New York Bill Would Allow Customers to Opt Out of Smart Meters, Undermine Federal Program

New York Bill Would Allow Customers to Opt Out of Smart Meters, Undermine Federal Program

ALBANY, N.Y. (Jan. 30, 2017) – A bill introduced in the New York Assembly would allow customers to opt out of installing “smart meter” technology on their homes and businesses. Passage of this bill would allow New Yorkers to protect their own privacy, and it would take a step toward blocking a federal program in effect.

Asm. Michael DenDekker (D – East Elmhurst) introduced Assembly Bill 3066 (A3066) on Jan. 26. The legislation would allow

New Yorkers to opt out of any utility company smart meter program with no penalty.

Smart meters monitor home energy usage in minute detail in real time. The devices transmit data to the utility company were it gets stored in databases. Anybody with access to the data can download it for analysts. Without specific criteria limiting access to the data, these devices create significant privacy issues. Smart meters can also be used to remotely limit power usage during peak hours.

A3066 provides a comprehensive smart meter opt-out right for utility customers.

It  shall be the right of every customer of an electric and/or gas corporation, at no penalty, fee or service charge to decline the permission of his or her electric and/or gas corporation, (a)  to  replace  an existing  meter  at  such  customer’s  premises that is assigned to such customer’s account with a two-way smart meter  or (b) to  install  any two-way  smart  meter device at his or her property without such customer’s consent.

The legislation would also require utility companies to give customers 90 day notice before installing smart meter technology with a right to decline installation. It would further allow a customer to require removal of a smart meter with no charge for one year after installation.

Privacy Concerns

The proliferation of smart meters creates significant privacy concerns. The data collected can tell anybody who holds it a great deal about what goes on inside a home. It can reveal when residents are at home, asleep or on vacation. It can also pinpoint “unusual” energy use, and could someday serve to help enforce “energy usage” regulations. The ACLU summarized the privacy issues surrounding smart meters in a recent report.

“The temptation to use the information that will be collected from customers for something other than managing electrical loads will be strong – as it has been for cell phone tracking data and GPS information. Police may want to know your general comings and goings or whether you’re growing marijuana in your basement under grow lights. Advertisers will want the information to sell you a new washing machine to replace the energy hog you got as a wedding present 20 years ago. Information flowing in a smart grid will become more and more ‘granular’ as the system develops.”

The privacy issues aren’t merely theoretical. According to information obtained by the California ACLU, utility companies in the state have disclosed information gathered by smart meters on thousands of customers. San Diego Gas and Electric alone disclosed data on more than 4,000 customers. The vast majority of disclosures were in response to subpoenas by government agencies “often in drug enforcement cases or efforts to find specific individuals,” according to SFGate.

“Mark Toney, executive director of the Utility Reform Network watchdog group, said the sheer number of data disclosures made by SDG&E raised the possibility that government agencies wanted to sift through large amounts of data looking for patterns, rather than conducting targeted investigations.”

No Smart Meter, No Data

Refusing to allow a smart meter on your property is the only sure-fire way to ensure your energy use data won’t fall into the hands of government agents or private marketers, or end up stored in some kind of government database. Passage of A3066 would make opting out a legal option for New Yorkers and give them control over their own privacy.

Impact on Federal Program

The federal government serves as a major source of funding for smart meters. A 2009 program through the U.S. Department of Energy distributed $4.5 billion for smart grid technology. The initial projects were expected to fund the installation of 1.8 million smart meters over three years.

The federal government lacks any constitutional authority to fund smart grid technology. The easiest way to nullify such programs is to simply not participate. A3066 would make that possible. If enough states pass similar legislation, and enough people opt out, the program will go nowhere.

We’ve seen a similar opt out movement undermining Common Core in New York. Opting out follows a strategy James Madison advised in Federalist #46. “Refusal to cooperate with officers of the Union” provides a powerful means to fight back against government overreach. Such actions in multiple states would likely be effective in bringing down federal smart meter programs.

http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2017/01/new-york-bill-would-allow-customers-to-opt-out-of-smart-meters-undermine-federal-program-2/

 

 

Uncensored version of blog post on Interphone, first published in 2011 and re-published for the first time now…

Uncensored version of blog post on Interphone, first published in 2011 and re-published for the first time now…

Below is the uncensored version of my science blog published in 2011. This version was subsequently censored by, then, STUK Director General who called me personally and informed that if I do not agree to rewrite the blog post he will need to consider if I am suited to continue work at STUK. Under this threat I agreed and STUK Director General personally revised my blog post. The link to censored version of the post and to two other posts on this subject can be found in my yesterday’s blog post.

The uncensored version of the blog, published in 2011 and re-published for the first time since, gives a better idea of what happened to science and what form of scientific misconduct Interphone committed…

STUK Directors condemned me for speaking freely and openly of this problem. In the opinions of STUK Directors it was inappropriate to criticize publicly Interphone because part of it was done at STUK by STUK scientists, my colleagues… This is the kind of open and fair scientific debate that STUK likely exercises still now as several of the same STUK Directors are still in charge…

***************

UNCENSORED version of blog post from 2011

***************

Did Interphone commit scientific misconduct? 

The definitions of the scientific misconduct used by various institutions or provided in various dictionaries differ slightly. Here are few of them.

British Medical Journal (BMJ) uses the definition of the scientific misconduct provided by the World Association of Medical Editors (WAME) that is a slightly amended version of the US Office of Research Integrity definition of scientific misconduct (http://resources.bmj.com/bmj/authors/editorial-policies/scientific-misconduct):

“…Falsification of data: ranges from fabrication to deceptive selective reporting of findings and omission of conflicting data, or willful suppression and/or distortion of data…”.

The US Office of Research Integrity (ORI) (http://ori.hhs.gov/misconduct/definition_misconduct.shtml):

“… (b) Falsification is manipulating research materials, equipment, or processes, or changing or omitting data or results such that the research is not accurately represented in the research record…”.

Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_misconduct):

“Forms of scientific misconduct include: … Obfuscation – the omission of critical data or results. Example: Only reporting positive outcomes and not adverse outcomes…”.

Now, about the possibility of INTERPHONE’s scientific misconduct. What INTERPHONE scientists did is they recently published two separate papers on the same topic – is there relation between tumor location and the area of the brain that was most exposed? This was done with the explicit knowledge that, arbitrarily, only part of data is being selectively reported whereas the other, substantial part, which was not in line with the final conclusions, was being knowingly omitted.

Of course it is possible to understand the non-scientific reason behind the decision to publish two separate articles – the bad experience with the first whole INTERPHONE paper. However, as said, it is non-scientific reason and it should be easily overridden by the science. Unfortunately, it was not the case and two separate studies were published.

The first publication was in the American Journal of Epidemiology (AJE)

(http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21610117):

Location of gliomas in relation to mobile telephone use: a case-case and case-specular analysis. Larjavaara S, Schüz J, Swerdlow A, Feychting M, Johansen C, Lagorio S, Tynes T, Klaeboe L, Tonjer SR, Blettner M, Berg-Beckhoff G, Schlehofer B, Schoemaker M, Britton J, Mäntylä R, Lönn S, Ahlbom A, Flodmark O, Lilja A, Martini S, Rastelli E, Vidiri A, Kähärä V, Raitanen J, Heinävaara S, Auvinen A. Am J Epidemiol. 2011 Jul 1;174(1):2-11. Epub 2011 May 24. PMID:21610117

The second publication was in the Occupational and Environmental Medicine (OEM)

(http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21659469):

Risk of brain tumours in relation to estimated RF dose from mobile phones: results from five Interphone countries. Cardis E, Armstrong BK, Bowman JD, Giles GG, Hours M, Krewski D, McBride M, Parent ME, Sadetzki S, Woodward A, Brown J, Chetrit A, Figuerola J, Hoffmann C, Jarus-Hakak A, Montestruq L, Nadon L, Richardson L, Villegas R, Vrijheid M. Occup Environ Med. 2011 Jun 9. [Epub ahead of print], PMID:21659469

(Just as a reminder, the participating countries of the INTERPHONE are (http://www.iarc.fr/en/research-groups/RAD/RCAd.html): Australia, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Israel, Italy, Japan, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden and the UK.)

The AJE study was based on the data from: Denmark, Finland, Germany, Italy, Norway, Sweden, and Southeast England.

The OEM study is based on data from: Australia, Canada, France, Israel and New Zealand.

The Japanese data and the Japanese scientists did not participate in either of the publications. Why?

The AJE study is negative. In the opening sentence of the Discussion section of the article the authors said:

“…Our results do not support the hypothesis of gliomas among mobile phone users being preferentially located in the parts of the brain with the highest radio-frequency exposure…”.

The OEM study is weakly positive. In the Discussion section of the article the authors said:

“…Overall, there was weak evidence of stronger associations of glioma and meningioma when a comprehensive estimate of RF dose rather than just mobile phone use was used in the case-control analysis…”.

The strength of the INTERPHONE analysis was to be the size – the largest study with the most cases of tumors. But now, by an arbitrary split of the data, this advantage has been lost.

In AJE article the authors admit that the size matters and stated in the discussion that:

“…To our knowledge, this is the largest study on detailed glioma localization published to date, with 888 glioma cases from 7 countries. Further research with similar methods but a larger number of long-term users is warranted…”.

Have they “forgotten” that  in the INTERPHONE are “easily available” additional 553 glioma cases from 5 countries that are now separately reported in the OEM study? And, vice versa, the same “forgetfulness” aplies to OEM authors.

What would say the whole INTERPHONE analysis of these 888 + 553 + Japan cases of glioma say – no one knows, for now… or?

So, for me, these two recent publications from the INTERPHONE have at least flavor of scientific misconduct. And let me give and example that explains why I think so.

If a scientist would perform 13 experiments in laboratory and then would pick 7 or 5 results that fit the same conclusion, and publish them in separate article(s), such scientist would be justly accused of data manipulation, convinced of scientific misconduct and would have to withdraw the articles.

Are epidemiologists different from experimental scientists in the way scientific ethics and misconduct rules apply to them?

It is very “unhealthy” situation of the search for RF “health” effects. Especially, that everyone looks up to epidemiologists to provide the valid and reliable scientific evidence. And I think that Dr. Christopher Wild, Head of IARC, the organization that is supervising execution and publication of the INTERPHONE, should have closer look at this issue. Mobile phone users should be informed and not mislead, as it is now the case with two competing and selectively reporting and selectively data omitting publications. In the context of the plenary discussions at the recent meeting in Lyon, where IARC has classified RF as 2B carcinogen, there is urgent need for good quality scientific evidence and such is unfortunately not coming out from AJE and OEM articles.

https://betweenrockandhardplace.wordpress.com/2017/01/30/uncensored-version-of-blog-post-on-interphone-first-published-in-2011-and-re-published-for-the-first-time-now/

Urge Senators to Vote NO on Mobile Now Act

Urge Senators to Vote NO on Mobile Now Act

To Citizens Concerned about Public Health, Insects and Other Wildlife, Energy Issues, Local Authority Over Telecom Infrastructure and Cybersecurity:

If a telecom corporation wants to install a cellular antenna array or cell tower on private or public property, the 1996 Telecommunications Act requires it to get a permit from the municipality in question. According to Section 704 of the Telecom Act, neither environmental nor health concerns may interfere with the municipality’s decision.

The Mobile Now Act (S.19) would update the Telecom Act. Effectively, it would exempt corporations from getting a permit to install telecom infrastructure, including 4G/5G distributed antenna systems (DAS) and “micro cells” or “small cells” on public right-of-ways including light and utility poles.

DAS supports city-wide Wi-Fi.

5G supports the Internet of Things (machine-to-machine communication).   5G will operate primarily with tiny millimeter wave frequencies. To function well, we might need one 5G antenna every 12 households. The few tests conducted on millimeter waves show that they disturb the skin, eyes and insects. The Air Force’s Radio Frequency Radiation Dosimetry Handbook, 5th Edition, Chapter 8, “Responses to RF Overexposure by Marvin C. Ziskin, MD reports that studies about millimeter wave exposures such as 94GHz primarily affect the eyes and skin.

The Mobile Now Act passed out of the Senate Commerce Committee last week. It is now headed to the full Senate for a vote, probably in the next week or two, possibly Monday, January 30th.

Here are directions for contacting your senators (by phone and by email):

http://www.electronicsilentspring.com/senate-no-mobile-now/

http://whatis5g.info/index.php/2017/01/26/immediate-action-contact-all-us-senators-concerning-the-stop-mobile-now-act-and-the-digit-act/

Thanks to Everyone for doing our best with this!

Calling your two senators’ offices and emailing them might take15 minutes.

Katie Singer

What is electromagnetic hypersensitivity?

Smart meters are increasing your chances of becoming electro-hyper sensitive

Saturday, January 28, 2017

Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity

What is electromagnetic hypersensitivity?

Following is an excerpt from “Electromagnetic hypersensitivity means Peter Lloyd can’t leave his house… or enjoy any modern pleasures inside” by Martin Shipton, Wales Online, Oct 16, 2014:
The term “electrical hypersensitivity” was first used in 1989, while “electromagnetic hypersensitivity” –  EHS for short –  was coined in 1994 to reflect sufferers’ sensitivity to magnetic as well as electric fields.

As early as the 1930s, however, EHS symptoms were observed in people working with radio and electricity, and with military radar in the 1940s.

Environmental EHS appeared in the general population from the 1970s with computers.

It increased in the 1980s with mobile and cordless phones, and with wifi from 2000.

Thousands of people are now linked with EHS support groups in 30 countries.

The first started in Sweden in 1989; the UK group began in 2003.

Sweden recognised EHS as a functional disability in 2002. The Canadian Human Rights Commission did likewise in 2007.

In 2009, the European Parliament voted for persons with EHS to be recognised as disabled.

Despite having official recognition, many doctors still know little or nothing about the condition.

Read full article at: http://www.saferemr.com/2014/10/electromagnetic-hypersensitivity_30.html

Oklahoma Bill Would Allow People to Opt Out of Smart Meters; Undermine Federal Program

Oklahoma Bill Would Allow People to Opt Out of Smart Meters; Undermine Federal Program

OKLAHOMA CITY (Jan. 27, 2017) – A bill prefiled in the Oklahoma House would ensure utility customers could opt out of installing “smart meter” technology on their homes and businesses. Passage of the bill would allow Oklahomans to protect their own privacy, and it would take a step toward blocking a federal program in effect.

Rep. Scott McEachin (R) prefiled House Bill 1435 (HB1435) for introduction during the 2017 legislative session. The legislation would give residential and business utility customers the right to refuse installation of “smart meters.”

Any person or lawfully recognized business entity shall have the right to decline the installation of a “smart meter” or any similar device that monitors electrical usage in real time or which broadcasts information regarding electrical usage using radio waves or other forms of electromagnetic radiation.

Smart meters monitor home energy usage in minute detail in real time. The devices transmit data to the utility company were it gets stored in databases. Anybody with access to the data can download it for analysts. Without specific criteria limiting access to the data, these devices create significant privacy issues. Smart meters can also be used to remotely limit power usage during peak hours.

Passage of HB1435 would ensure customers in Oklahoma could opt out of this invasive technology.

Privacy Concerns

The proliferation of smart meters creates significant privacy concerns. The data collected can tell anybody who holds it a great deal about what goes on inside a home. It can reveal when residents are at home, asleep or on vacation. It can also pinpoint “unusual” energy use, and could someday serve to help enforce “energy usage” regulations. The ACLU summarized the privacy issues surrounding smart meters in a recent report.

“The temptation to use the information that will be collected from customers for something other than managing electrical loads will be strong – as it has been for cell phone tracking data and GPS information. Police may want to know your general comings and goings or whether you’re growing marijuana in your basement under grow lights. Advertisers will want the information to sell you a new washing machine to replace the energy hog you got as a wedding present 20 years ago. Information flowing in a smart grid will become more and more ‘granular’ as the system develops.”

The privacy issues aren’t merely theoretical. According to information obtained by the California ACLU, utility companies in the state have disclosed information gathered by smart meters on thousands of customers. San Diego Gas and Electric alone disclosed data on more than 4,000 customers. The vast majority of disclosures were in response to subpoenas by government agencies “often in drug enforcement cases or efforts to find specific individuals,” according to SFGate.

“Mark Toney, executive director of the Utility Reform Network watchdog group, said the sheer number of data disclosures made by SDG&E raised the possibility that government agencies wanted to sift through large amounts of data looking for patterns, rather than conducting targeted investigations.”

No Smart Meter, No Data

While encrypting smart meter data and warrant requirements for law enforcement address some of the privacy issues, refusing to allow a smart meter on your property is the only sure-fire way to ensure your energy use data won’t fall into the hands of government agents or private marketers, or end up stored in some kind of government database. Passage of HB1435 would make opting out an option for Oklahomans and give them control over their own privacy.

Impact on Federal Program

The federal government serves as a major source of funding for smart meters. A 2009 program through the U.S. Department of Energy distributed $4.5 billion for smart grid technology. The initial projects were expected to fund the installation of 1.8 million smart meters over three years.

The federal government lacks any constitutional authority to fund smart grid technology. The easiest way to nullify such programs is to simply not participate. HB196 would make that possible. If enough states pass similar legislation, and enough people opt out, the program will go nowhere.

We’ve seen a similar opt out movement undermining Common Core in New York. Opting out follows a strategy James Madison advised in Federalist #46. “Refusal to cooperate with officers of the Union” provides a powerful means to fight back against government overreach. Such actions in multiple states would likely be effective in bringing down federal smart meter programs.

http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2017/01/oklahoma-bill-would-allow-people-to-opt-out-of-smart-meters-undermine-federal-program/

 

Customer’s Smart Meter questions answered

Poor people do not have the right to refuse the so called smart meter.   They are forced to have a “death trap” on their homes.  The utility companies have lied and deceived to their customers by the lack of transparency and the truth surrounding the dangers of the so called smart meters.  The utilities continue to install the so called smart meters without knowledge or consent from their customers.  This is criminal activity and can only be stopped by your voices…Sandaura

Customer’s Smart Meter questions answered

 

MEMPHIS, Tenn. — “That was a terrifying night.”

Just a few short months ago, Linda Cooper walked out of her Whitehaven home to find a strange man working out back.

“He was getting busy, just humming him a little song. I said, `Excuse me, sir, can you tell me what you`re doing?` `Oh, I`m gonna put your Smart Meter on.` I said, `Uh, no sir.`”

Cooper said she called MLGW and declined to have a Smart Meter installed.

They sent her a letter back asking her to sign and acknowledge she was opting out of the program. However, they also noted she would be charged at a higher rate for certain services, like having her power connected or reconnected in the event of a late payment.

“People on fixed incomes. People ain`t got money just to be throwing up in the air,” said Cooper.

We asked MLGW about the higher fees.

They said Smart Meters cut down on manpower and labor costs, allowing them to lower certain fees for users.

“If a customer does not have a smart meter, we have to literally send someone out, so they will be charged extra,” said Gale Carson Jones with MLGW.

MLGW also said the real-time outages notifications won’t be available if Cooper opts out of having a Smart Meter. They said she also won’t have access to the same breadth of data as Smart Meter customers.

“For example, if you have the Smart Meter you`ll be able to see all day long how much energy consumption you`re using, but that`s because of the new technology.”

Cooper just doesn’t see it that way.

“Don`t go just bamboozing people `cause you feel you got the right to do that.”

Customer’s Smart Meter questions answered

 

URGENT PLEASE CIRCULATE…..

U.S. Congress moves to eliminate regulations that inhibit the roll-out of IoT technology

From A Tsiang and Cindy Sage:

The “Mobile Now Act” and “The DIGIT Act” have passed out of the Senate Commerce Committee and are headed to the full senate for a vote. They will probably be heard in the next week or two.

Bill Info: These bills lay the foundation for the Internet of Things that will require a small cell tower transmitter every couple of homes emitting high frequency 24Ghz to 90Ghz which has never been tested for non-thermal biological effects [It is illegal in the land of democracy to oppose wireless technology for health or environmental reasons]. These transmitters will be put in public right of ways with NO ability to consider health and safety. The transmitters will be ugly, decrease property values, and expose occupants to potentially harmful microwave radiation so that your home appliances can communicate with one another which does not seem like a necessity and your privacy can be violated even more easily.

S19
Mobile Now Act (a) Short Title.—This Act may be cited as the “Making Opportunities for Broadband Investment and Limiting Excessive and Needless Obstacles to Wireless Act” or the “MOBILE NOW Act”.

S88 the DIGIT Bill “To ensure appropriate spectrum planning and interagency coordination to support the Internet of Things.” Is just as bad if not worse than the Mobile Now Act. It is basically written to develop a working group that will determine how to make the Internet of Things Happen e.g. regulations standing in the way, budget, how to use internet of things in government. The working group will be made up of NTIA, NIST, FCC, FTC, Office of Science and Technology Policy, Department of Energy, Industry and other stakeholders
This is a small excerpt from the Bill:
(A) the identification of any Federal regulations, statutes, grant practices, programs, budgetary or jurisdictional challenges, and other sector-specific policies that are inhibiting or could inhibit the development of the Internet of Things;
(B) whether adequate spectrum is available to support the growing Internet of Things and what legal or regulatory barriers may exist to providing any spectrum needed in the future;

*******************

Very important – FCC wants to “streamline” the approval process for 5G small cell towers by exempting them from the 1996 Telecommunications Act!
This will be voted on in the Senate in the next week or two!

If it passes, it will permit millions of small towers (on existing light poles/utility poles, or new ones will be built) everywhere, including throughout residential neighborhoods, spaced a few houses apart, for the purpose of the Internet of Things, enabling appliances and other home controls to connect wirelessly. The frequencies used, in the GHz range, have not been tested for long-term health effects.

The Bioinitiative Group has written a response to this, written by Cindy Sage, David Carpenter, and Lennart Hardell.
***************************

From Cindy Sage on behalf of the Bioinitiative Working Group:

We have submitted a comment to the Federal Communications Commission in Washington, DC
on their proposal to streamline the process for small wireless facility permitting, and exempt small cell
installations from normal regulatory review as now required by the 1996 Telecommunications Act
for new cell towers (masts). If adopted, it will permit millions of new wireless antennas (small cells transmitting at high gigahertz frequencies) that are untested for effects on human health. It is the new infrastructure network envisioned to
establish ‘The Internet of Things” where all devices, appliances and home controls are wirelessly interconnected.

FCC Docket 16-421 – STREAMLINING DEPLOYMENT OF SMALL CELL
INFRASTRUCTURE BY IMPROVING WIRELESS FACILITIES SITING POLICIES.

The FCC has not yet completed its investigation of RF health effects of low-intensity radio frequency radiation in the
800 MHz to 3 GHZ frequency range (cell phone radiation and Wi-Fi frequencies) which has been going on for the last two years.

We will post this letter to the BioInitiative website in the next few days.

Cindy Sage
Lennart Hardell
David O. Carpenter
on behalf of the BioInitiative Working Group

The Internet of Things (IoT) vulnerability to malware hackers

The Internet of Things (IoT) vulnerability to malware hackers

As Australia rapidly rolls out the smart electricity grid with smart meters for every household as an essential part of the $17 trillion Internet of Things (IoT)technological ‘revolution’, little heed is given for the grid/meters vulnerability to hackers. Already there have been reports of household wi-fi enabled appliances being hacked and there are concerns over the vulnerability of smart meters to being hacked.

A Brave New World or Hackers Heaven? Read on.

Don
********************

From The State of Security

IoT Botnets Fueling Bigger and Badder DDoS Attacks, Finds Report

David Bisson, Jan 24, 2017

Excerpt

2017 promises to be the most challenging year yet for information security professionals. The security community will need to defend users and organizations against a host of new digital threats. In preparation for the year ahead, infosec experts should take a moment to reflect on the operational hurdles confronting them and the strategies they can use to overcome those obstacles.

Arbor Networks, a developer of network security and network performance software, thinks this is a good idea. That explains why the company published its 12th annual Worldwide Infrastructure Security Report (WISR). The study offers insights provided by 356 professionals from tier 1 and tier 2/3 service providers, as well as hosting, mobile, enterprise and other types of network operators located around the world. Two-thirds of those participants identified as security, network, or operations personnel. Their answers cover November 2015 through October 2016….
SNIP
IoT botnets, such as those assembled by Mirai and other malware families, have helped created a new generation of powerful DDoS attacks. To illustrate, Arbor Networks detected a campaign whose attack traffic peaked at 800 Gbps – about 60 percent larger than the peak attack size detected in 2015. Overall, DDoS attacks have increased 7,900 percent in size since 2005. Infected IoT devices aren’t the only contributor behind larger DDoS attacks, either. Bad actors are also increasingly using reflection amplification to multiply the size of attack traffic hundreds of times. Those techniques come with the bonus of hiding the original attack source…
SNIP
Given the growing sophistication, size, and frequency of DDoS attacks, it’s no wonder Arbor Networks’ report found that these campaigns are causing a wider range of consequences. Dyn is by far the most immediate example of this trend. Even so, other organizations have also reported costs the likes of which we’ve never seen before.

Here’s a small taste:

* More than half (61 percent) of data center/cloud providers reported attacks that fully saturated data center bandwidth.
* Approximately a quarter of that same group of respondents said attacks exceeded 100,000 USD. Five percent noted costs that surpassed one million USD.
* Close to half (41 percent) of enterprise, government, and education (EGE) respondents told Arbor Networks that at least one DDoS attack exceeded their total internet capacity. Those types of attacks resulted in downtime costs above $500/minute.

SNIP

Read the full article here

AND:

Researchers Discover 500,000+ IoT Devices Vulnerable to Mirai Botnet
Maritza Santillan, Oct 10, 2016

Excerpt

The Mirai botnet has made plenty of headlines recently after launching record-breaking distributed denial-of-service (DDoS) attacks against the website of well-known security journalist Brian Krebs.Earlier this month, hackers publicly released the source code of the Internet of Things (IoT) botnet powered by easily hacked routers, IP cameras and digital video recorders, among other devices.

“The [Mirai] malware… spreads to vulnerable devices by continuously scanning the Internet for IoT systems protected by factory default or hard-coded usernames and passwords,” explained KrebsonSecurity.

The insecure IoT devices are then loaded with malicious software, transforming them into “bots” and forcing them to report to a central control server, which is utilized to launch massive DDoS attacks in an effort to knock websites offline. SNIP

Read the full article here

The Movement Needs Everyone to Join in against Trump’s Dangerous Policies…

Women's March on Washington

banner-2 (2).png

Thank you to the millions of people around the world who, on January 21, came together by the millions to raise our voices. But our march forward does not end here. Now is the time to get our friends, family and community together and MAKE HISTORY.

Join us in launching a new campaign:
10 Actions for the first 100 Days.

The Campaign

10 ACTIONS / 100 DAYS

We did it! On January 21, over 5 Million of us worldwide and over 1 Million in Washington, D.C., came to march, speak and make our voices heard. But it doesn’t end here – now is not the time to hang up our marching shoes – it’s time to get our friends, family and community together and make history.

EVERY 10 DAYS WE WILL TAKE ACTION ON AN ISSUE WE ALL CARE ABOUT, STARTING TODAY.


Action 1 / 10

THE FIRST ACTION

Write a postcard to your Senators about what matters most to you – and how you’re going to continue to fight for it in the days, weeks and months ahead. We’re offering printable postcards for you to download.

You can go it alone, or consider inviting some friends, neighbors and fellow Marchers over for a drink or dinner sometime in the next ten days to talk about your experience and fill out your postcards.


STEP 1: GET YOUR CARDS

Get the official card printed (see below), design your own, or be one of 10,000 people who can get a free Women’s March Postcard using the Ink Cards App. If you have the equipment, you can print at home, or download the file and get cards printed locally.


STEP 2: MAKE THEM YOUR OWN

Write down your thoughts. Pour your heart out on any issue that you care about, whether it’s ending gender-based violence, reproductive rights and women’s health, LGBTQIA rights, worker’s rights, civil rights, immigrant rights, religious freedom, environmental justice or anything else.

If you need some inspiration, check out the Women’s March Unity Principles and #WhyIMarch hashtag.


STEP 3: SHARE IT WITH THE WORLD &
SEND IT TO YOUR SENATOR

Before you send it, take a photo of your postcard and use the #WhyIMarch tag when posting it to social media.

Find your Senators’ addresses with our easy tool below, put a stamp on your card, and put it in the mail.

Enter your zip code to find your senators:

ELIZABETH WARREN

317 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington DC 20510
@SenWarren
202-224-4543

EDWARD MARKEY

255 Dirksen Senate Office Building
Washington DC 20510
@SenMarkey
202-224-2742


Get notified

STAY TUNED FOR THE NEXT COLLECTIVE ACTION

Make sure you don’t miss any of the future actions, sign up to get notified when new actions are published:

10 Actions in 100 Days

Find out the next action when it comes out

  • Mobile Phone
  • Opt in to updates from Women’s March Sister Marches
Action Network

We work peacefully while recognizing there is no true peace without justice and equity for all.

HEAR OUR VOICE.