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.

Internet 9/11 Courtesy of Staged Wikileaks Disclosures

Is Wikileaks the Internet’s Pearl Harbor? Will Julian Assange and his web operation help bring Martial Law to Cyberspace?

by Zen Gardner

Think about it. Where is this seemingly staged Wikileaks furor taking us? While we participate in digging into the juicy tidbits of information that incriminate just about anybody and everybody, where is it all going?

Julian Assange

Lessons of 9/11

While 9/11 served as a wake up call to those awake and aware enough to see the obvious demolitions and misinformation and resultant “Pearl Harbor” effect, most of the world fell for it. And now people are literally bending over, as in airport ‘screenings’, to the onslaught of police state fascism worldwide. It’s staggering. In fact, it’s Orwellian. The armies, police and private sector are at war with the vague concept of terrorism – an unbeatable enemy in a war that can be drawn out indefinitely and fought in any arena necessary.

And what was the result of this declared war on terrorism? Not a war on terror, but an increase in fear and terror, all to justify the economic, social and political clampdown that has followed.

What will the Wikileaks debacle herald?

You guessed it–the last bastion of freedom of information and expression, a free Internet, will topple. After all, if information is now the enemy, we must carefully police any and every aspect of this dangerous medium–all for the safety and protection of ‘we the people’.

Oh, we’ll still have the Internet, just like you can still fly. You’ll just have to be on the “approved” list, screened, stamped, zapped, mugged and molested if you want to get “on the net”. No biggie. Thanks Julian–job well done.

Warning Signs

#1. Wikileaks—WAY too approved and publicized. Every TV and cable network, press worldwide, official recognition from every level of government. Heck, he even does a TED talk!  Where’s anyone else trying to expose the agenda? Only Julian. Hmmm.

#2. Biggie: This supposed system fighter says the 9/11 truth issue is “a distraction”. Mustn’t step on your bosses’ toes now, should we Julian..  Very suspicious if you ask me.

#3. Wikileaks and Assange’s sketchy background:

The WikiLeaks website first appeared on the Internet in December 2006.[15][16] The site claims to have been “founded by Chinese dissidents, journalists, mathematicians and start-up company technologists, from the US, Taiwan, Europe, Australia and South Africa”.[5] The creators of WikiLeaks have not been formally identified.[17] It has been represented in public since January 2007 by Julian Assange and others. Assange describes himself as a member of WikiLeaks’ advisory board.[18] (Wikipedia)

Also, Assange reportedly wrote for both the New York Times and the Economist which is fishy as well–not a real enlightened or ‘alternative’ mindset. His mysterious persona also plays well to the Wikileaks furtive image so people won’t expect to know too much, which also is very ‘convenient’ for keeping anything hidden.

[NOTE: There doesn’t have to be deliberate, conscious involvement in some agenda on Wikileaks’ part, but it helps. He, they, could be ‘useful idiots’ whose program has been conveniently co-opted by the controllers to serve their purpose. Either way, look for the pattern and the effects.]

#4. Watch the hype: There’s a growing crescendo of anger and hate that is now being whipped up–to the point that Assange is being called a new kind of terrorist–and more disturbingly, and as expected, the comparison is now being drawn between Assange and Bin Laden:

Social Media Leaks Categorize Julian Assange  As the Osama Bin Laden Of The Internet

The founder of WikiLeaks is not only a wanted man by the American authorities, his now infamous Web site

WikiLeaks is also under attack by notorious hackers, while its services are being cut-off by Amazon and EveryDNS.net. Although not officially announced, Julian Assange might be considered today’s public enemy number-one, taking the place of the illusive Osama bin Laden. Not since 9/11 has any one figure reached such notoriety due to what many consider acts against a state.

Like bin Laden, Assange has no permanent address, does not maintain a headquarters, employs only a select few confidants and has taken to hiding in covert areas. Younger than bin Laden, Assange at 39 years-old may be a little more mobile than the 53 year-old, choosing to hopscotch the globe versus hibernating in the mountains of Pakistan and Afghanistan.

While his face resides on the covers of magazines and newspapers around the world, similar to a Wild West ‘Wanted’ poster, little is known about his day-to-day activities. Like bin Laden’s video addresses, while the CIA and other mercenaries are seeking his where-a-bouts, it’s amazing that he still finds ways to release updates justifying his actions. (SOURCE)

Notice also how we’ve been hearing about Wikileaks’ exploits for a few years now, giving us time to make the connection between it and sensational and ‘destructive informational terrorism’. Similarly we heard about Osama through the Yemen and Nairobi attacks being attibuted to him, imprinting his “brand” on the collective mind which led to the foregone phony conclusion that he had masterminded the 9/11 attacks.

Ah, ‘But what about these apparent exposures? Would they attack their own?’

Could all these serious indictments against their own just be a deflecting smokescreen to hide the real purpose? Sure worked last time. So why wouldn’t they risk taking down some of their own to give this psychological operation credibility?

The Tactic Is Very Familiar – Know Your Enemy

First there’s the Hegelian Dialectic – create a problem, provoke a reaction and then implement the pre-planned solution. The staged 9/11 attacks, including the internationally inhabited World Trade Center,  ‘justified’ the ensuing wars and worldwide clampdown on freedoms in the name of ‘security’, including the horrendous Patriot Act that was already written and just waiting for an excuse to be signed and implemented.

Similarly, this attack over the international Internet and drawing in diplomatic communities worldwide by exposing state secrets from a variety of countries will greatly help usher in international measures in the name of ‘security’, probably spearheaded once again by the fascist US government with coinciding EU, Canadian & Australian measures. It’s already under way with the Department of Homeland Security confiscating websites.

All they need is ‘the right incident” to justify bringing on full control. Like “Internet Terrorism”? They just can’t use that term enough now, can they. After all, it’s a war on terror, and “if you’re not for us, you’re for the terrorists.” The ultimate false choice, just like everything else they foist on the human consciousness.

Pretty clever these ol’ boys. It’s in their blood

Those manipulating world events belong to a cult, a brotherhood that hides behind many names and guises, and to which they pledge their absolute loyalty above everything, even their own flesh and blood. Commonly referred to as the Illuminati, this cult has an agenda they work to fulfill using certain rituals, methods and tactics.

One of their central themes and modus operandums is “Ordo Ab Chao”– order out of chaos. Create the chaos, pitting anyone against anyone while controlling and fomenting both sides–hence the double headed red phoenix symbol– for any reason, even killing or exposing their own, to create an illogical madness that they think only they can see through and understand. All the while they are manipulating world governments, banks, armies and corporate leaders and drawing the net on the outcome they have already planned.

Fear and confusion is the climate they love to foment. As long as there’s a confused and uninformed populace, the ignorant and fearful masses will be crying out for help from the ‘powers that be’ – the very “powers that be” that caused all the problems in the first place.

They’re not out to help, they’re out to control. At any cost, by any means necessary.

 

Goodbye to the Free Internet

U.S. Feds Warrantlessly Tracking Americans’ Credit Cards in Real Time…

Washington Times

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is poised to add the Internet to its portfolio of regulated industries. The agency’s chairman, Julius Genachowski, announced Wednesday that he circulated draft rules he says will “preserve the freedom and openness of the Internet.” No statement could better reflect the gulf between the rhetoric and the reality of Obama administration policies.

With a straight face, Mr. Genachowski suggested that government red tape will increase the “freedom” of online services that have flourished because bureaucratic busybodies have been blocked from tinkering with the Web. Ordinarily, it would be appropriate at this point to supply an example from the proposed regulations illustrating the problem. Mr. Genachowski‘s draft document has over 550 footnotes and is stamped “non-public, for internal use only” to ensure nobody outside the agency sees it until the rules are approved in a scheduled Dec. 21 vote. So much for “openness.”

The issue of “net neutrality” is nothing new, but the increasing popularity of online movie streaming services like Netflix have highlighted an area of potential concern. When someone watches a film over the Internet, especially in high definition, the maximum available capacity of the user’s connection is used. Think, for example, of the problems that would arise at the water works if everyone decided to turn on their faucets and take a shower simultaneously. Internet providers are beginning to see the same strain on their networks.

In some cases, heavy use of this sort slows the Web experience for everyone sharing the same lines. That has prompted some cable Internet providers to consider either charging the heavy users more or limiting access to the “problematic” services. Of course, if cinema buffs find themselves cut off from their favorite service, they’re going to be mad. If companies don’t act, they’re just as likely to find irate customers who don’t want their experience bogged down by others.

It’s not clear why the FCC thinks it needs to intervene in a situation with obvious market solutions. Companies that impose draconian tolls or block services will lose customers. Existing laws already offer a number of protections against anti-competitive behavior, but it’s not clear under what law Mr. Genachowski thinks he can stick his nose into the businesses that comprise the Internet. The FCC regulates broadcast television and radio because the government granted each station exclusive access to a slice of the airwaves. Likewise when Ma Bell accepted a monopoly deal from Uncle Sam, it came with regulatory strings attached.

No such rationale applies online, especially because bipartisan majorities in Congress have insisted on maintaining a hands-off policy. A federal appeals court confirmed this in April by striking down the FCC‘s last attempt in this arena. “That was sort of like the quarterback being sacked for a 20-yard loss,” FCC Commissioner Robert M. McDowell told The Washington Times. “And now the team is about to run the exact same play. … In order for the FCC to do this, it needs for Congress to give it explicit statutory authority to do so.”

Freedom and openness should continue to be the governing principles of the Internet. That’s why Mr. Genachowski‘s proposal should be rejected and Congress should make it even more clear that the FCC should stop trying to expand its regulatory empire.

Related Article:

U.S. Government Violating Limits in Spying