What does Government Control of the Internet Mean?

by Luis R. Miranda
The Real Agenda
January 18, 2012

Remember all those articles you read a year or two ago that warned us all about the end of the internet as we knew it? That moment has come. Different from what has been reported on the dying corrupt corporate media, the new legislation intended to regulate internet traffic and content, among other things, is not a threat to internet piracy; that is just the excuse to approve it. What the bill known as SOPA really threatens is the free access, posting, reading and circulation of information as we now know it.

Luckily, such legislation has met significant opposition, not only from internet users, but also from internet companies. This opposition has made the usual liberty-violating suspects, AKA Joe Lieberman and his pals, to back off their intention to discuss and pass SOPA on the floor of the Senate and House. Websites like Wikipedia warned against the bill and threatened to shut down its services Wednesday. The company said if the legislation found fertile ground in Congress, it would cause an online blackout.

“Before it looked like it would pass with 80 votes, and now [the online protest] looks like something that will suck the votes away,” said a democratic insider in Congress. With other powerhouses like Google joining the protest, many believe the bill will be shelved, at least for now. One of the points that has Internet companies on their toes is the one that imposes new requirements on internet service providers (IP’s). Bill supporters like Harry Reid adventured themselves to say that “is not perfect” but that the bill intends to “protect American ingenuity and commerce” and that it was “too important to delay.” What this really means is that corporations in control of Congress want to have legal leverage to impose penalties on internet content, much like the United States government produced legislation obligates “Free Trade” partners to renounce to patents and intellectual property which they must sign away to off-shore corporations.

According to congressman Lamar Smith, another supporter of the bill, its only intention is to target websites that work abroad which engage in illegal activities. Smith said that the bill “does not grant the Justice Department the authority to seek a court order to shut down any website operated in the U.S.” This isn’t necessary anyway because the FBI is already shutting down websites without the need for legal authority to do it. So, the current proposal to stop internet piracy has nothing to do with copyright infringement, but with creating a legal framework to carry out internet censorship.

If you don’t think this is true, please listen to Joe Lieberman’s testimony on CNN, where he clearly states that SOPA will give the president the power to disconnect the United States’ internet from the rest of the world’s internet. Sound familiar? That’s right. This is what China does. Only certain websites will be allowed to spread their content online. What Lieberman is saying is that the government will have the power to control what information gets to everyone in the USA. Maybe it will be reduced to the “official” information, because of course, that is all you need to know, isn’t it? One of Lieberman’s gigantic lie during the interview is that this bill is needed to protect the infrastructure, which according to him is “online”. Although the infrastructure, especially basic services such as electricity and water management are interconnected into a single system in many parts of the USA, those systems are not available to be accessed over the Internet, so even if a chinese or indian hacker managed to enter US Internet, it could not physically manipulate such systems.

But if this is the congressman’s main concern, why are developed countries like the USA, and others in the third world, such as Brazil, Bolivia and Ecuador, adopting smart-grid management systems, which are easier targets to be hacked into? The answer to this is simple. One of the most important aspects of global governance is to centrally control the energy resources of the planet, and in order to to this, they need a centrally managed system which will operate over what we know today as the internet. See, the world wide web was not built for us to enjoy it. It was a catch. The web is a convenient tool that was put out for everyone to get accustomed to and more importantly, dependent on, addicted to. But the net is nothing more than a part of a global infrastructure grid to as I said before, control it all.

The way Mr. Lieberman would respond to these questions is… correct again, playing the fear card. “It is a matter of National Security”. He explained to CNN that “a cyber attack on America could do much damage by incapacitating our banks, communications, our finances, our transportation…? My question to this answer is, who in the world has the power to carry out such significant attacks? Governments and Corporations only. So why do the people, who have in large part financed the research, development and operation of the Internet must surrender their free access to the web so the government [any government] is entitled to decide what I read, watch and listen to? Why aren’t the governments where the supposed threats originate at responsible for eliminating hackers who “threaten” the web? Why doesn’t the USA establishes dialog channels to negotiate with governments so they take care of those who run illegal businesses in each country? That does not happen because this bill is not about ending piracy or copyright infringement, but as I repeated many times, about controlling the web.

The so called SOPA bill is not the first attempt to censor the internet. Unfortunately, governments around the world have succeeded in passing legislation that gives them strong powers over the net. In China, for example, the government, in an effort to erase dissent, protests and hatred against government corruption. The most recent piece of legislation was the Cybersecurity Act, which congressmen said was the ultimate weapon against cyber threats. That is the problem with power, the more you give away, the more the bureaucrats want. Now it seems the Cybersecurity Act is not enough, so they want to pass the SOPA bill.

In contrast to what SOPA sponsors say, Internet threats do not come from isolated hackers in China or India. Those large threats come from governments. Take for example the Stuxnet virus that attacked Iranian infrastructure. As we now know, that virus was created and sent there by the United States and Israel, in an effort to curb the country’s thirst for nuclear energy.

In the United States, the Department of Homeland Security has already taken it upon itself to shut down websites for alleged violations of copyright laws. These supposed violations have not been proven, and in most cases they are websites that link to, not publish, copy written materials. Contrary to what it said before and during the attacks on free speech, the DHS has now retracted from many of the accusations made against several websites.

The endgame with the SOPA legislation is that once the governments are given the power to control the content on the internet as well as how and who can post it, that will make it so everyone will need a government license to post information online. Guess what information will be allowed and what won’t? Whatever information that does not comply with the government guidelines. That includes but is not limited to health, politics, war, technology, human rights, individual rights, constitutional rights and so on.

A Healthy Disease: Facebook Fatigue

Hundreds of thousands in Europe and Canada close their Facebook accounts. What will Americans do?

by Luis R. Miranda
The Real Agenda
June 14, 2011

Privacy scares, invasion of privacy and boredom prompted hundreds of thousands of Facebookers to close their accounts in Europe, Canada and it is estimatedthat thousands of Americans will follow them. Although social networking became an everyday practice, a part of people’s life, there is only so much users can get from a social network before it turns boring, annoying and unsafe.

Is the world experiencing Facebook fatigue?

Recent estimates show that so far, at least 100,000 people dropped from Facebook in Britain. In Canada some 1.5 million users decided to say goodbye to their “blue home”. Meanwhile, in the U.S. preliminary accounting reveals that 6 million people have logged off. But is this a surprise? Hardly. Privacy advocates complained about Facebook’s use of technology to gather more than the necessary information for people to become users.

According to the Mail Online, membership growth on Facebook has slowed around the world. Still, the social network is bullish about getting to the magic number of 1 billion members. Although Facebook membership continues to decrease in the developed world, in third world countries the number of people who sign up continues to increase. A reason for this is the fact that third world nations suffer from lack of access to technology such as internet, satellite and cable television, and so on. This makes it harder for people in those parts of the world to learn about social networks and consequently to use them.

According to the Mail, there is a possible “natural membership saturation” that may help Facebook and other social networks memberships to become stagnant. “In the U.S, user numbers dropped from 155.2million to 149.4 million throughout May. In Canada there was also a fall, of about 1.5million users, while in Russia and Norway numbers also fell by more than 100,000 use,” says the Mail.

When interviewed, Inside Facebook’s Eric Eldon says that once Facebook reaches half of a country’s population, the trend is for growth numbers to stop. Facebook users become bored just as any man or woman tries the next new thing, says psychologist Graham Jones.  “People get terribly excited about something new and after a while the novelty wears off. ‘Even if it is a new TV series everybody thinks it is fantastic at the beginning and things tail off.”

But how much of the decline stems on security concerns? Facebook just as Google and Apple have been caught lately using technology to gather information that many privacy advocates and users labeled as unnecessary and a violation of privacy. Facebook activated a feature that traces people in photos posted on the social network using face recognition software. The problem is, they did not warn users about it. Apple on the other hand, recorded iPhone users’ movements without warning users about it. And Google? Well, it is just one invasion of privacy after another.

Amazingly, most if not all of the data gathering occurring on Facebook Apple and Google was mandated by the United States Telecommunications Act of 1996. That means corporations are obligated to gather and record such data because the United States government demands it. Information gleaned from the Internet raises constitutional and evidentiary issues that must be considered, including privacy and the right against unreasonable searches and seizures, said Chief U.S. District Judge Gerald E. Rosen, who also is an evidence professor at Wayne State University. Evidence obtained from the Internet and social media sites also raises issues about whether the information can be authenticated, he said. To the Telecommunications Act of 1996 one needs to add the Cybersecurity Act of 2010, which greatly expanded the powers of government and its agencies to snoop around.

Facebook has continuously rejected accusations of invasion of privacy and through its spokespeople has always claimed that although they receive “significant volume of third-party data requests” all of those requests are individually and carefully analyzed for “legal sufficiency.”

But perhaps a more serious problem that Facebook alone gathering user data, is the fact that the government itself uses social networks such as Facebook, Twitter, Orkut and others to influence people. As reported by Russia Today in April, government intelligence officials make their rounds in Facebook and other social networks with the specific intent to gather information. According to former intelligence analyst, Wayne Madsen, government agencies use software such as Carnivore not only to spy on what people do, but to tell people how to do it.

The trend raises privacy and evidentiary concerns in a rapidly evolving digital age and illustrates the potential law-enforcement value of social media, experts said. “The FBI and other government agencies are facing a potentially widening gap between our legal authority to intercept electronic communications pursuant to court order and our practical ability to actually intercept those communications,” FBI General Counsel Valerie Caproni testified.

Invasive technology issues is not limited to the United States. In the United Kingdom, the government pledged to spy on every e-mail, call and web click under the excuse of national security and the war on terrorism. According to Tom Burghardt, state agencies ranging from the CIA to the National Security Agency are pouring millions of dollars into data-mining firms which claim they have a handle on who you are or what you might do in the future.

In July, security journalist Noah Shachtman revealed in Wired that “the investment arms of the CIA and Google are both backing a company that monitors the web in real time–and says it uses that information to predict the future.”

Shachtman reported that the CIA’s semi-private investment company, In-Q-Tel, and Google Ventures, the search giant’s business division had partnered-up with a dodgy outfit called Recorded Future pouring, according to some estimates, $20 million dollars into the fledgling firm.

blurb on In-Q-Tel’s web site informs us that “Recorded Future extracts time and event information from the web. The company offers users new ways to analyze the past, present, and the predicted future.”

A report concerning the current trend on Facebook fatigue published on mashable.com says that if the slowing trend continues for a couple of months, executives at Facebook may need to think about the company’s future. Could it be they have not done that yet? And if the reports about government involvement in data mining are as serious as described by Madsen, Burghardt and others -it wouldn’t be a surprise- then that fact alone may be the trigger for a massive migration of users to alternative communication technology. For example, people worried about Google keeping tabs on what they look at online, have the option to use StartPage.com, which is a search engine that does not record users’ data, although it has the benefit of providing Google search results.

If the boredom and monotony of Facebook and the rest of the social networks is not enough to make people shut down their accounts, maybe the explicit invasion of privacy carried out by the social networks on behalf of the government or through government intelligence agencies themselves will be a reason to consider disconnecting themselves from them. It is likely that the real impact of the so called “fatigue” shows its real effects once third world countries’ users -who lag behind- realize how dull and unsafe Facebook is.

The Revolution the Globalists Yearned For

How the main stream media sell lies, the people are co-opted and the globalists tighten up their grip

By Luis R. Miranda
The Real Agenda
February 5, 2010

Let me go straight to the point. Glenn Beck is not a patriot or anything close to it. Beck is a PR machine used to sell advertising on Fox News. Like him, there are many other ones in the main stream media, just as there are many pundits who bend the truth as they see fit. So why is Glenn Beck speaking somehow truthfully and precisely about what’s happening in Egypt?

Many people in the world have woken up to reality, and during that awakening they turned down the lies and disinformation the main stream media offers. So the dinosaur media employs a ‘new tactic’. Such ‘new tactic’ involves seeming patriotic and telling viewers, readers and listeners some truths, which they then surround with lots of false or partly false information. This is done in an attempt to rescue themselves from the hole they have fallen into since people no longer trust them.

In the reporting or discussion of any issue, the main stream media tell people 10 percent of the truth and the other 90 percent are filled with lies. That is where the trap is. It is a psychological operation to gain back the trust of the audience, but most people don’t see it or understand it that way. The media know who the audience is, how they think and how to reach out to them. They employ the sweetest combinations of words to attract and maintain their usual followers and try to get new ones everyday.

This is why Glenn Beck and others sometimes tell people the whole truth, only to tell them the complete opposite a day or two later. Examples of this are needless as anyone can see it not only on Fox, but also on CNN, MSNBC, CBS, ABC and popular newspapers and magazines that mask their agenda with cute faces, smart looking hosts and slick studios. But the overall goal is to sell lies. Make no mistake about it.

Exactly as Glenn Beck presented it on his show, the situation in Egypt today is a carbon copy of what happened in Iran in 1979. But no one seems to understand it fully well, because no one cares enough. No one remembers Iran in 1979. Unrest in the middle east is endless and older than my grandparents. But it is important to learn what sparks such unrest, violence, persecution and destruction. Let’s just cite a few reasons why unrest takes place: economic sanctions, commercial tariffs, austerity measures, hunger, war, oppression, corruption, slavery, you name it.

The world is not about to be dominated by a few hands like Beck pointed out in one of his shows. It has been in the hands of a handful of people for at least a century. The media does not get it, says Beck. Another lie. The media gets it well, they just don’t tell you. Beck as well as other talking heads know that if the media told the masses how things really work, we would see Egypt’s situation repeating itself not only in the middle east, but everywhere else. Indeed, Egypt’s revolution may have started as a righteous movement to dethrone a dictator, but it certainly hasn’t evolved as such.

Beck is right to say that the conflict in the Middle East is about destroying the West, but hasn’t it been always about that? Haven’t the western military and economic powers through their military industrial complex always fired up conflict in the East to have an excuse to fill their pockets with money and amass control of the resources and the people? Nothing new here then.

Why does the East allegedly hates the West?

The East doesn’t hate the West. That is another lie Glenn Beck managed to sneak in. The globalists hate both the East and the West, and they want to set them both on fire so they achieve full control of both hemispheres, as they planned originally. The conflict between civilizations has always been spurred by small groups of people seeking to advance empires and amass control while oppressing the people. So the citizens of the East do not hate the citizens of the West. The puppet dictators of the East hate their eastern folks, because they sell their lives to the controllers in the West. The puppets of the West also hate their folks, because they also sell their people to the globalists. All the religious and cultural conflict is caused by the introduction of fallacies people happen to believe, such as social justice, multiculturalism and religious radicalism and by phrases like “you are either with us, or you are with the enemy”.

Beck has the boldness to blame the progressives for this disaster that has been going on for longer that what any progressive could imagine. Tyranny and corruption is not a progressive feature, it’s a historical goal of the globalists. In order to achieve it, they employ different names, policies and more important than that, they employ different social groups, religions and puppets who follow different ideologies. This way they can always tie all the knots. The same policies Beck describes as originated in the progressive movement, were also produced and executed by alleged conservatives. Both of these groups produced them and executed them, because they are both controlled and co-opted by globalists and globalist organizations and foundations.

Glenn Beck correctly asserts that much of the hatred from the East is caused by western hypocrisy, especially American hypocrisy. In part this is true. The only BUT is that it has not been American or Western hypocrisy. The United States as well as other G-8 and G-20 nations are all directed by puppet governments that carry out the plans of the globalists. Therefore, the people responsible for such hypocrisy are the globalists in control, not the Americans, French, British, Germans or Greek people. This is the difference between Beck’s way of assigning blame and actually seeing behind the curtain and recognizing the puppet masters.

Credit is due to the main stream media because they have been able to maintain the puppet masters hidden behind that curtain. Just as Glenn Beck tried to do on his show on January 31, the corporate media specializes in lying with a straight face. And no one can have more of a straight face than Beck himself when he lies. While detailing what he called the coming insurrection, Beck criticized Mubarak for torturing, kidnapping, spying on, oppressing and abusing the Egyptian people. He did not speak up, though when George W. Bush -another puppet president- did exactly the same during his

eight-year reign of terror. However, the sham is over. Many people learned to see through the lies and disinformation to recognize that their oppressors do not live in their countries. They also learnt that the economic and political agendas that have caused their misery and pain along with the death of thousands or millions of their people are ordered from abroad. They don’t want another puppet, they want to take it upon themselves to build the country they want for themselves and their families. But the only way to achieve this is liberating themselves from the chains that have kept them from being free.

As Ron Paul has pointed out, it is the American occupation of the Middle East what has served as a great excuse for the formation of radical groups, many of them supported by the very same western powers that claim to be heading the fight against terrorism. Among them, the Muslim Brotherhood, a creation of British intelligence agencies.

Civilization wars are not due to the fact some are free and prosperous and others aren’t. The bloodiest wars in history were not due to religious diversity, but how religious differences and religious movements have been used to create hatred among the people.

The military industrial complex, has created and propelled dictators of all colors and shapes into power for centuries and its members and pundits have done everything but confess it in public. Zbigniew Brzezinski, not only showed his concern about the rise of the people worldwide against the globalist agenda, but also admitted he personally was responsible for the creation of eastern dictators. Mao Tse Tung was taken to power by globalists and so was Adolf Hitler. The number of deaths due to the policies and persecution these two tyrants carried out are conservatively counted today by the tens of millions.

Currently, the globalist-controlled United States supports dictators in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Tunisia, Yemen, and puppet presidents in all of Latin America, Europe and other regions of the world. Support to these dictators and puppet presidents are given in a diversity of ways. Egypt receives billions of dollars a year, much of it in military aid. Yemen gets a big chunk of USAID’s budget, too. A lot of it, says the organization, is for programs related to ‘peace and security’. And when the aid does not go in the form of cash, as in Saudi Arabia’s case, it is planned and delivered through arms treaties.

Egypt 2011 is Iran in 1979

Let’s explain this as clearly as possible. Egypt’s revolution going on today is a copy of what happened in Iran in the late 1970’s. Hosni Mubarack is a puppet of the international crime syndicate known as the globalists. The globalists are a group of corporate corrupt personalities who control almost every aspect of our lives today. They have achieved this by creating and imposing a scheme to have a planned controlled economy, with planned controlled development, growth, education -or should I say planned training- among other things. This planned scheme allowed them to maintain and tighten control over politics, economics, monetary and fiscal policy, research and use of natural resources, birth control, entertainment, and of course news media.

Just as it wasn’t in Iran in 1979, the conflict developing all over the Middle East is not about democracy. It is the same scenario that played out in Iran, where students were cheated into supporting a revolution, but not the people’s revolution. The Iranian revolution wasn’t about freedom either, and its current state is a faithful example of that. Before looking the way it does today, Iran was one the United States strongest allies, just like Egypt is today. Jimmy Carter even spent time toasting with the Shah of Iran in a photo-op that represented how prosperous Iran was. The Shah was a dictator and a puppet, just as Mubarak is today. He tortured and oppressed thousands of people. Just as it happens in Egypt today, student groups lifted the revolution and established a so called moderate regime.

So let’s see… In both cases, the revolution was led by co-opted students. In both cases they wanted to end the reign of a brutal dictator and in both cases they achieved none. In fact, they ended being more oppressed the ever before. In the case of Iran, a month after the revolution for ‘freedom’ was completed, the U.S. decided the Shah wasn’t working out and islamist religious extremists took over power with the Ayatollah Komeni at the head. From that revolution emerged the hostage crisis at the U.S. Embassy, where at least 60 people were held for over a year.

Back to 2011 now. The solution the U.S. has been cooking for a couple of years is to install Mohammed ElBaradei as the saviour of Egypt. The new puppet who will do the due diligence of the globalists, just as Mubarak did. Likewise the puppets in Jordan, Morocco, Sudan, Pakistan and Afghanistan do today. Just as Barack Obama does it in the United States and Inacio Da Silva did it up until January in Brazil.

Today, along with Egypt, countries like Algeria, Morocco, Libia, Sudan, Jordan, Syria and Pakistan exhibit popular revolutions. All of them are governed by dictators, who puppet U.S. governments have sponsored through the years. Why is then the very same U.S. now trying to end those regimes? Because globalists are the least trustworthy people that exist out there. They stop at nothing to advance their agenda. They will take out whoever they need to in order to increase their control and their wealth.

The very same people in power are the ones causing and co-opting the so called insurrection in Egypt, Yemen, Turkey, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and other countries around the world. They have always used popular movements to bamboozle people into bringing about ‘change’. This is clearer in areas of the world where people are tired of being slaves, but do not know how to pursue real change. That change is not understood by the masses, who simply go along with the sham. Ideas like social justice and equality are only lies that are planted to attract people’s attention. In reality, the goal is to establish a communist system based on wealth re-distribution. But that wealth will not end in the hands of those who need it most. Quite the opposite. It will end in the hands of the globalists themselves. These globalists control it all from abroad, where they can never be seen or held accountable. Until now.

Late in 2010, people in France, Greece, Ireland and Italy had expressed their anger on the streets regarding their goverments’ austerity plans, job and salary cuts as well as the confiscation of public and private pension funds.

What does the globalists’ hatred entail?

It is the globalist hatred towards the people, real capitalism and free markets which has destroyed a system that although imperfect, could have been improved to enhance living conditions for many more millions of people. But the deregulation policies allowed the globalists to do as they pleased and their greed grew out of control. So why would the globalists want to effectively collapse the world by ‘setting fires’ all over Africa, the Middle East, Europe and perhaps Asia? That is not the right question to ask. The right question is, why wouldn’t they? It would give them the perfect excuse to launch their long awaited military assault on the populations and the imposition of martial law, curfews, militarization of basically every single corner of the planet under the pretext of national security or international security. They could ban traveling, commerce and in fact halt all economic activity. All in the name of peace and security, of course. Under the START Treaty, the world’s army could finally be shipped out to carry on with their mission to maintain ‘peace and security’ wherever it’s needed, and through the emergency clause make every single nation hand out their weapons to the United Nations.

Additionally, they could ram through their new regulations regarding food production, energy usage -with smart grid technology-, global warming laws, an official ban on certain speech, the establishment of free speech zones, further regulation and control of the main stream media, censorship of alternative media, and so on. As things stand now, food prices have increased -only in the last year- up to 3.4 percent in many countries of the western world. Food of course is one of the globalists’ favorite tool to enslave people. Hunger is one of the reasons why many poor and middle class citizens have risen up. Whoever controls food production and distribution holds the rest hostage. The push for a centralized harmonized set of standards under Codex Alimentarius give almost complete control to governments when it comes to producing food, while banning small farm production, use of supplements and alternative medicine.

Under recently approved energy laws, countries whose governments support the carbon emissions scam, mandate that people use a certain amount of energy, impose restrictions on several kinds of energy production, charge taxes and fees on small and mid-size businesses according to the type of energy they use, and in other cases obligate them to purchase carbon credits. With the new system being pushed now, governments will use smart greed technology to regulate how much energy citizens and small businesses use, while exempting large corporations. Government grants will facilitate the purchase and installation of smart meters governments will remotely control to decide who can use energy, how much of it and when. Security professionals have questioned the use of these meters, but the bureaucracy has found a way around criticism to carry out the imposition of the meters.

If you happen to be one of those who hates government intervention, or simply prefer to maintain your privacy intact, you’re out of luck, too. Protesting against government control of everything will get harder by the day. Free speech is another of our rights that may turn into a luxury. As we have witnessed in North America, Latin America, Africa and the Middle East, dictators and globalists don’t like public opposition. They, therefore, have established the so called ‘free speech zones’ at colleges and universities as well as on city streets. These are areas mostly out of everyone else’s sight and mind, turning public protesting innocuous. Those who dare not abide by the illegal new speech rules are immediately quiet down by pepper spray, police dogs or sound canyons.

Free speech wouldn’t be curtailed completely unless the government controlled the main stream media. How do they do that? Not by sending a pack of goons to take over the broadcasts, radio waves or printing presses. Simply by bailing them out with taxpayer money. And when it comes to the alternative media such as blogs, news websites, small production companies and anyone else for that matter, they’ve been working on the famous internet ‘kill switch’. As early as last September, engineers as well as security and privacy advocates warned about a bill circulating in the U.S. Congress that would effectively impose internet censorship. The bill known as the Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act was sponsored by members of both the Republican and Democratic parties. “If this bill had been law five or 10 years ago, there’s a good chance that YouTube would no longer be around,” said Peter Eckersley, senior staff technologist at the Electronic Frontier Foundation. The bill has nothing to do with copyright infringement, of course, but with government control of the internet and censorship of anyone the bureaucrats deem ‘dangerous’. This bill, approved by the Senate’s Judiciary Committee with a vote of 19-0 never received a full vote, but it will eventually come back around, just as the Cybersecurity Act did.

So what can we take out of all this?

First, be prepared. Be self-sufficient. Don’t expect your government to come to your aid when you need food to eat, water to drink and energy to survive a chaotic situation. The bureaucrats simply won’t come. Governments, especially big governments, are unable to help everyone when disasters, chaos, violence and unrest spark. In many cases, governments themselves -at the behest of the globalists- cause all that unrest and chaos and more often than not, they don’t even intend to help the people in need. Being prepared is key to surviving any difficult situation. Being proactive, not reactive, is the solution. So, be self-sufficient. Don’t wait until grocery stores run out of food to start storing non-perishable goods. Some stores are already out of food due to skyrocketing oil prices, artificial scarcity and artificial currency instability. Be independent. Have your own or a communal water well. Organize small neighborhood groups to support each other. Your family’s chances of making it through a crisis and to successfully deal with food and water scarcity are yours to improve. It takes only weeks for hungry people to become violent when food and water are scarce or absent. It takes only months for desperate people to kill others in order to survive. Finally, by no means think that what is going on in the Middle East today cannot happen where you live tomorrow. That would be the biggest mistake you could ever make.

Governments Mask Internet Lock Down with ‘Convenience’

Obama readying Internet ID for Americans.  Will it be mirrored elsewhere?

By Luis R. Miranda
The Real Agenda
January 10, 2011

Efforts to accelerate internet control and ´harmonize´ standards has taken a leap forward.  United States president  Barack Obama has proposed that the Commerce Department head a cybersecurity initiative to come up with an internet ID for all Americans.

Although the government has called this proposal a way to decentralize security on the web, the White House Cybersecurity Coordinator, Howard Schmidt labeled it ‘the absolute perfect spot in the U.S. government’  to centralize policy to create an ‘identity ecosystem’.

In addition to masking this new attempt as a convenient measure for internet users, the U.S. government wants to divert attention by placing the Commerce Department at the forefront.  According to CNET.com, the fact it’s the Commerce Department and not Homeland Security or the National Security Agency the ones supervising the project, it means that the government does not intend to exercise control whatsoever, but instead it will play the role of an ‘organizer’.  But the move does not please anyone.  Government intervention has proven to be a bad idea in almost all matters.  The Internet has been successful due to the fact it is free.  What other proof do the controllers and their advocates need to understand it?

Government control over any aspect of the world wide web does not need to be direct or offensive in order to be effective.  But if more conclusive proof is necessary to show an explicit intention to control the web, skeptics need nothing more than to read the Cybersecurity Act.  Privacy and civil rights groups should be worried, and so does everyone else.  This seemingly mild initiatives are the start of what governments, politicians and private industry heads have been calling for:  complete control of the internet, its protocols and content.

‘The announcement came at an event today at the Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research, where U.S. Commerce Secretary Gary Locke and Mr. Schmidt spoke,’ cites CNET.  With this announcement, it is clear the Obama administration is looking forward to implementing the directives contained in the Cybersecurity Act which include government control over who accesses, navigates, posts content and monitors the net.  The law also gives the president, whoever it is, the power to simply shut down the web if it considers it necessary to protect national security interests.

Commerce Secretary Gary Locke, says the government is not talking about a national ID card.   “We are not talking about a government-controlled system.  What we are talking about is enhancing online security and privacy and reducing and perhaps even eliminating the need to memorize a dozen passwords, through creation and use of more trusted digital identities.”

Another fallacy in regards to an Internet ID is that there will not be a centralized database.  The government already keeps databases and no-fly lists on anyone it wants.  Another database would not be a surprise.  The creation of an ID will be like the social security number for the Internet.  It will be the instrument by which all web-based activities will be registered and kept for further snooping.  All sales, purchases, exchanges and other activity will be stored.  This internet ID will be probably merged with the National and / or International ID Card to reveal a unique identity by which all people will be accounted for.

The statement that anonymity or pseudoanonimity will still be possible is hilarious.  It is not possible as things stand today.  Can anyone believe that the controllers in the Department of Homeland Security, the Defense Department and the NSA will let the Commerce folks pull the strings of the strongest beacon of liberty in the planet?  I doubt it.  There´s no need for public or private rivalry among government agencies for the public to notice who controls what.

In 2009, the director of Homeland Security’s National Cybersecurity Center, resigned saying that the NSA effectively controlled the cyber world though the use of , among other things, ‘technology insertions’.

Deceitful Speech

In an article posted on Wired.com, writer Ryan Singel begins his thoughts by saying that an internet ID will be useful to dodge the ‘nightmare of trying to control your online identity’.  Singel´s complete article is here.  What he labels as a better way to deal with internet threats and inconveniences, is nothing more than what search engines and known social networks have already implemented: The ability to use one password to access several websites and their services.  He cites Facebook, Twitter and Yahoo, among others.

But if this tool already exists, why do we need the government to create another one?  “One can also imagine having an identity provider that enables you to tie your home address, e-mail address and mobile phone number together so you could securely log in to the Social Security Administration and request a new Social Security card. The government would be able to mail the card to your house, with strong assurance you actually live at that address.”  If this does not spell centralization, I don’t know what would.

As many privacy advocates point out, the government does not have a way to pull this off by itself.  That is why private enterprises are the ones that offered it to consumers.  What the government’s inability means, is that private corporations will be empowered and legally enabled to collect, store and basically do whatever they want with any and all private information.  Not that this does not happen already.