They guide you through a few steps on your computer

1) Press Windows + R for Run Command
2) type eventvwr to open eventviewer box
3) Look at windows logs, application and system and see the scary yellow and red icons (count them. These are malicious alterations of your programs supposedly.)
4) Look into My computer/Computer properties
5) Write down the last 6 digits
6) go to their website and use the code to verify your OS

After a year-long seizure and six more months of secrecy, the court records were finally released concerning the mysterious government takedown of Dajaz1.com – a popular blog dedicated to hip hop music and culture.

The records confirm that one of the key reasons the blog remained censored for so long is that the government obtained three secret extensions of time by claiming that it was waiting for “rights holders” and later, the Recording Industry Association of America, to evaluate a "sampling of allegedly infringing content" obtained from the website and respond to other “outstanding questions.”

In other words, having goaded the government into an outrageous and very public seizure of the blog, the RIAA members refused to follow up and answer the government’s questions.

In turn, the government acted shamefully, not returning the blog or apologizing for its apparent mistake, but instead secretly asking the court to extend the seizure and deny Dajaz1 the right to seek return of is property or otherwise get due process. The government also refused to answer Congressional questions about the case.

ICE finally released the domain name in December of 2011, again with no explanation.

Equally troubling, the records confirm what was already suggested by the initial affidavit used to obtain the seizure order:
that ICE, and its attorneys, are effectively acting as the hired gun of the content industry at taxpayers' expense.

The whole story is, in a word, appalling.

The only silver lining? U.S. taxpayers and their representatives have an object lesson, if one were needed, in why the government should not be granted new IP enforcement powers and why we need to reconsider the inclusion of copyright infringement as a basis for civil seizure and forfeiture.

And in the short term, maybe when Hollywood comes knocking again, ICE will remember that the RIAA isn’t such a reliable crime-fighting partner after all

What is “CISPA”?

CISPA stands for The Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act, a cybersecurity bill written by Rep. Mike Rogers (R-MI) and Dutch Ruppersberger (D-MD) (H.R. 3523).

The bill purports to allow companies and the federal government to share information to prevent or defend from cyberattacks.

However, the bill expressly authorizes monitoring of our private communications, and is written so broadly that it allows companies to hand over large swaths of personal information to the government with no judicial oversight—effectively creating a “cybersecurity” loophole in all existing privacy laws.

CISPA - would eviscerate existing privacy laws by allowing companies to voluntarily share users’ private information with the government.

You may have already heard about CISPA, the cybersecurity bill moving quickly through the House that would let companies like Google, Facebook, and AT&T snoop on our communications and hand sensitive user data to the government without a court order.

Since we launched, there's been an explosion of news coverage around the web.
Here's a quick roundup of some of the important news coverage about "Stop Cyber Spying Week.

One of the scariest parts of CISPA is that the bill goes above and beyond information sharing. Its definitions allow for countermeasures to be taken by private entities, and we think these provisions are ripe for abuse.

Hours ago, the House of Representatives voted to approve the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (CISPA), a bill that would allow companies to bypass all existing privacy law to spy on communications and pass sensitive user data to the government. EFF condemns the vote in the House and vows to continue the fight in the Senate.

"Hundreds of thousands of Internet users spoke out against this bill, and their numbers will only grow as we move this debate to the Senate. We will not stand idly by as the basic freedoms to read and speak online without the shadow of government surveillance are endangered by such overbroad legislative proposals," said Rainey Reitman, EFF Activism Director.

Despite growing resistance to the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act, CISPA has cleared its first legislative hurdle. But the battle over the widely-criticized information-sharing bill is just heating up

But even before it passed, the House voted to amend the bill to actually allow even more types of private sector information to be shared with government agencies, not merely in matters of cybersecurity or national security, but in the investigation of vaguely defined cybersecurity “crimes,” “protection of individuals from the danger of death or serious bodily harm,” and cases that involve the protection of minors from exploitation.

The industry is on a mission to make you like the ads that know which apps you're using.

Few smart-phone users realize it, but mobile-ad companies track them as they use many free apps. They do this in order to fine-tune the ads the users see.

But now that Apple has started to restrict a common way of tracking users, ad companies are scrambling for alternatives, and hoping to "teach" consumers to appreciate the targeted ads that support free apps.

Nasdaq-listed mobile-ad technology company Velti this week teamed up with seven other ad companies to suggest a UDID alternative known as an ODIN.

An ODIN code is created from a smart phone's MAC address, a unique code associated with a device's Wi-Fi chip. "It will ID unique [ad views] but not tie them to devices or to people," says Velti's Krishna Subramanian, because an ODIN is a "cryptographic hash"—a scrambled version of a device's MAC address.

Some users might still object, since the ODIN is linked to a particular handset.

The Internet can breathe a sigh of relief today. In the latest twist in the long-running Viacom v. YouTube litigation, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals revived the entertainment giant’s suit against Google – but simultaneously eviscerated most of the legal theories on which the lawsuit was based.

In February, the London Telegraph published a story about how the UK government (once again) wanted the ability to obtain "details of every phone call and text message, email traffic and web sites visited online." The information, to be stored by telecom companies and Internet service providers for one year, would not contain the contents of the phone calls, emails, text messages, etc., but would contain the telephone numbers and email addresses of the senders and receivers. The justification was that UK security services needed the information to combat terrorism.

When the story came out, there was the usual flurry of condemnation on invasion of privacy grounds, but there wasn't much of a general uproar. Personally, I think few people expected the government to actually follow through with the scheme, given that previous attempts to monitor phone calls and Internet use had proven to be both expensive and a major vote loser. But it seems like the UK government has perennial desires to emulate Orwell's Big Brother persona.

This week, again according to the Telegraph, the UK government surprised everyone by announcing an even more radical scheme. It wants Internet companies to install hardware that will allow the security services to monitor all phone and Internet traffic in real-time. Again, call and Internet content wouldn't be accessible (at least not without a warrant).

New submitter eeplox writes "I make nature videos for my YouTube channel, generally in remote wilderness away from any possible source of music. And I purposely avoid using a soundtrack in my videos because of all the horror stories I hear about Rumblefish filing claims against public domain music.

But when uploading my latest video, YouTube informed me that I was using Rumblefish's copyrighted content, and so ads would be placed on my video, with the proceeds going to said company. This baffled me.

I disputed their claim with YouTube's system — and Rumblefish refuted my dispute, and asserted that: 'All content owners have reviewed your video and confirmed their claims to some or all of its content: Entity: rumblefish; Content Type: Musical Composition.'

So I asked some questions, and it appears that the birds singing in the background of my video are Rumblefish's exclusive intellectual property."

Suddenly, copyright rules no longer do what they are supposed to do. They have gone bad.