said.

The report also probed Sydney Water, which manages the city’s water supply and sewage, and found controls preventing IT security breaches were “not as effective as they could be”. However, the state-owned corporation was well placed to respond to security incidents if they occurred.

The Auditor-General said he was prevented from gauging security at the privately operated Prospect water treatment plant, which produces a large proportion of Sydney’s water supply, because his mandate did not extend to third parties. This is despite calls by a parliamentary committee in 2013 for an extension of audit powers.

A Sydney Water spokesman said it “takes system and site security very seriously” and third parties are subject to stringent security obligations.

“We acknowledge that there is room for improvement, and learnings from the report will be used to develop more resilient systems,” he said.

NSW Labor’s water spokesman Peter Primrose said the privatisation of water and other services had created a “corporate veil of secrecy”.

“People rely on these services and they should be accountable to the public through the Auditor-General and the Parliament,” he said.

This article was written by Nicole Hasham from Sydney Morning Herald and was legally licensed through the NewsCred publisher network.

China Blocks VPNs In Online Censorship Crackdown

VPN Outages In China Part Of Larger Cybersecurity Crackdown

China internet censorship

China is making good on its announcement to step up its cyberspace security with a nationwide overhaul of tech devices and Internet control. The country announced that it has “upgraded” its notoriously strict Internet censorship mechanism, the Great Firewall, which reportedly has begun causing disruptions with virtual private network (VPN) services in the country.

VPN services are often used by foreigners and Chinese to skirt Chinese censorship and gain access to sites that have been blocked by the government, like Facebook, Twitter and YouTube. State-run news source Global Times said the recent upgrade is to ensure “cyberspace sovereignty” and that VPNs were targeted because they affect the government’s ability to govern its network.

“Authorities apparently cannot ignore those services as they affect our cyberspace sovereignty,” Qin An, a cybersecurity expert at the China Institute for Innovation and Development Strategy, said in the report. “For instance, a shortcut has to be blocked since it could be used for some ulterior purposes although it might affect others who use it in a right way.”

Just a day before, the country also announced it will adopt a new security vetting process this year that all foreign technology must pass before the product can be sold in the country. The announcement on Wednesday in Beijing by the deputy director of the Cyberspace Administration of China, Peng Bo, will have major implications for foreign tech companies hoping to get a piece of the lucrative Chinese consumer market.

The new screening process follows an announcement last May by state media that said all foreign products and services would be banned for use in the country until they are deemed “safe and controllable” by the government. Criteria for the new review process remain unclear but will include new laws and regulation standards as well as an additional government agency to facilitate and oversee the operation.

However, companies like Apple Inc., which counts China as its biggest market, has already expressed willingness to cooperate with whatever the new review process might entail. According to Chinese newspaper Beijing News, Apple CEO Tim Cook met with Lu Wei, the director of China’s State Internet Information Office, last December during a trip to the U.S. where he discussed the tech giant’s readiness to cooperate with authorities while also denying past allegations of allowing third-party access.

China’s crackdown on foreign software and hardware comes after national security concerns after Edward Snowden, the information security analyst who leaked classified documents to the press, claimed that U.S. intelligence authorities were able to hack into the computers of Beijing’s Tsinghua University, one of the country’s top research centers.

The rollout of the new process and the upgraded firewall is presumably part of a larger cyber technology overhaul the Chinese government is planning over the next six months to battle Internet extortion. The campaign will target news portals, Internet companies and even the country’s own Internet regulators.

This article was written by Michelle FlorCruz from International Business Times and was legally licensed through the NewsCred publisher network.

North Korea's ambassador So Se Pyong speaks to members of the media during a news conference in Geneva

North Korea seeks U.N. probe of ‘CIA torture crimes’

GENEVA (Reuters) – North Korea called on Thursday for the top United Nations human rights body to investigate allegations of Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) torture in the George W. Bush era, that were contained in a recent Senate report.

The move, announced by So Se Pyong, ambassador of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea to the U.N. in Geneva, puts more strain on ties with Washington, following U.S. accusations that Pyongyang was behind a cyber attack on Sony Pictures. North Korea denies those accusations.

So told a news briefing that the issue of the “CIA torture crimes” should be put on the agenda of the U.N. Human Rights Council which meets from March 2-27.

“Today I also sent the letter to the president of the Human Rights Council to formally discuss the issue of the CIA case at the upcoming session, including establishing an independent commission of inquiry mandated to make a thorough investigation of CIA torture crimes,” So said.

His letter to German Ambassador Joachim Ruecker, current president of the 47-member state forum, reads: “The CIA torture crimes, which have been conducted in the most brutal medieval forms and unanimously denunciated worldwide … deserve severe punishment by the international community”.

American civil rights groups last month called on the U.S. Justice Department to appoint a special prosecutor to probe the CIA’s use of torture and other extreme measures during interrogations, following a Senate Intelligence Committee report.

Obama administration officials have said the Justice Department has no plans to reopen its investigation into the conduct of CIA interrogators toward detainees captured after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

A U.N. commission of inquiry established by the council last year issued a report alleging that North Korea had committed crimes against humanity, including mass killings and torture comparable to Nazi-era atrocities.

North Korea has launched a campaign to discredit the report, following news that one prominent defector had recanted parts of his testimony.

“The whole story of that report depends on the defectors lies, fabricated stories,” So said. “It is a bitter shame for the United Nations to be involved in the racket against the DPRK on the basis of false information.”

Michael Kirby, an Australian judge who headed the U.N. inquiry, said the changes in the defector’s account did not affect its findings which were based on testimony by hundreds of Koreans.

(Editing by Hugh Lawson)

This article was written by STEPHANIE NEBEHAY from Reuters and was legally licensed through the NewsCred publisher network.

Turkey's President Tayyip Erdogan addresses the media at the Presidential Palace in Ankara

Turkey proposes tighter internet law, pursues Twitter critic

ANKARA (Reuters) – Turkey is pressing new legislation allowing ministers to temporarily ban websites and forcing Twitter to block an anonymous whistleblower as part of President Tayyip Erdogan’s campaign to bring the internet to heel.

Last year, Erdogan vowed to “eradicate” Twitter after allegations of government corruption were published on the micro-blogging site.

The proposed law, debated by a parliamentary commission on Thursday, would allow ministers to order access restricted to any website deemed to threaten lives, public order or people’s rights and freedoms by committing a crime.

The Telecommunications Directorate (TIB) would have to comply within four hours, and then apply for a court order for the ban to be extended beyond 24 hours.

Communications Minister Lutfu Elvan this week defended the proposal, saying it was needed after Turkey’s top court in October annulled previous legislation giving greater powers to ban websites, and saying it would only be used in emergencies.

Turkey came under international criticism for temporary bans on Facebook and Twitter as a corruption scandal unfolded last year. The opposition questioned the government’s motives.

Erdogan said the corruption scandal was engineered by opponents in an attempt to topple him.

“Naturally the government will as a priority block sites and pages which it does not like and drag its feet on other ones,” said Erdal Aksunger, an MP for Turkey’s opposition CHP.

Twitter this week responded to a Turkish court order by blocking tweets from the account “Fuat Avni”, which in recent months embarrassed the government with a series of leaks, including tip-offs on police raids on media outlets.

In a sign of the challenge Erdogan faces if he wants to effectively corral the Internet, a new Twitter account apparently from the same user sprang up hours later.

(Additional reporting by Humeyra Pamuk and Daren Butler in Istanbul; Editing by Nick Tattersall)

This article was written by Gulsen Solaker and Jonny Hogg from Reuters and was legally licensed through the NewsCred publisher network.

General Dynamics Corp Vice President Short speaks at the Reuters Cybersecurity Summit in Washington

General Dynamics sees more demand for ‘insider’ cyber protection

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – General Dynamics Corp, a key provider of cyber services for the U.S. government, said recent high-profile cyberattacks were boosting demand from government agencies for better protections against breaches by so-called insiders.

Nadia Short, vice president and general manager of cyber systems for General Dynamics’ Mission Systems business, told Reuters in an interview this week the well-publicized hack of Sony Pictures Entertainment had galvanized interest in the security of U.S. government and industry computer networks.

She said the Sony attack, which Washington has blamed on North Korea, was resonating with the American public in a way that earlier attacks on private companies had not, and could boost the prospects for passage of cybersecurity legislation.

Short welcomed President Barack Obama’s push for cybersecurity legislation and greater sharing of information by industry and government about potential threats.

She said continued cyberattacks and the large number of documents leaked by former U.S. National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden were prompting government agencies to beef up security against outside attackers as well as the so-called insider threat.

Four or five government agencies have requested information or proposals over the last six months focused on insider threat detection, Short said. She declined to name the agencies.

Short said insider attacks were difficult to eliminate completely, but the company offered services that could detect unusual behaviors that almost always preceded such incidents. The company also does forensic studies when breaches occur and offers network encryption devices, she said.

Even tracking printer use at unusual times or thermostat activity could help officials predict abnormal behaviors.

While U.S. military spending has declined in recent years, demand for cybersecurity has remained stable and even grown significantly in some areas, Short said.

Like other defense contractors, General Dynamics has found it difficult to penetrate the commercial market, but Short said there was growing demand in the government sector.

Short said the company’s decision last fall to combine its cyber and engineering services units had given her division more breadth, access to more expertise and to new customers, and the ability to engineer more comprehensive security solutions.

“Across the board, I see this as still being a growth area for us,” Short said. She declined to provide details about the amount of revenue generated in the cyber business, but said General Dynamics planned to increase investment in the sector and would likely hire more workers this year.

(Reporting by Andrea Shalal; Editi)

This article was written by Andrea Shalal from Reuters and was legally licensed through the NewsCred publisher network.

Picture illustration of People posing with laptops in front of projection with word 'cyber' and binary code in Zenica

Kenya weighs Chinese request for extradition of 76 held for cyber crime

GENEVA (Reuters) – Kenya is considering a request from Beijing to extradite 76 Chinese nationals charged with cyber crime for trial in their homeland, Kenya’s attorney-general said on Thursday.

Githu Muigai said he expected a decision soon on the request from a “friendly government” with which Kenya has strong trade and industrial ties.

Some 76 Chinese nationals have been detained by Kenyan police investigating allegations of cyber crime, operating private radio services and being in the country illegally, their lawyers said on Dec. 5.

“We have received requests from the government of China, which is a friendly government, to surrender these persons to be prosecuted for offences in China … A decision will be made in the very near future,” Muigai told reporters in Geneva.

Any agreement would have to meet Kenya’s justice standards, he said, adding their alleged criminality involved “the security of banking, credit cards and other operations”.

“I would not be surprised if the majority of the persons arrested were mere operatives and who probably wouldn’t attract a sentence beyond five years,” he added.

“But there are major masterminds of what the Chinese government itself has stated to be international criminal elements. And obviously around them there would be more serious charges and probably more severe penalties.”

Muigai, speaking to the United Nations Human Rights Council earlier in the day, said Kenya had undertaken wide-ranging reforms to improve access to justice and the rule of law.

(Reporting by Stephanie Nebehay; editing by Andrew Roche)

This article was from Reuters and was legally licensed through the NewsCred publisher network.

Obama supports cybersecurity and privacy, but experts warn of unintended impacts

Obama supports cybersecurity and privacy, but experts warn of unintended impacts

President Obama called for strengthening cybersecurity and privacy protection in his State of the Union speech Tuesday. Most security experts agree with the President’s overall goals, but warn of potential unintended consequences that could do more harm than good.

A vision for stronger cybersecurity

The President outlined three broad areas to focus on: cybersecurity information sharing, modernization of law enforcement agencies’ weapons against cybercrime, and national data breach reporting. Those are all worthy goals, however, they’re not necessarily the more urgent ones. Security experts disagree on how—or whether—these goals can even be achieved.

Gary Steele, CEO at Proofpoint, said, “The President’s inclusion of cybersecurity as a topic in his speech is further validation of the critical importance of this issue across all industries and sectors, public and private. As regards his specific proposals, it is absolutely the role of the government to legislate consumer protection—but not corporate security strategy. Legislation cannot evolve as quickly as the threat landscape.”

Reforming existing security rules

“From the point of view of a company that is subject to notifying the public of breaches, I can say it would be a breath of fresh air to have a single, consolidated, and consistent regulation to deal with,” declared Mark Kraynak, Chief Product Officer, Imperva. “But from a practical industry perspective, if there’s any value to breach notifications, it’s already been realized by the plethora of overlapping state and international laws.”

Tripwire CTO Dwayne Melancon also suggested starting with some clarification of the existing rules and requirements. “Organizations have an overwhelming array of choices available to improve their cybersecurity programs, but what criteria should they use to make these investment decisions?”

Melancon added that the lack of clarity also hampered corporate risk assessment around cybersecurity policy and practices. “None of the expectations about cybersecurity protection are clearly articulated, and few come from an authoritative source,” Melancon said. “This means that it’s difficult for companies to legally defend themselves in the event of a significant breach, and it also makes it difficult for companies that haven’t been breached to accurately assess business risks.”

Robert Hansen, VP of WhiteHat Labs at WhiteHat Security, was less than enthusiastic about Obama’s cybersecurity proposals. “While it’s understandable that the American population wants to take a stand against computer crime, what the President is proposing to enact into law would have made no difference in the Sony case.”

Hansen suggested that the technologies being recommended to protect a free and open Internet will actually make government censorship easier, and have a chilling effect on benign computer security research—efforts by researchers like those at WhiteHat Labs designed to proactively identify vulnerabilities and exploits in order to protect the American public. Businesses may move out of the United States for fear of public backlash if they are required to disclose that they have been breached.

Chris Doggett, managing director for Kaspersky Lab North America, agreed that any legislation enacted shouldn’t end up prohibiting the techniques and methods used by legitimate security researchers, security consulting companies, and security vendors. He warns that we can’t “handcuff” the very people and organizations we rely on to defend us from the cybercriminals.

Doggett also stressed that mandated information sharing could do more harm than good. “It should not cross-over into the area of broad-reaching surveillance (in conflict with our right to privacy), nor should regulations be enacted that force information disclosures which compromise criminal investigations. And of course, we must safeguard against information being disclosed which causes incremental damage to the victims of the attacks or unduly punishes those who are not our true adversaries in the battle against cybercrime.”

Stay calm and keep secure

Cybersecurity plays an integral role in the safety and economic stability of our nation. It’s about time that cybersecurity be treated as a higher priority, and that we start to find ways for the public and private sector to work together for better security. Finding a politically acceptable common ground that actually has a chance of impacting cybersecurity is a virtually impossible task, though.

It’s important for people to be informed about what the government is planning, and to speak up to their elected officials if they disagree with proposed legislation. Tim Erlin, director of IT security and risk strategy at Tripwire, cautions against freaking out prematurely, though. “Rhetoric is just that, and the cybersecurity industry as a whole should be cautious about Obama’s proposals. Until they make their way through the muck and mire of Congress, they remain merely ideas aspiring to become reality.”

This article was written by Tony Bradley from PC World and was legally licensed through the NewsCred publisher network.