Information Immunization Programs

When Information is Dangerous you create Information Immunization Programs

Max Axiom

Cass Sunstein and Adrian Vermeule’s 2008 paper, simply titled, “Conspiracy Theories,” is a startling read for its intellectual dishonesty and implications because Sunstein is now Director of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs for President Obama. This document may be “the Operation Northwoods of ‘Cablegate’.”

Where Northwoods was classified and written in plain military English suggesting specific false-flag tactics for sparking an invasion of Cuba, this document is written publicly in quasi-academic terms such that the plainly stated goals are dressed up in deceptive rationalizations. Nevertheless it amounts to the classic three step plan: Ignore everything. Deny everything. Infiltrate everything.

It is this infiltration that is of interest to Axiom Today in the context of understanding current events regarding WikiLeaks. The question is not, so much, if Assange is an “Agent” of any type, but how and why this scandal is taking place in the mainstream media. As I argued yesterday, the “Houdini’s of Politics” have been hiding the elephant in the room: 9/11 truth. This topic, according to Sunstein and Vermeule, is actually dangerous, and could lead to terrorism.

“Consider the Oklahoma City bombing, whose perpetrators shared a complex of conspiratorial beliefs about the federal government,” the authors claim with no evidence available in the public domain to support it. What perpetrator(s)? The patsy Tim McVeigh? Who else? And who read their minds? That Oklahoma City bombing should be mentioned as the byproduct of “conspiracy theory” shows the deranged and absurd nature of this paper considering that bombing was, itself, a government conspiracy.

The document appears written for a parallel universe where government is “well-motivated” and “aims to eliminate ‘conspiracy theories,’ or draw their poison, if and only if social welfare is improved by doing so.” Not, you know, as techniques for cover ups. Nevertheless, the paper does concede that some “conspiracy theories” (which I again note would otherwise be known as a “scandals”) are actually true. Page 5:

Of course some conspiracy theories, under our definition, have turned out to be true. The Watergate hotel room used by Democratic National Committee was, in fact, bugged by Republican officials, operating at the behest of the White House. In the 1950s, the Central Intelligence Agency did, in fact, administer LSD and related drugs under Project MKULTRA, in an effort to investigate the possibility of “mind control.” Operation Northwoods, a rumored plan by the Department of Defense to simulate acts of terrorism and to blame them on Cuba, really was proposed by high-level officials (though the plan never went into effect). In 1947, space aliens did, in fact, land in Roswell, New Mexico, and the government covered it all up. (Well, maybe not.) Our focus throughout is on false conspiracy theories, not true ones.

I find this paragraph to demonstrate the intellectual fallacy of this entire paper. The scandals mentioned would each have been treated with the same recipe Sunstein and Vermeule advocate as the thesis of their paper, however the focus on “false conspiracy theories” intends to distance the authors from cover ups. For the record “Operation Northwoods” did go into effect on Sept 11, 2001.

However the inclusion of aliens shows the authors speak with disregard to their own credibility. This was likely was summoned as comedic relief to the shocking list of real government conspiracies. There is also a long history of government collusion in fostering UFO conspiracy as a distraction tactic from weapons testing and experiments involving human lab rats.  I don’t appreciate their sense of humour given the gravity of their policy considerations.

Sunstein and Vermuele define “conspiracy theory” as:

…An effort to explain some event or practice by reference to the machinations of powerful people, who have also managed to conceal their role.

What they fail to mention is that the term is a widely-acknowledged as a derisive term having the connotation of being paranoid, dubious, and not to be trusted. Of course, that is because a telling of the history of the term “conspiracy theory” would show it used to negate claims of journalists and whistleblowers by the media and government.

Sunstein claims this sort of logic is a “self-sealing quality, which tends to fold government’s denials into the theory itself as further evidence of the conspiracy.”

Naturally what he cannot concede to is the fact his entire paradigm is a manifest travesty, fallacy, and atrocity.

With all the terrorist-preventing rationalizations out of the way, Sunstein and Vermuele outline how to counter “conspiracy theory”. Page 15:

What can government do about conspiracy theories? Among the things it can do, what should it do? We can readily imagine a series of possible responses. (1) Government might ban conspiracy theorizing. (2) Government might impose some kind of tax, financial or otherwise, on those who disseminate such theories. (3) Government might itself engage in counterspeech, marshaling arguments to discredit conspiracy theories. (4) Government might formally hire credible private parties to engage in counterspeech. (5) Government might engage in informal communication with such parties, encouraging them to help. Each instrument has a distinctive set of potential effects, or costs and benefits, and each will have a place under imaginable conditions. However, our main policy idea is that government should engage in cognitive infiltration of the groups that produce conspiracy theories, which involves a mix of (3), (4) and (5).

Here we suggest two concrete ideas for government officials attempting to fashion a response to such theories. First, responding to more rather than fewer conspiracy theories has a kind of synergy benefit: it reduces the legitimating effect of responding to any one of them, because it dilutes the contrast with unrebutted theories. Second, we suggest a distinctive tactic for breaking up the hard core of extremists who supply conspiracy theories: cognitive infiltration of extremist groups, whereby government agents or their allies (acting either virtually or in real space, and either openly or anonymously) will undermine the crippled epistemology of those who subscribe to such theories. They do so by planting doubts about the theories and stylized facts that circulate within such groups, thereby introducing beneficial cognitive diversity.

These terms “More, rather than fewer” and “cognitive diversity” should be considered in the context of document dumps and WikiLeaks. Simply silencing the “extremist groups” is not the way as it will only embolden their cause. So the strategy is: bullshit baffles brains. Cripple their epistemology. Continuing:

(page 16) …We suggest a distinctive tactic for breaking up the hard core of extremists who supply conspiracy theories: cognitive infiltration of extremist groups, whereby government agents or their
allies (acting either virtually or in real space, and either openly or anonymously) will undermine the crippled epistemology of those who subscribe to such theories.

(Page 19) [Government must] address the supply side of conspiracy theorizing by attempting to debias or disable its purveyors, to address the demand side by attempting to immunize third-party audiences from the theory’s effects, or to do both (if resource constraints permit).

(page 22) Many officials dismiss direct responses to the suppliers of conspiracy theorists as an exercise in futility. Rather, they implicitly frame their responses to the third-party mass audience, hoping to stem the spread of conspiracy theories by dampening the demand rather than by reducing the supply.

Sunstein and Vermeule prefer a information immunization program, termed “countermisinformation” over “counterspeech” in newspeak. In this context we can see how 9/11 truth (false flag awareness campaigns) has once again been overwhelmed by noisy, time consuming, and distracting current events. It appears that Cablegate is a sophisticated implementation of everything Sunstein and Vermeule hoped for.

Finally, the authors engage in conspiratorial behavior according to their own definition. They have outlined something that could be well  described as, “the machinations of powerful people, who have also managed to conceal their role”:

(page 21) Although government can supply these independent experts with information and perhaps prod them into action from behind the scenes, too close a connection will prove self-defeating if it is exposed.

Here’s a side note: Not all false conspiracy theories are bad: Consider the (conspiracy theory?) of Santa Claus, The Easter Bunny, and the Toothfairy. Page 6:

Within the set of false conspiracy theories, we also limit our focus to potentially harmful theories. Not all false conspiracy theories are harmful; consider the false conspiracy theory, held by many of the younger members of our society, that a secret group of elves, working in a remote location under the leadership of the mysterious “Santa Claus,” make and distribute presents on Christmas Eve. This theory is false, but is itself instilled through a widespread conspiracy of the powerful – parents – who conceal their role in the whole affair.

Pentagon Controlled Propaganda Placement on CSI NY

A primetime CBS show that aired last week featured a notable example of so called “propaganda placement”, where a talking point is inserted into the plot in order to shape public perception, often at the behest of the government.

CSI NY’s episode entitled “Point of View” featured a character who researches “conspiracy theories”, such the deliberate dispersal of potentially dangerous chemtrails into the atmosphere.

First the character, a professor, is labeled”odd”, then “anti-American”, before finally he is revealed to be a “domestic terrorist” hell bent on releasing a biological weapon in New York.

The following is a partial transcript of dialogue from the show:

CSI detective: “I have a little intel on Professor Scott; he has a history of espousing various conspiracy theories; sharing them with his students got him into a little trouble.”

Professor’s friend: “Every university has a least one unconventional professor.”

Second CSI detective: “Oh come on Payton, this guys ideas here are totally anti-American. Look at this; water fluoridation, tsunami bombs, chemtrails…

First CSI detective: “What are chemtrails?”

Third CSI detective: “Some people believe that vapor exhaust from aircraft are actually dangerous bio-chemicals dispersed into the air.”

Friend of the professor: “Which only proves that the professor is a little odd.”

Watch the video here.  (the above dialogue begins at around 24:40)

Call me a rabid conspiracy theorist, but the episode happens to coincide with a State Department guide that dismisses a range of “conspiracy theories”, including the use of depleted uranium by U.S. forces in Iraq as existing only “in the realm of myth”.

But the government cannot inject plot lines into TV dramas – that’s simply a baseless conspiracy theory, isn’t it?

Unfortunately no, it is not. As we covered in depth last year, in just one publicly announced instance, shows on all the major networks in the U.S. were infested with plot lines and talking points aimed at promoting “service and volunteerism”, as well as other topics high on the priorities list of the Obama administration.

One of those shows, according to the Entertainment Industry Foundation, was CSI: NY on CBS.

The week that followed saw many subliminal messages, as well as overt talking points, inserted into shows on all the networks.

Neither was this the first time the corporate networks prostituted their integrity and handed over control of their content to the Obama administration. Back in June 2009, ABC News mimicked the likes of Communist China and North Korea by completely turning its news coverage over to the government and excluding any dissenting opinions to promote President Obama’s health care agenda.

The use of the chemtrails talking point in CSI: NY is interesting given that the dispersal of sulphur containing aerosols into the atmosphere is a practice that has beenproven to have been undertaken, and is a regular part of controversial discussions concerning geo-engineering the planet in the face of climate change.

Of course, you’re not supposed to know that, you’re just supposed to think it’s a crazy conspiracy theory espoused by nut case anti-American terrorists who want to kill you with bio weapons.

Could this be a latest example of propaganda placement be a manifestation of Obama’s information czar Cass Sunstein’s all out war on “conspiracy theories”? Or is that just another conspiracy theory too?

Seguridad Cibernética: El Secuestro del Internet

Por Luis R. Miranda
The Real Agenda
Mayo 1, 2010

En los Estados Unidos, una versión reciente de un proyecto de ley fue aprobado por la Cámara de Representantes, que dará a la internetComisión Federal de Comunicaciones (FCC) el dominio completo de la web. El proyecto de ley incluye la creación de un nuevo sector de seguridad en Internet, que incluirá la formación, la investigación y la coordinación del ciberespacio. Esta también permite que el Instituto Nacional de Estándares y Tecnología (NIST) cree un programa para reclutar infantes hasta los 12 años para enseñarles cómo llevar a cabo vigilancia y espionaje en Internet, como parte del nuevo Ejército Cibernético. El programa de becas que financiará la capacitación enseña a los estudiantes cómo crear sistemas de gestión de identidad utilizada para controlar el acceso a la web, redes informáticas, y los datos. Asimismo, se creará una serie de normas que todos los prestadores de servicios tendrán que cumplir a fin de permanecer activos. Los usuarios de Internet tendrán que soportar interminables requisitos, que incluyen el uso de software emitido por el gobierno. Bye, bye Linux!

En la sección 12, párrafo 4, el documento dice: “Vamos a ofrecer un procedimiento para identificar a estudiantes que cursen kindergarten y hasta 12 años de edad, para participar en internados y programas de prácticas que conduzcan a la certificación de las normas de la fuerza laboral federal en tecnología de la información …” En otras palabras, cualquier persona que tiene la intención de trabajar en cualquier lugar cerca de la Internet, tendrá que ser certificado por el gobierno federal y el gobierno federal se encargará de asegurarse que contará con los “recursos humanos” para llevar a cabo este plan mediante la contratación de niños que muestren habilidad desde la temprana edad de 5 años.

Además de los programas descritos anteriormente, el proyecto de ley también habla de la creación de nuevos protocolos que proporcionará una mayor seguridad. Todo el software disponible tendrá que ser revisado primero por el gobierno y luego pre-aprobado. Una vez más, hasta la vista programas de código abierto! Coincidentemente, Google ha anunciado la creación de su propia versión de la Internet, lo que preocupa a muchos ciudadanos quienes reconocen esta iniciativa como una prueba beta de lo que será Internet 2.0. Entre algunas de las prácticas sugeridas están la adopción de la identificación biométrica para poder acceder a la web. Esto permitiría que el gobierno y sus socios tecnológicos -Microsoft, Google, AT&T, Verizon y otros- sigan de cerca a cualquier persona que utiliza la web, ya que tal identificación reduciría el trabajo de indentificación de un solo individuo en un equipo específico en una determinada ubicación. Este tipo de prácticas se han puesto en marcha por los fabricantes de tecnología en computadoras, discos duros externos y otros dispositivos, que se habilitan biométricamente. Recientemente, Microsoft presentó la última versión de su consola Xbox, que cuenta con una cámara de 5 megapíxeles que se activa en por movimiento y reconoce los movimientos del cuerpo específicos a un determinado indivíduo..

Sección 7, que habla de la concesión de licencias y la certificación de profesionales de la seguridad cibernética dice: “A partir de tres años después de la promulgación de esta ley, será ilegal para cualquier persona ejercer su actividad en los Estados Unidos o para ser empleado en los Estados Unidos como un proveedor de servicios de seguridad cibernética a cualquier agencia federal o sistema de información o de la red … si este no tiene licencia y certificado por el programa. “Leyendo más el texto del proyecto de ley, es evidente que las redes mencionadas incluyen no sólo los todos los sistemas públicos, sino también todos los privados .

La Iniciativa Nacional Integral de Seguridad Cibernética le dará al Presidente poderes de emergencia que se añade a los que ya se le concedieron en el Acto Patriota, que incluye contingencias para limitar la publicación de contenidos, acceso a Internet y cierre de la web. Algunos asesores presidenciales, así como profesionales de tecnología que apoyan el proyecto de ley intentaron amortiguar las críticas confesando que el presidente ya tiene amplios poderes para regular la Internet durante las emergencias. Nadie pensaría que la intención del gobierno es aprovecharse de un proyecto como este con el fin de limitar o eliminar el acceso a la red, si no fuera por las declaraciones explícitas que algunos oficiales del gobierno han dado con respecto a la neutralidad de la red, internet 2.0 , el acceso a la web y así sucesivamente. Uno de los mejores ejemplos que podemos utilizar para ilustrar lo que el complejo industrial militar está planeando hacer, son las declaraciones más recientes del Zar que coordina regulaciones en el gobierno de Barack Hussein Obama, Cass Sunstein. El dijo que los sitios web deben ser obligados a remover “rumores“, “odio” o “declaraciones absurdas“, por lo general encontradas en sitios web “de derecha“. “En la era de la Internet, se ha hecho fácil esparcir rumores falsos o engañosos sobre casi todo el mundo”, escribe Sunstein. “Algunas páginas web derechistas hicieron comentarios absurdos y odiosos acerca de la supuesta relación entre Barack Obama y el ex radical Bill Ayers, uno de los objetivos de los sitios web fue, sin duda atraer a más espectadores. En Internet, así como en la radio, propagadores altruistas son fáciles de encontrar. Ellos desempeñan un papel especialmente importante en el ámbito político. Cuando Sean Hannity, el comentarista de televisión atacó a Barack Obama por su supuestas asociaciones, uno de sus objetivos podría haber sido la de promover los valores y las causas que él protege“.

El tipo de proyectos de ley como el aprobado en la Cámara de Representantes de EE.UU., también están siendo propuestos y aprobados en otras partes del mundo. En Australia, los senadores están sacudiendo sus poderes recién adquiridos, diciendo a los ciudadanos lo que es legal y lo que es ilegal decir o publicar en la web. Una de las muchas personas avanzando la censura es el senador Steve Fielding, quien es un miembro del partido llamado Primero La Familia. Él quiere que todos los contenidos adultos sean prohibidos para todos, incluidos los adultos. El Sr. Fielding está abierto a cualquier tipo de censura en Internet.

Mientras tanto, en Indonesia, el gobierno local está siguiendo los pasos de los Estados Unidos y Australia. “Hay miles de violaciónes de los usuarios de Internet en Indonesia. No tenemos ninguna intención de moverse hacia atrás … pero no queremos que la gente piense que el gobierno ignora asuntos como la pornografía en Internet“. La legislación reciente aprobada en Indonesia se adoptó a pesar de la firme oposición y las protestas generalizadas. El proyecto fue apoyado por grupos de musulmanes conservadores como el Partido Justicia Próspera (PKS), que remonta sus orígenes a la proscrita Hermandad Musulmana de Egipto.
Gobiernos y organizaciones que apoyan la censura en Internet por lo general citan la pornografía cibernética, rumores, mensajes de odio y las teorías de conspiración como las razones para intervenir con lo que se escribe y se lee en línea. En realidad, sin embargo, estos planes son esfuerzos para minimizar o eliminar la disidencia, al igual que algunos gobiernos como Venezuela, Irán, Arabia Saudita y Cuba hacen con estaciones de televisión y periódicos que cuestionó la “posición oficial“.

En el Reino Unido, un proyecto de ley etiquetado como el proyecto de ley Economía Digital incluye un nuevo código para limitar el acceso a Internet. Los informes locales advierten que el gobierno puede omitir el proceso de consultas regulares para ponerla en vigor. El proyecto de ley en el Reino Unido contiene dos cláusulas, 10 y 11, que son particularmente preocupantes. Ellas permitirán a Ofcom, avanzar con las medidas técnicas tan pronto como el código inicial de las obligaciones se haya introducido. Esto es visto como un plan del gobierno para limitar la Internet sin seguir los pasos adecuados. Según el sitio, las normas incluidas en el proyecto de ley son un espejo del lenguaje de «limitaciones» que figura en la Directiva de servicio universal en el Paquete de telecomunicaciones de la Unión Europea.

¿Qué objetivos tienen proyectos de ley que buscan interferir con el uso libre de Internet?

De regreso en los Estados Unidos, la sección 5 del proyecto de ley establece la Seguridad Cibernética: “La transferencia de las normas de seguridad cibernética, procesos, tecnologías y técnicas, será desarrollado por el NIST.” Tanto el NIST como la FCC, han elogiado la iniciativa de Google para crear una versión de alta velocidad de Internet. Al mismo tiempo, la FCC está en proceso de presentar un plan nacional de banda ancha que efectivamente limita la cantidad de tiempo y las áreas a las que un usuario puede tener acceso. Además, los usuarios de Internet pagarán por el uso de tal banda ancha así como por la cantidad de descargas que hagan. Entre los planes a implementar con el proyecto de ley de seguridad cibernética es la “armonización” de la web. Esto significa que la gente tendrá que utilizar el software aprobado por las agencias federales con el fin de acceder a la World Wide Web.

Sección 6, que detalla las nuevas normas que NIST pondrá en marcha, indica que aquellos que no cumplen con las regulaciones federales, no podrán usar Internet. El apartado 2.2, una vez más reafirma las prerrogativas de la FCC para decidir cuáles son las normas de seguridad y permitir el acceso a la red sólo a aquellos proveedores de servicios de Internet (ISP) y otras empresas que cumplan con esas normas. En otras palabras, las empresas que proveen servicios de Internet y los propios usuarios tendrán que operar bajo los límites de los gobiernos federales o simplemente olvidar lo que hasta ahora ha sido un medio de libre acceso. Este tipo de políticas coinciden con puntos de vista de Cass Sunstein sobre el uso de la web. Él dice: “La libertad suele funcionar, pero en algunos contextos, es una corrección incompleta“. Él propone un “efecto congelante” sobre “rumores dañinos” como medidas para disuadir a los que crian rumores. World Net Daily informó sobre un documento creado por Sunstein llamado “Nueva Enmienda al Derecho de Expresión“, también conocida como una nueva”doctrina de equidad “, que incluye la creación de un grupo de “expertos no partidistas” para forzar la diversidad en los medios. La propuesta radical de reglamentación está contenida en su libro “La Constitución Parcial“, publicado en 1993.

Sección 8, que habla de los contratos de nombres de dominio, le da a un panel asesor creado con poder de veto sobre decisiones hechas por el Subsecretario de Comercio para Comunicaciones e Información con respecto a la renovación o modificación de los números asiganos a proveedores de Internet y que organizan el sistema de dominios. Esto parece hacer eco de lo expresado por los dos representantes que presentaron el proyecto de ley de seguridad cibernética. “Debemos proteger nuestra infraestructura crítica a toda costa; desde nuestra agua a la electricidad, la banca, los semáforos y los registros electrónicos de salud,” dijo Jay Rockefeller. Olympia Snowe concordó con su colega: “si no tomamos medidas rápidas, corremos el riesgo de un ciber-Katrina“. Los gobiernos que aprueban leyes como la de los EE.UU., e iniciativas como las de Indonesia, Australia, Nueva Zelandia, el Reino Unido y otros países, sin duda seguirán los pasos que China ha dejado atrás. Allí, “empresas como Cisco Systems, Nortel Networks, Microsoft, Sun Microsystems y Websense – están acusados de complicidad con violaciónes de los derechos humanos“, afirma sitio El grupo Amnistía Internacional documenta violaciónes cometidas por las autoridades chinas, que han introducido normas, cerrado casas de internet, espiado y bloqueado los correos electrónicos, desmontado programas de búsqueda, así como las noticias extranjeras y los sitios web que se consideran políticamente sensibles. Más recientemente, un nuevo sistema de filtrado se puso a trabajar, con la intención de prohibir una lista de palabras claves y expresiones. Dicho control, al parecer, puede aplicarse a través de una organización central que se encargará de supervisar todos los proveedores y usuarios de Internet, o también si se cuenta con puestos de gestión regional y local, que el proyecto de ley en Estados Unidos dicta se establecerá a través del apoyo económico a organizaciones no lucrativas que sirvan como sucursales para el centro de seguridad cibernética centralizado.

Grupos de ciudadanos preocupados con los poderes que la ley de seguridad cibernética da al presidente- quien quiera que este sea- así como las agencias federales ya están movilizandose para mostrar su oposición., es un lugar donde la gente puede firmar una petición para rechazar el proyecto de ley S773. El sitio afirma correctamente que si el proyecto de ley pasa, “Barack Obama puede silenciar a los disidentes directamente censurando el acceso directo a la internet.El Internet es un sitio libre con ideas e información y no una propiedad del gobierno federal“. otro sitio en internet llama también a opnerse y que la gente haga sentir su preocupación mediante la firma de una petición. “Si estás en este sitio, entonces usted probablemente sabe lo útil que es Internet para el intercambio de información.” Y continúa: “Ustedes probablemente también disfrutar de las muchas maneras que usted puede interactuar con los demás y entretenerse. Todo esto llegará a su fin si la Ley de seguridad cibernética de 2009 (s773) pasa “. comienza su oposición al citar lo que muchos usuarios de Internet ya conocen: “Las amenazas y las tácticas de miedo siempre se utilizan para justificar el otorgamiento de nuevos poderes al gobierno, incluyendo dar al Presidente el poder de cerrar partes de Internet que considere una amenaza para la seguridad nacional y el acceso a enormes cantidades de datos digitales en la actualidad legalmente fuera de sus límites“.

Shelly Roche, de señaló una cuestión muy importante. La distribución menos centralizada, la gestión y el control de la web es más difícil de ser amenazada o significativamente afectada a un nivel que represente una amenaza para los usuarios o empresas. “Si se instalan prácticas comunes y las empresas se ven obligados a adoptar un programa de certificación federal, los hackers tienen una hoja de ruta que, una vez deconstruida, podría abrir la puerta para ataques masivos en la red.”

Al igual que los neoconservadores quienes utilizaron la teoría de Leo Strauss de crear amenazas ficticias en el siglo 20, con la participación de cristianos fundamentalistas en el Estados Unidos para conseguir apoyo, un gobierno infectado con individuos que siguen movimientos socialistas y fascistas ha creado una amenaza cibernética falsa con el fin de impulsar su agenda para limitar el acceso a la red. Al igual que los neoconservadores lograron crear la falsa guerra contra el terrorismo basado en una premisa falsa y alianzas con grupos terroristas en todo el mundo -que ellos mismos financiaron y dirigieron-, ahora los liberales, -también controlados por intereses bancarios- están tratando de tomar control del único medio que amenaza su poder y control, el único medio que hasta cierto punto democratizó la información y que la llevó a la población, el único medio que pone freno a su plan de crear una tecnocracia global para consolidar su dictadura científica.

Cybersecurity: The Takeover of the Internet

By Luis R. Miranda
The Real Agenda
May 1, 2010

In the United States, a recent version of a bill was passed by the House Of Representatives, which will give the Federal cybersecurityCommunications Commission (FCC) complete dominion over the web. The bill includes the creation of a new sector of internet security which will include the training, research and coordination of cyberspace. It allows the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) to create a program to recruit children from Kindergarten up to 12 years old to teach them how to carry out internet surveillance, as part of the new Cyber Army. The scholarship program that will fund the training will teach the students how to create and identity management systems used to control access to the web, computer networks, and data. It will also create a series of standards which all service providers will have to meet in order to remain active. Internet users will have to put up with endless requirements, which include the use of government issued software. Bye, bye Linux!

In section 12, subsection 4, the document reads: “We shall provide a procedure to identify K-12 students to participate in summer work and internship programs that will lead to the certification of a federal information technology workforce standards…” In other words, anyone who intends to work anywhere close to the internet, will need to be certified by the federal government, and the federal government will assure itself it will have the “humans resources” to carry this plan out by recruiting children as young as 5 years of age.

Besides the programs described above, the bill also talks about the creation of new protocols that will provide enhanced security. All software made available will have to first be reviewed by the government and then pre-aproved. Again, bye bye open source! Coincidentally, Google has announced the creation of their own version of the internet; which many worried citizens recognize as a beta test for the coming internet 2.0. Among some of the suggested practices that would be adopted under this internet 2.0, is the use of biometric identification in order to access the web. This would allow the government and its technology partners -AKA Microsoft, Google, AT&T, Verizon and others- to further monitor anyone who uses the web, since such identification would narrow down the work to a single individual operating from a specific computer at a specific location. This type of practices have been put in place by technology manufacturers in computers, external hard drives and other devices, which were biometrically enabled. Recently, Microsoft unveiled the latest version of their Xbox game console which features a 5 megapixel camera that activates on movement and recognizes specific body movements.

Section 7, which talks about licensing and certification of cybersecurity professionals reads: “Beginning three years after the enactment of this act, it shall be unlawful for any individual to engage in business in the United States or to be employed in the United States as a provider of cybersecurity services to any federal agency or information system or network … who is not licensed and certified by the program.” Reading further into the bill, it is clear the mentioned networks include not only the all public ones, but also all private ones.

The Comprehensive National Cybersecurity Initiative will give the President emergency powers -to be added to the ones he got under the Patriot Act- that include contingencies to limit the publication of content, access to the internet and shut down of the web. Some presidential aides as well as technology professional who support the bill tried to dampen critics concerns alleging the president already has vast powers to regulate the Internet during emergencies. No one would think the government’s intent is to take advantage of a bill like this in order to limit or end access to the net, if it was not for the crystal clear statements that government officials have put out with respect to net neutrality, internet 2.0, access to the web and so on. One of the best examples we can use to illustrate what the military industrial complex is planning to do is the most recent statements by Barack Hussein Obama’s Regulatory Czar, Cass Sunstein. He said websites should be mandated remove “rumors” and “hateful” or “absurd” statements, usually contained in “right wing” websites. “In the era of the Internet, it has become easy to spread false or misleading rumors about almost anyone,” Sunstein writes. “Some right-wing websites like to make absurd and hateful remarks about the alleged relationship between Barack Obama and the former radical Bill Ayers; one of the websites’ goals was undoubtedly to attract more viewers. “On the Internet as well as on talk radio, altruistic propagators are easy to find; they play an especially large role in the political domain. When Sean Hannity, the television talk show host, attacked Barack Obama because of his alleged associations, one of his goals might have been to promote values and causes that he cherishes.”

The kind of policies bills like the passed in the U.S. House of Representatives wants to implement, are also being proposed and adopted elsewhere in the world. In Australia, senators are rocking their newly acquired powers, by telling the citizens what is legal and what is illegal to say or publish on the web. One of the many people advancing censorship in the land down under is Senator Steve Fielding, who is a member of the party called Family First. He wants all X-rated content banned for everyone, including adults. Mr. Fielding is open to wide censorship on the internet.

Meanwhile in Indonesia, the local government is following on the steps of the United States and Australia. “There are myriad violations by Internet users in Indonesia. We don’t have any intention to move backward… but we don’t want people to think that the government ignores matters like pornography on the Internet.” Recent laws passed in Indonesia were adopted despite firm opposition and widespread protests. The bill was supported by conservative Muslim groups such as the Prosperous Justice Party (PKS), which traces its origins back to Egypt’s outlawed Muslim Brotherhood.

Governments and organizations that support internet censorship and push for cybersecurity acts usually cite pornography, rumors, hate speech and conspiracy theories as the reasons to intervene with what is written and read online. In reality, however, such plans are efforts to minimize or eliminate dissent, much like some governments like Venezuela, Iran, Saudi Arabia and Cuba close newspapers and television stations that challenged the “official position”.

In the United Kingdom, a bill labeled as The Digital Economy Bill includes a new code to limit Internet access. Local reports warn that the government may bypass the regular consultation process to bring it into force. The bill in the UK contains two clauses, 10 and 11, which are particularly worrisome. They would enable Ofcom to move forward with technical measures as soon as the Initial Obligations code has been introduced. This is seen as a government plan to jump the gun, and ahead to limit the Internet without following the appropriate steps. According to the site, the rules included in the bill mirror the language of ‘limitations’ contained in the Universal Services directive in the E.U. Telecoms Package.

What other goals do these kind of internet bills will try to achieve?

Back in the United States, section 5 of the Cybersecurity bill states: “The transfer of cybersecurity standards, processes, technology and techniques, will be developed by NIST.” Both NIST and the FCC, have praised Google’s initiative to build a high speed version of the internet. At the same time, the FCC is in the process of submitting a National Broadband Plan which will effectively limit the amount of time and areas a user can access. In addition, internet users would be charge by the use of bandwidth, the amount of downloads and so on. Among the plans to be implemented with the new cybersecurity bill is the “harmonization” of the web. This means, people will eventually have to use software approved by federal agencies in order to access the world wide web.

Section 6, which details the new standards NIST will put in place, indicates that those who do not comply with federal regulations will be barred from using the internet. Subsection 2.2, again touches on the FCC’s prerogative to decide what are safe standards and to allow access to the web only to those Internet Service Providers (ISP’s) and other companies that meet those standards. In other words, companies that provide internet services and the users themselves will have to operate under the federal governments boundaries or simply forget about what up until now has been a freely accessed medium. This type of policies match Cass Sunstein’s views regarding the use of the web. He says: “freedom usually works, but in some contexts, it is an incomplete corrective.” He proposes a “chilling effect” on “damaging rumors” or using “corrective” measures to deter future rumor mongers. WND reported about Sunstein’s “First Amendment New Deal” also known as a new “Fairness Doctrine” that includes the creation of a panel of “nonpartisan experts” to force “diversity of view” on the airwaves. The regulatory Czar’s radical proposal is contained in his 1993 book “The Partial Constitution.

Section 8, which talks about Domain Name Contracts, gives an advisory panel created by the act veto power on decisions made by the assistant secretary of commerce for Communications and Information with respect to renewal or modification of the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority for the operation of Domain Name System. This seems to echo what was stated by the two representatives who presented the cybersecurity bill. “We must protect our critical infrastructure at all costs—from our water to our electricity, to banking, traffic lights and electronic health records,” Jay Rockefeller said. Olympia Snowe agreed with her colleague: “if we fail to take swift action, we, regrettably, risk a cyber-Katrina.” The governments that approve bills like the ones in the U.S., and initiatives like the ones in Indonesia, Australia, New Zealand, the United Kingdom and other countries, will certainly follow on the steps China has left behind. There, “companies like Cisco Systems, Nortel Networks, Microsoft, Sun Microsystems and Websense – stand accused of aiding and abetting human rights violations,” states the website The group Amnesty International documented violations committed by Chinese authorities which have introduced regulations, closed LAN houses, spied on and blocked e-mails, taken down search engines as well as foreign news and politically-sensitive websites. More recently, a new filtering system was put to work, with the intention of banning a list of key words and terms”. Such control, it seems, can be implemented either through a central organization that will oversee all internet providers and users, or through regional and local management posts, which the American bill states, will be established through the monetary support of non-profit organizations which will serve as branches for the centralized cybersecurity center.

Groups concerned with the far reaching powers the bill appropriates to the president -whomever he or she happens to be- as well as federal agencies are already mobilizing to show their opposition., is a place where people can sign a petition to reject S773. The site correctly states that if the bill passes, “Barack Obama can silence his dissenters directly by ordering a shutdown of all Americans’ access to the Internet. The Internet is a free marketplace of ideas and information and not a federal government property.” Another site called also prompts people to make their voice heard by signing their petition. “If you’re on this site, then you probably know how useful the internet is for the sharing of information.” And it continues, “You also probably enjoy the many ways you can interact with others and entertain yourself. This will all come to and end if the cybersecurity Act of 2009 (s773) passes.” The website begins its opposition by citing what many internet users are familiar with: “The usual threats and scare tactics are used to justify giving Big Brother greater powers, including giving the President the power to shut down portions of the internet he deems a threat to national security, and access to vast amounts of digital data currently legally off limits.”

Shelly Roche, from pointed out a very important issue. The more dis-centralized the management and control of the web is, the harder it is to “take it down” or significantly hack it to a level where it poses a threat to users or companies. “If common practices are forced on private companies via a federal certification program, hackers will have a road map that, once deconstructed, could unlock every compliant network.”

Just like the neoconservatives used Leo Strauss’ theory to create fictitious threats in the 20th century, engaging the fundamentalist Christians at home to build support, now communist/fascist infected federal governments have created a fake cyber threat in order to push their agenda to limit access to the world wide web. Just like the neocons succeeded in creating the fake war on terror based on a false premise and alliances with terrorist groups around the world -which they themselves financed and directed- now the liberals, -also controlled by banking interests- are trying to tighten the grip on the only medium that challenges their power and control; the only medium that brought some real freedom of information to the people; the only medium that put the brakes on their plan to create a global technocracy, to consolidate their scientific dictatorship.