My photo
Makilala, Nortn Cotabato, Philippines
""" cute!!! chubYY,friendly,toinks"""

Tuesday, March 16, 2010

The Healing Poison


A long time ago, a girl named Li-Li got married and went to live with her husband and mother-in-law. In a very short time, Li-Li found that she couldn’t get along with her mother-in-law at all. Their personalities were very different, and Li-Li was angered by many of her mother-in-law’s habits. In addition, she criticized Li-Li constantly. Days passed days, and weeks passed weeks. Li-Li and her other-in-law never stopped arguing and fighting. But what made the situation even worse was that, according to ancient Chinese tradition, Li-Li had to bow to her mother-in-law and obey her every wish.

All the anger and unhappiness in the house was causing the poor husband great distress. Finally, Li-Li could not stand her mother-in-law’s bad temper and dictatorship any longer, and she decided to do something about it.

Li-Li went to see her father’s good friend, Mr.Huang, who sold herbs. She told him the situation and asked if he would give her some poison so that she could solve the problem once and for all. Mr Huang thought for a while, and finally said, Li-Li, I will help you solve your problem, but you must listen to me and obey what I tell you. Li-Li said,

“Yes, Mr Huang, I will do whatever you tell me to do.”

Mr Huang went into the back room, and returned in a few minutes with a package of herbs. He told Li-Li,

“You can’t use a quick-acting poison to get rid of your mother-in-law, because that would cause people to become suspicious. Therefore, I have given you a number of herbs that will slowly build up poison in her body. Every other day prepare some pork or chicken and put a little of these herbs in her serving. Now, in order to make sure that nobody suspects you when she dies, you must be very careful to act very friendly towards her. Don’t argue with her, obey her every wish, and treat her like a queen.”

Li-Li was so happy. She thanked Mr. Huang and hurried home to start her plot of murdering her mother-in-law. Weeks went by, and months went by, and every other day, Li-Li served the specially treated food to her mother-in-law. She remembered what Mr. Huang had said about avoiding suspicion, so she controlled her temper, obeyed her mother-in-law and treated her like her own mother. After six months had passed, the whole household had changed. Li-Li had practiced controlling her temper so much that she found that she almost never got mad or upset. She hadn’t had an argument in six months with her mother-in-law, who now seemed much kinder and easier to get along with. The mother-in-law’s attitude toward Li-Li has also changed, and she began to love Li-Li like her own daughter. She kept telling friends and relatives that Li-Li was the best daughter-in-law one could ever find. Li-Li and her mother-in-law were now treating each other like a real mother and daughter. Li-Li’s husband was very happy to see what was happening.

One day, Li-Li came to see Mr. Huang and asked for his help again. She said,

“Dear Mr Huang, please help me to keep the poison from killing my mother-in-law! She has changed into such a nice woman, and I love her like my own mother. I do not want her to die because of the poison I gave her.”

Mr. Huang smiled and nodded his head.

“Li-Li, there’s nothing to worry about. I never gave you any poison. The herbs I gave you were vitamins to improve her health. The only poison was in your mind and your attitude toward her, but that has been all washed away by the love which you gave to her.”

A long time ago, a girl named Li-Li got married and went to live with her husband and mother-in-law. In a very short time, Li-Li found that she couldn’t get along with her mother-in-law at all. Their personalities were very different, and Li-Li was angered by many of her mother-in-law’s habits. In addition, she criticized Li-Li constantly. Days passed days, and weeks passed weeks. Li-Li and her other-in-law never stopped arguing and fighting. But what made the situation even worse was that, according to ancient Chinese tradition, Li-Li had to bow to her mother-in-law and obey her every wish.

All the anger and unhappiness in the house was causing the poor husband great distress. Finally, Li-Li could not stand her mother-in-law’s bad temper and dictatorship any longer, and she decided to do something about it.

Li-Li went to see her father’s good friend, Mr.Huang, who sold herbs. She told him the situation and asked if he would give her some poison so that she could solve the problem once and for all. Mr Huang thought for a while, and finally said, Li-Li, I will help you solve your problem, but you must listen to me and obey what I tell you. Li-Li said,

“Yes, Mr Huang, I will do whatever you tell me to do.”

Mr Huang went into the back room, and returned in a few minutes with a package of herbs. He told Li-Li,

“You can’t use a quick-acting poison to get rid of your mother-in-law, because that would cause people to become suspicious. Therefore, I have given you a number of herbs that will slowly build up poison in her body. Every other day prepare some pork or chicken and put a little of these herbs in her serving. Now, in order to make sure that nobody suspects you when she dies, you must be very careful to act very friendly towards her. Don’t argue with her, obey her every wish, and treat her like a queen.”

Li-Li was so happy. She thanked Mr. Huang and hurried home to start her plot of murdering her mother-in-law. Weeks went by, and months went by, and every other day, Li-Li served the specially treated food to her mother-in-law. She remembered what Mr. Huang had said about avoiding suspicion, so she controlled her temper, obeyed her mother-in-law and treated her like her own mother. After six months had passed, the whole household had changed. Li-Li had practiced controlling her temper so much that she found that she almost never got mad or upset. She hadn’t had an argument in six months with her mother-in-law, who now seemed much kinder and easier to get along with. The mother-in-law’s attitude toward Li-Li has also changed, and she began to love Li-Li like her own daughter. She kept telling friends and relatives that Li-Li was the best daughter-in-law one could ever find. Li-Li and her mother-in-law were now treating each other like a real mother and daughter. Li-Li’s husband was very happy to see what was happening.

One day, Li-Li came to see Mr. Huang and asked for his help again. She said,

“Dear Mr Huang, please help me to keep the poison from killing my mother-in-law! She has changed into such a nice woman, and I love her like my own mother. I do not want her to die because of the poison I gave her.”

Mr. Huang smiled and nodded his head.

“Li-Li, there’s nothing to worry about. I never gave you any poison. The herbs I gave you were vitamins to improve her health. The only poison was in your mind and your attitude toward her, but that has been all washed away by the love which you gave to her.”


Monday, February 15, 2010

""KEy prOvision of the USA Patriot Act""

"It is still unclear how or when the FBI's expanded wiretapping and warrantless search powers will affect journalists, but the Justice Department has shown that it intends to use its powers aggressively, even making clear that a law barring newsroom searches is trumped by the USA PATRIOT Act when it comes to terrorism investigations. "


The USA PATRIOT Act's impact on news gathering is still largely theoretical nearly four years after Congress rushed to enact the law. No newsrooms are known to have been searched and apparently no documents have been taken from reporters under the law -- although those subject to such a search and seizure would be prohibited from talking about it.Nevertheless, journalists should be concerned about certain provisions of the law, which grant broad new powers to government agents to investigate terrorism and make previous statutory protections for newsrooms almost irrelevant when it comes to terrorism investigations.Congress enacted the law with little debate just six weeks after the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. President Bush signed the USA PATRIOT Act into law on Oct. 26, 2001.The awkwardly named law -- the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001 -- expands the FBI's ability to obtain records through secret court orders. The law also gives government investigators greater authority to track e-mail and telephone communications and to eavesdrop on those conversations.

Although aimed at trapping terrorists, those provisions of the law could ensnare journalists and compromise their ability to report on the war on terrorism. Journalists should be aware of this law and future amendments and proposals that attempt to expand government surveillance powers and increase secrecy surrounding the government's efforts to combat terrorism.Some of the most controversial parts of the law, including the sections of most concern to journalists, are set to expire at the end of 2005. With critics calling for those sections to be allowed to expire and the Bush administration asking for them to be made permanent, bills have been working through both houses of Congress that will make most of the provisions permanent and extend two others for another five years.


"How do FISA and the USA PATRIOT Act affect journalists?



Under Section 215 of the PATRIOT Act, the FBI can seek an order requiring the production of "any tangible thing" -- which the law says includes books, records, papers, documents and other items -- from anyone for investigations involving foreign intelligence or international terrorism. The person or business receiving the order cannot tell anyone that the FBI sought or obtained the "tangible things."

For journalists, the big question is whether the provision for secret court orders will allow a newsroom search for "any tangible thing" related to a terrorism investigation. Could a government agent use the law to gain access to a reporter's notes and confidential sources?The short answer is that the PATRIOT Act does allow the search of newsrooms in connection with terrorism investigations. Another federal law, the Privacy Protection Act of 1980, spells out when newsroom searches are forbidden and the limited exceptions in which they are allowed. However, it only applies to criminal investigations, and the FBI has made it clear that the PATRIOT Act's application to any "investigation to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities" does not subject it to the limits of criminal investigations.

The Privacy Protection Act states that, "notwithstanding any other law," federal and state officers and employees are prohibited from searching or seizing a journalist's "work product" or "documentary materials" in the journalist's possession, as part of a criminal investigation. A journalist's work product includes notes and drafts of news stories. Documentary materials include videotapes, audiotapes and computer disks.

Some limited exceptions under the Privacy Protection Act allow the government to search for or seize certain types of national security information, child pornography, evidence that a journalist has committed a crime, or documentary materials that must be immediately seized to prevent death or serious bodily injury.

Documentary materials also may be seized under the Privacy Protection Act if there is reason to believe that they would be destroyed in the time it took government officers to seek a subpoena. Those materials also can be seized if a court has ordered disclosure, the news organization has refused and all other remedies have been exhausted.

The Privacy Protection Act gives journalists the right to sue the United States or a state government, or federal and state employees, for damages for violating the law. The law also allows journalists to recover attorney's fees and court costs.While Congress was drafting the PATRIOT Act, the American Library Association objected to the potential intrusion into library patrons' personal information, including reading habits and the Web sites they viewed. The group described the law as a threat to patrons' privacy and First Amendment rights. In response, the library association posted guidelines on its Web page advising libraries to avoid creating and retaining unnecessary records.

On Jan. 29, 2003, the library association passed a formal resolution objecting to certain provisions of the PATRIOT Act and warned that "the activities of library users, including their use of computers to browse the Web or access e-mail, may be under government surveillance without their knowledge or consent." Likewise, on Feb. 10, 2003, the American Bar Association adopted a formal resolution that calls for congressional oversight of FISA investigations to ensure that the government is complying with the constitution and limiting improper government intrusion.

""Confusion over use and implementation""


It remains unclear whether or how often provisions of the PATRIOT Act have been used to obtain records, although libraries started reporting visits from FBI agents early on. The Associated Press reported in 2002 that of the 1,020 public libraries surveyed by the Library Research Center at the University of Illinois, 85 said they had been asked by federal or local law enforcement officers for information about patrons related to September 11. In June 2005, the American Library Association released the results of a survey that revealed that state and federal officials had asked librarians for information about their patrons 268 times since 2001, although it is unknown how many of these requests were made under provisions of the PATRIOT Act.

In September 2003, the Justice Department reported that it had never actually used Section 215, according to a confidential memo from Attorney General John D. Ashcroft obtained by the Washington Post and The Associated Press. Ashcroft said in the memo to FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III that he had decided to declassify that previously secret information because of his "concern that the public not be misled about the manner in which the U.S. Department of Justice, and the FBI in particular, have been utilizing the authorities provided in the USA Patriot Act."

However, in June 2004, The Washington Post reported that government documents disclosed to the ACLU under court order show that the FBI asked the Justice Department the previous fall to seek permission from a secret federal court to use Section 215, four weeks after Ashcroft said that part of the law had never been used. The memo did not indicate the nature of the search, whether the Justice Department ever asked the FISA court to approve the search or whether the court granted the request. The records do not indicate how many times the FBI has invoked Section 215 since October 2003.

The confusion over use of Section 215 can largely be blamed on the department's lack of cooperation with Congress, which prompted complaints of interference with congressional oversight.

The House Judiciary Committee, which oversees how the Justice Department enforces the PATRIOT Act, asked the Justice Department for a detailed accounting after the 2002 library survey was announced. On June 13, 2002, committee chairman Rep. F. James Sensenbrenner Jr. (R-Wis.) and ranking member Rep. John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.) sent a list of 50 detailed questions to Attorney General John Ashcroft.

Question 12 asked: "Has the law been used to obtain records from a public library, bookstore or newspaper? If so, how many times?"

In a written response on July 26, 2002, Assistant Attorney General Daniel J. Bryant conceded that newspapers were not exempt from the secret court orders.

"Such an order could conceivably be served on a public library, bookstore, or newspaper, although it is unlikely that such entities maintain those types of records," Bryant wrote.

He declined to state the number of times the government has requested an order or the number of times the FISA court has granted an order. That information is classified, his letter said.

Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) again sought answers to this question and others after an oversight hearing in July 2002. Of the 93 questions posed by Leahy, 37 remain unanswered.

This type of stonewalling and secrecy was cited in a February 2003 interim report by Senators Leahy, Charles Grassley (R-Iowa), and Arlen Specter (R-Penn.) as "mak[ing] exercise of our oversight responsibilities difficult."

In addition, the interim report found that the refusal of the Department of Justice to disclose the legal opinions and operating rules of the FISA court "contributed to the deficiencies that have hamstrung the implementation of the FISA." Even though members of the Senate Judiciary Committee authored provisions in the PATRIOT Act, they were unaware of how the Department of Justice was interpreting these provisions before the FISA court.

In a bid to shore up support for the Act, the Justice Department unveiled extensive new details of its use of the Act on July 13, 2004, asserting that it has helped thwart al Qaeda plots and led to scores of criminal convictions since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, The Washington Post reported. According to a 29-page report to Congress released by Attorney General John D. Ashcroft, Justice Department terrorism investigations have resulted in charges against 310 people and have yielded 179 convictions or guilty pleas -- although not necessary on terrorism-related charges. The report says the expanded law enforcement powers of the PATRIOT Act were central to those cases.

In December 2004, Congress created the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board in response to a recommendation by the Sept. 11 Commission. President Bush delayed appointments to the five-member board for six months, and as of August 2005 the board had still not met for the first time.

SOUrCe:HOMEFRONT CONFIDENTIAL


Monday, January 25, 2010

What is ComPuter pRiVacy protection and the Law?

"Computers, Privacy and Data Protection"

1. Identifying and addressing new challenges to be faced by computer privacy and data protection,
especially with regards to issues related to profiling and autonomic computing,

2. Bringing together, in a high level expertise conference, most of the academic key specialists in the field,
data protection commissioners, computer scientists, practitioners, activists and people from
standardization bodies and ICT industries,

3. Addressing recommendations to private and public policy makers in the context of the
E.U. Privacy Law and the E.U. Data Protection Directive Review.

"PERSONAL PRIVACY PROTECTION VERSUS YOUR RIGHT TO KNOW: HOW THE USE OF GIS IN THIS COMPUTER AGE HAS OVERTAKEN YOUR INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS"

I. DEFINITION OF PRIVACY
II. THE SIGNIFICANCE OF GIS
III. DATA MATCHING
IV. INVASION OF PRIVACY TORTS
V. CONSTITUTIONAL ARGUMENTS FOR RIGHT OF ACCESS
VI. CONSTITUTIONAL ARGUMENTS FOR THE RIGHT OF PRIVACY
VII. FOIA AND PRIVACY RIGHTS
VIII. THE PRIVACY ACT AND PRIVACY RIGHTS
IX. FOIA AND THE RIGHT OF ACCESS
X. DILEMMA OF THE GOVERNMENT AS THE CUSTODIAN

What is ComPuter Privacy?

Computer privacy
Nowadays we use computers and the Internet everywhere - we do our banking, read books, find different kinds of information, plan holidays and more.It is like a mirror that shows all tracks of our computer and Internet activity , every time we surf the Internet we leave traces of our Internet activity that can reveal our real-life identity. And anyone even without special computer skills can monitor our surfing habits, banking history and even our personal information like name, phone, address. Everyone has an IP address to communicate on the Internet, IP address is like a telephone number or mailing address. Using your IP it is possible to know your country, city, internet provider and even physical address.
But these history tracks can compromise our privacy and provide an easy way for others to see what web sites you visited, what you have been searching, downloading, viewing.
So while there are lots of things that we have gained from the computer revolution there is a price we have to pay. And the price is our computer privacy. Of course there is no simple solution for this problem. But inactivity is also impossible. There are some simple steps everyone could do.There are different tools available to help us maintain our privacy - anonymous surfing tools, encryption software, clear history software. When your PC is equipped with privacy software, it has the greatest chance of surviving privacy or security attacks.

Monday, January 11, 2010

""Zero Day attack""


The Zero days attack is can devastate a network,these are the attacks the target application vulnerabilities that are unknown the application's creator,and it is a virus that is used to take advantage of a vulnerability in a computer application before a fix for the vulnerability has been released,or even before the vulnerability has been announced.

Who are Computer criminals and their objectives?

Computer criminals are people who are ambitious with impressive educational credential ,and want destroy the data of the computer or computer networks"".the person doing this crime was so expert in the technology""..and they don't have ashamed in their self.

Monday, January 4, 2010

☺What would I do"?☺

1. Ahmm..for me,If I have a situation like that it was my fault,and my IT security was hacked,
and I had giving a 90 days to fixed the problem 1 million dollars, I will talk first to my boss and
to my co-worker that it was accedentally happen, not a trator.
Then next I will check my IT security that it was not a easy and I will sure that my security
consultant is new.
Then I will be check if there someonelse who's trator and I will be changed the IT security system
and do my time brachet.

2.My friend is too genius that he can do the virus at the all time that he's trator to the company.
I will tell the administration that there wi;; be a virus that would come to the worldstation at exactly
3:00pm and it will end at 4:00pm and tell them that it is only a message.