For example, the “Average Joe Investor” does not care about “best order execution” or “smart order routing,” this is for “the big boys.”  As we all know, saving a few pennies or dollars per transaction to “Average Joe Investor” does nothing for them when their retirement nest egg is lost due to corporate greed and negligence.     The folks who “really care” about shaving a few milliseconds off market execution are the companies that are trading high volumes of exotic derivatives and baskets who have, for the most part, zero interest in the personal financial portfolio of “Jane in Iowa” or “Joe in Kansas.”

I am really amazed to see the dominance of greed in corporate America and the lack of corporate social responsibility.  Risk taking and “split second trading” does little for any small. individual investor and has proven to destabilize our society.    Who cares about saving a few pennies or dollars in market executive?

The answer: Only the greedy corporations, the same people responsible for the current destabilization, chao and near collaspe of our entire financial system.   Homes lost, unprecedented bankruptcies. and money market funds less than par value!   You no doubt have read that folks in the Reserve Money Market funds cannot even withdraw their “safe money.”  Investors in the Reserve Funds are being told that for every dollar they invested in a money market, they now only have 97 cents and cannot withdraw their capital as the Reserve waits for a government bailout.

What is to blame? Greed and profits over corporate social responsibility are to blame.

I read where some folks think the government needs to regulate market-related news, supposedly to stabilize trading based on news.   Regulating news has another name -  “censorship” - but who cares about the US Constitution when money and split second algo trading is involved?    I am amazed.   Folks in financial services just will say or do anything to make a buck, or keep from losing one, even at the expense of society and our basic constitutional freedoms.  News is not regulated in our democratic society, nor should it be to make algorithmic trading “better”.     What we need is less split second, computerized algo trading and more stablity.   Machine processing should not dicate nor mandate changes to our democratic principles.

Nor should our lives in a free society be censored or regulated because of the trading requirements for split second transactions that benefit large corporations.    The average investor does not need an unstable financial system trading exotic derivatives and baskets at the speed of light.  This requirement is driven by corporate greed that destabilizes the core economy and fabric of our society.

Of couse, many of the same folks would like for us to believe that technology is the answer.  This is a fallacy.

Corporate greed is destabilizing society.   What need to be regulated is not the news, but corporate risk taking and corporate goverance.  Individual investors do not need lightspeed transactions in an unstable world.   Citizens and families need a secure, stable economic infrastructure, something that has been lost in the culture of corporate greed, but hopefully not forever.

A United Nations agency is quietly drafting technical standards, proposed by the Chinese government, to define methods of tracing the original source of Internet communications and potentially curbing the ability of users to remain anonymous.

The U.S. National Security Agency is also participating in the "IP Traceback" drafting group, named Q6/17, which is meeting next week in Geneva to work on the traceback proposal. Members of Q6/17 have declined to release key documents, and meetings are closed to the public.

[...]

A second, apparently leaked ITU document offers surveillance and monitoring justifications that seem well-suited to repressive regimes:

A political opponent to a government publishes articles putting the government in an unfavorable light. The government, having a law against any opposition, tries to identify the source of the negative articles but the articles having been published via a proxy server, is unable to do so protecting the anonymity of the author.

This is being sold as a way to go after the bad guys, but it won't help. Here's Steve Bellovin on that issue:

First, very few attacks these days use spoofed source addresses; the real IP address already tells you where the attack is coming from. Second, in case of a DDoS attack, there are too many sources; you can't do anything with the information. Third, the machine attacking you is almost certainly someone else's hacked machine and tracking them down (and getting them to clean it up) is itself time-consuming.

TraceBack is most useful in monitoring the activities of large masses of people. But of course, that's why the Chinese and the NSA are so interested in this proposal in the first place.

It's hard to figure out what the endgame is; the U.N. doesn't have the authority to impose Internet standards on anyone. In any case, this idea is counter to the U.N. Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 19: "Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers." In the U.S., it's counter to the First Amendment, which has long permitted anonymous speech. On the other hand, basic human and constitutional rights have been jettisoned left and right in the years after 9/11; why should this be any different?

But when the Chinese government and the NSA get together to enhance their ability to spy on the world, you have to wonder what's gone wrong with the world.

One of the nice things about having started the SBN was that I have gotten to meet (mostly virtually) many security bloggers from around the world.  Some of the most prolific contributors to the content of the SBN has been the members of the Belgian Security Bloggers Network.  I received word today from one of the authors of one of the blogs, belsec, that they are under assault by the EU government.  It seems in their wisdom, the European Parliament has decided that in the interests of "media pluralism", all blog owners should declare their ownership, affiliations and status of weblog authors.

The explanatory notes of the proposed regulation says this:

In this context the report points out that the undetermined and unindicated status of authors and publishers of weblogs causes uncertainties regarding impartiality, reliability, source protection, applicability of ethical codes and the assignment of liability in the event of lawsuits.
It recommends clarification of the legal status of different categories of weblog authors and publishers as well as disclosure of interests and voluntary labelling of weblogs.

As the belsec author points out, disclosure of their identities would effectively silence their voices.  There is no first amendment freedom of speech or freedom of press constitutional right in Europe. Of course if forced to do so, the Belgian authors could take up blogs based here in the US and escape the disclosure laws of the EU, but why should they have too.  The EU is a democratic, progressive entity.  Forcing these bloggers to make their "status and identity" public should not be mandatory here.

Blogs are todays pamphlets.  Basic freedom of expression, speech and press have been protected for hundreds of years. Forcing these bloggers to identify themselves is a violation of their rights.  What would Thomas Paine and others like him think of this restriction?

If you feel that this is an unfair and unjust restriction on bloggers rights, blog about it. It is our right and to do so and we should use the medium to do so.  If you are a EU citizen write to your representative and demand that this proposed regulation does not go into effect!

Do not take your right to blog lightly.  If you don't stand up for it, it can be taken away from you.

"The world is my country, all mankind are my brethren, and to do good is my religion." - Thomas Paine

One of the nice things about having started the SBN was that I have gotten to meet (mostly virtually) many security bloggers from around the world.  Some of the most prolific contributors to the content of the SBN has been the members of the Belgian Security Bloggers Network.  I received word today from one of the authors of one of the blogs, belsec, that they are under assault by the EU government.  It seems in their wisdom, the European Parliament has decided that in the interests of "media pluralism", all blog owners should declare their ownership, affiliations and status of weblog authors.

The explanatory notes of the proposed regulation says this:

In this context the report points out that the undetermined and unindicated status of authors
and publishers of weblogs causes uncertainties regarding impartiality, reliability, source
protection, applicability of ethical codes and the assignment of liability in the event of
lawsuits.
It recommends clarification of the legal status of different categories of weblog authors and
publishers as well as disclosure of interests and voluntary labelling of weblogs.

As the belsec author points out, disclosure of their identities would effectively silence their voices.  There is no first amendment freedom of speech or freedom of press constitutional right in Europe. Of course if forced to do so, the Belgian authors could take up blogs based here in the US and escape the disclosure laws of the EU, but why should they have too.  The EU is a democratic, progressive entity.  Forcing these bloggers to make their "status and identity" public should not be mandatory here. 

If you feel that this is a restriction on bloggers rights, blog about it. It is our right and to do so and we should use the medium to do so.  If you are a EU citizen write to your representative and demand that this proposed regulation does not go into effect!

Do not take your right to blog lightly.  If you don't stand up for it, it can be taken away from you.

"The world is my country, all mankind are my brethren, and to do good is my religion." - Thomas Paine

In modern times, the nearly ubiquitous availability of powerful computing systems, along with the proliferation of high-speed networks, have converged to create a new version of the high seas--the cyber seas. The Internet has the potential to significantly impact the United States' position as a world leader. Nevertheless, for the last decade, U.S. cybersecurity policy has been inconsistent and reactionary. The private sector has often been left to fend for itself, and sporadic policy statements have left U.S. government organizations, private enterprises and allies uncertain of which tack the nation will take to secure the cyber frontier.

This should be a surprise to no one.

What to do?

With that goal in mind, let us consider how the United States could take a Jeffersonian approach to the cyber threats faced by our economy. The first step would be for the United States to develop a consistent policy that articulates America's commitment to assuring the free navigation of the "cyber seas." Perhaps most critical to the success of that policy will be a future president's support for efforts that translate rhetoric to actions--developing initiatives to thwart cyber criminals, protecting U.S. technological sovereignty, and balancing any defensive actions to avoid violating U.S. citizens' constitutional rights. Clearly articulated policy and consistent actions will assure a stable and predictable environment where electronic commerce can thrive, continuing to drive U.S. economic growth and avoiding the possibility of the U.S. becoming a cyber-colony subject to the whims of organized criminal efforts on the Internet.

I am reminded of comments comparing modern terrorism with piracy on the high seas.

The Federal Constitutional Court in Karlsruhe said cyber spying violated individuals' right to privacy and could be used only in exceptional cases.

More info:

Germany's Federal Constitutional Court has rejected provisions adopted by the State of North Rhine-Westphalia that allowed investigators to covertly search PCs online. In its ruling, the court creates a new right to confidentiality and integrity of personal data stored on IT systems; the ruling expands the current protection provided by the country's constitutional rights for telecommunications privacy and the personal right to control private information under the German constitution.

In line with an earlier ruling on censuses, the judges found that the modern digital world requires a new right, but not one which is absolute ­ exceptions can be made if there is just cause. The judges did not feel that the blanket covert online searches that North Rhine-Westphalia's (NRW) provisions allowed fell under that category; rather, these searches were found to be a severe violation of privacy.

The court explained that strict legal provisions apply for covert online searches of PCs, as with exceptional cases of telephone tapping or other exceptions to the right to privacy. Specifically, the judges say that private PCs can only be covertly searched "if there is evidence that an important overriding right would otherwise be violated."

More articles. Commentary. And here's the ruling -- in German, of course.