Michael Jackson Death Hoax Investigators
Latest News => Michael Jackson News => Topic started by: snowhite159 on June 19, 2010, 07:25:29 PM
-
Idk, If any of you know about the "kill switch". But I just searched that Obama wants to pass a law to disconnet the internet for "emergancy purposes" :evil: . Ummm.... what the heck?!?! OR could it be that more and more people are knowing about the illumanti and those things?? thanks to MJ , of course. Otherwise, people wouldn't have research them up! hmmmm. Something to think about.
-
Can you please post some links? I'd appreciate that!
-
I have read this story too, and it is fresh on my mind, so I could retrieve the story quickly. Here is the link:
http://www.zdnet.com.au/internet-kill-s ... 303838.htm (http://www.zdnet.com.au/internet-kill-switch-proposed-for-us-339303838.htm)
-
This looks like yet another attempt to take power away from the people by controlling information going through the internet.
One would need to understand the detailed of the proposed bill but I agree this is a worrying sign!
-
Internet 'kill switch' proposed for US
By Declan McCullagh, CNET.com on June 15th, 2010 (5 days ago)
A new US Senate Bill would grant the President far-reaching emergency powers to seize control of, or even shut down, portions of the internet.
The legislation says that companies such as broadband providers, search engines or software firms that the US Government selects "shall immediately comply with any emergency measure or action developed" by the Department of Homeland Security. Anyone failing to comply would be fined.
That emergency authority would allow the Federal Government to "preserve those networks and assets and our country and protect our people," Joe Lieberman, the primary sponsor of the measure and the chairman of the Homeland Security committee, told reporters on Thursday. Lieberman is an independent senator from Connecticut who meets with the Democrats.
Due to there being few limits on the US President's emergency power, which can be renewed indefinitely, the densely worded 197-page Bill (PDF) is likely to encounter stiff opposition.
TechAmerica, probably the largest US technology lobby group, said it was concerned about "unintended consequences that would result from the legislation's regulatory approach" and "the potential for absolute power". And the Center for Democracy and Technology publicly worried that the Lieberman Bill's emergency powers "include authority to shut down or limit internet traffic on private systems."
The idea of an internet "kill switch" that the President could flip is not new. A draft Senate proposal that ZDNet Australia's sister site CNET obtained in August allowed the White House to "declare a cybersecurity emergency", and another from Sens. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.V.) and Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) would have explicitly given the government the power to "order the disconnection" of certain networks or websites.
On Thursday, both senators lauded Lieberman's Bill, which is formally titled Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act, or PCNAA. Rockefeller said "I commend" the drafters of the PCNAA. Collins went further, signing up at a co-sponsor and saying at a press conference that "we cannot afford to wait for a cyber 9/11 before our government realises the importance of protecting our cyber resources".
Under PCNAA, the Federal Government's power to force private companies to comply with emergency decrees would become unusually broad. Any company on a list created by Homeland Security that also "relies on" the internet, the telephone system or any other component of the US "information infrastructure" would be subject to command by a new National Center for Cybersecurity and Communications (NCCC) that would be created inside Homeland Security.
The only obvious limitation on the NCCC's emergency power is one paragraph in the Lieberman Bill that appears to have grown out of the Bush-era flap over wiretapping without a warrant. That limitation says that the NCCC cannot order broadband providers or other companies to "conduct surveillance" of Americans unless it's otherwise legally authorised.
Lieberman said on Thursday that enactment of his Bill needed to be a top congressional priority. "For all of its 'user-friendly' allure, the internet can also be a dangerous place with electronic pipelines that run directly into everything from our personal bank accounts to key infrastructure to government and industrial secrets," he said. "Our economic security, national security and public safety are now all at risk from new kinds of enemies — cyber-warriors, cyber-spies, cyber-terrorists and cyber-criminals."
A new cybersecurity bureaucracy
Lieberman's proposal would form a powerful and extensive new Homeland Security bureaucracy around the NCCC, including "no less" than two deputy directors, and liaison officers to the Defense Department, Justice Department, Commerce Department, and the Director of National Intelligence. (How much the NCCC director's duties would overlap with those of the existing assistant secretary for infrastructure protection is not clear.)
The NCCC also would be granted the power to monitor the "security status" of private sector websites, broadband providers and other internet components. Lieberman's legislation requires the NCCC to provide "situational awareness of the security status" of the portions of the internet that are inside the United States — and also those portions in other countries that, if disrupted, could cause significant harm.
Selected private companies would be required to participate in "information sharing" with the Feds. They must "certify in writing to the director" of the NCCC whether they have "developed and implemented" federally approved security measures, which could be anything from encryption to physical security mechanisms, or programming techniques that have been "approved by the director". The NCCC director can "issue an order" in cases of non-compliance.
The prospect of a vast new cybersecurity bureaucracy with power to command the private sector worries some privacy advocates. "This is a plan for an auto-immune reaction," says Jim Harper, director of information studies at the libertarian Cato Institute. "When something goes wrong, the government will attack our infrastructure and make society weaker."
To sweeten the deal for industry groups, Lieberman has included a tantalising offer absent from earlier drafts: immunity from civil lawsuits. If a software company's programming error costs customers billions, or a broadband provider intentionally cuts off its customers in response to a federal command, neither would be liable.
If there's an "incident related to a cyber vulnerability" after the President has declared an emergency and the affected company has followed federal standards, plaintiffs' lawyers cannot collect damages for economic harm. And if the harm is caused by an emergency order from the Feds, not only does the possibility of damages virtually disappear, but the US Treasury will even pick up the private company's tab.
Another sweetener: a new White House office would be charged with forcing federal agencies to take cybersecurity more seriously, with the power to jeopardise their budgets if they fail to comply. The likely effect would be to increase government agencies' demand for security products.
Tom Gann, McAfee's vice president for government relations, stopped short of criticising the Lieberman Bill, calling it a "very important piece of legislation".
McAfee is paying attention to "a number of provisions of the Bill that could use work," Gann said, and "we've certainly put some focus on the emergency provisions."
Via CNET
-
If this includes some kind of shut down of the internet to the public in the event of national or global disaster, then my response is I'm sorry but hell to the naw. I don't have one iota of confidence that the government's main interest here is to save the people. I would feel better having public access and researching on how to save myself. I hope this does not pass. Think Katrina. Those people were cut off from the world and left to fiend for themselves. No sirree. I don't trust that one bit. If anything, we'll be left out of the know while they discriminately decide who's worth saving. Something tells me that my name and address is not on that list :shock:
-
Now even our Youtube information is being controlled. They know everything about us.."for crime investigation"
Google, YouTube received 10,000 government requests for user data
3,580 data requests originated from U.S. agencies
By Jon Brodkin, Network World
April 20, 2010 04:09 PM ET
Google and the Google-owned YouTube received more than 10,000 requests for user data from government agencies in the six months ending Dec. 31, 2009, according to newly released data.
"Like other technology and communications companies, we regularly receive requests from government agencies around the world to remove content from our services, or provide information about users of our services and products," Google says on a new site that sheds more light onto government demands for user information and requests to take offensive material off the Web.
Google Buzz's Privacy Tweaks: Good Start, Not Enough
The vast majority of requests for private user data "are valid and the information needed is for legitimate criminal investigations." Likewise, many requests to remove videos and other content are valid, for example requests to nix child pornography, Google notes.
"However, data about these activities historically has not been broadly available," Google said in its blog Tuesday. "We believe that greater transparency will lead to less censorship."
Between July 1 and Dec. 31, Google received 3,580 requests for user data from U.S. government agencies, slightly less than the 3,663 originating from Brazil. The United Kingdom and India sent more than 1,000 requests each, and smaller numbers originated from various other countries.
Brazil also sent the most requests to remove content, at 291. Germany was second with 188 such requests, followed by India with 142 and the United States with 123. Google fully or partially complied with 80% of content removal requests in the United States.
The numbers are imperfect, because a single request could consist of multiple users' data or removal of multiple URLs. There could also be multiple requests for the same data or to remove the same content.
So far, Google is not saying how often it complies with government requests for user data, but said it plans to in the future.
"We would like to be able to share more information, including how many times we disclosed data in response to these requests, but it's not an easy matter," Google says. "The requests we receive for user data come from a variety of government agencies with different legal authorities and different forms of requests. Given all this complexity, we haven't figured out yet how to categorize and quantify these requests in a way that adds meaningful transparency, but we plan to in the future."
In related news on Tuesday, Google was sent an open letter by government regulators from several countries demanding that the company respect national laws on user privacy.
http://www.networkworld.com/news/2010/0 ... -data.html (http://www.networkworld.com/news/2010/042010-google-youtube-government-data.html)
-
:shock: They know that we know what we were never meant to know. Thanks MICHAEL :D for enlightening us and making us seek out the truth.
-
Interesting,since it is, in fact, the very vehicle he used to promote his own election campaign ! Something smells fishy (and it's not the dead wildlife in the gulf)...
-
Interesting,since it is, in fact, the very vehicle he used to promote his own election campaign ! Something smells fishy (and it's not the dead wildlife in the gulf)...
I absolutely and fully agree.
-
I posted about this on my myspace, and a lot of people are angry and feel this is going TOO FAR.
-
I cannot wait until we can vote this congress and administration out of office!!!!
-
What this story tells me is that they are getting scared of the masses. After all, look how we all are getting informed about MJ and the NWO...through the very Internet they want to kill. Please forgive me if this video has been posted already, but here is a video from a CFR meeting last month: Zbigniew Brzezinski Fears The Global Awakening. Very enlightening indeed! ;)
[youtube:tcltfmfk]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oDBlABD01U0[/youtube:tcltfmfk]
-
I don't vote and I just knew this "change" crap was oh yeah heck yeah were gonna get change alright look how it is things are getting worse! :evil: I mean we're already controlled enough what else is there? @ Mjgirl I love your picture/signature I love how the man looks in those pictures. ;)
-
I really am thankful for all of you here that post things like this. I had heard about this before on Glenn Beck. I am sorry but this congress and president have gone to far. I knew about his social agenda before he was voted in. I did vote but they were already announcing his win right after I voted! Yeah, that was a weird one. No one man/party should have this kind of power. I pray that good people stand against this white house and it's total disregard for the constitution. We are being sold out and shut down right under our noses. They now control our banks, housing, health care, education, and now our very basic freedoms. Freedom of speech. I pray for all of us here in this forum because we understand and know the truth (thanks to Michael) and I pray for those that have not a clue about what is happening and about to happen. All I can say is...God Speed Michael, God Speed.
-
Internet 'kill switch' proposed for US
By Declan McCullagh, CNET.com on June 15th, 2010 (5 days ago)
A new US Senate Bill would grant the President far-reaching emergency powers to seize control of, or even shut down, portions of the internet.
The legislation says that companies such as broadband providers, search engines or software firms that the US Government selects "shall immediately comply with any emergency measure or action developed" by the Department of Homeland Security. Anyone failing to comply would be fined.
That emergency authority would allow the Federal Government to "preserve those networks and assets and our country and protect our people," Joe Lieberman, the primary sponsor of the measure and the chairman of the Homeland Security committee, told reporters on Thursday. Lieberman is an independent senator from Connecticut who meets with the Democrats.
Due to there being few limits on the US President's emergency power, which can be renewed indefinitely, the densely worded 197-page Bill (PDF) is likely to encounter stiff opposition.
TechAmerica, probably the largest US technology lobby group, said it was concerned about "unintended consequences that would result from the legislation's regulatory approach" and "the potential for absolute power". And the Center for Democracy and Technology publicly worried that the Lieberman Bill's emergency powers "include authority to shut down or limit internet traffic on private systems."
The idea of an internet "kill switch" that the President could flip is not new. A draft Senate proposal that ZDNet Australia's sister site CNET obtained in August allowed the White House to "declare a cybersecurity emergency", and another from Sens. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.V.) and Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) would have explicitly given the government the power to "order the disconnection" of certain networks or websites.
On Thursday, both senators lauded Lieberman's Bill, which is formally titled Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act, or PCNAA. Rockefeller said "I commend" the drafters of the PCNAA. Collins went further, signing up at a co-sponsor and saying at a press conference that "we cannot afford to wait for a cyber 9/11 before our government realises the importance of protecting our cyber resources".
Under PCNAA, the Federal Government's power to force private companies to comply with emergency decrees would become unusually broad. Any company on a list created by Homeland Security that also "relies on" the internet, the telephone system or any other component of the US "information infrastructure" would be subject to command by a new National Center for Cybersecurity and Communications (NCCC) that would be created inside Homeland Security.
The only obvious limitation on the NCCC's emergency power is one paragraph in the Lieberman Bill that appears to have grown out of the Bush-era flap over wiretapping without a warrant. That limitation says that the NCCC cannot order broadband providers or other companies to "conduct surveillance" of Americans unless it's otherwise legally authorised.
Lieberman said on Thursday that enactment of his Bill needed to be a top congressional priority. "For all of its 'user-friendly' allure, the internet can also be a dangerous place with electronic pipelines that run directly into everything from our personal bank accounts to key infrastructure to government and industrial secrets," he said. "Our economic security, national security and public safety are now all at risk from new kinds of enemies — cyber-warriors, cyber-spies, cyber-terrorists and cyber-criminals."
A new cybersecurity bureaucracy
Lieberman's proposal would form a powerful and extensive new Homeland Security bureaucracy around the NCCC, including "no less" than two deputy directors, and liaison officers to the Defense Department, Justice Department, Commerce Department, and the Director of National Intelligence. (How much the NCCC director's duties would overlap with those of the existing assistant secretary for infrastructure protection is not clear.)
The NCCC also would be granted the power to monitor the "security status" of private sector websites, broadband providers and other internet components. Lieberman's legislation requires the NCCC to provide "situational awareness of the security status" of the portions of the internet that are inside the United States — and also those portions in other countries that, if disrupted, could cause significant harm.
Selected private companies would be required to participate in "information sharing" with the Feds. They must "certify in writing to the director" of the NCCC whether they have "developed and implemented" federally approved security measures, which could be anything from encryption to physical security mechanisms, or programming techniques that have been "approved by the director". The NCCC director can "issue an order" in cases of non-compliance.
The prospect of a vast new cybersecurity bureaucracy with power to command the private sector worries some privacy advocates. "This is a plan for an auto-immune reaction," says Jim Harper, director of information studies at the libertarian Cato Institute. "When something goes wrong, the government will attack our infrastructure and make society weaker."
To sweeten the deal for industry groups, Lieberman has included a tantalising offer absent from earlier drafts: immunity from civil lawsuits. If a software company's programming error costs customers billions, or a broadband provider intentionally cuts off its customers in response to a federal command, neither would be liable.
If there's an "incident related to a cyber vulnerability" after the President has declared an emergency and the affected company has followed federal standards, plaintiffs' lawyers cannot collect damages for economic harm. And if the harm is caused by an emergency order from the Feds, not only does the possibility of damages virtually disappear, but the US Treasury will even pick up the private company's tab.
Another sweetener: a new White House office would be charged with forcing federal agencies to take cybersecurity more seriously, with the power to jeopardise their budgets if they fail to comply. The likely effect would be to increase government agencies' demand for security products.
Tom Gann, McAfee's vice president for government relations, stopped short of criticising the Lieberman Bill, calling it a "very important piece of legislation".
McAfee is paying attention to "a number of provisions of the Bill that could use work," Gann said, and "we've certainly put some focus on the emergency provisions."
Via CNET
And this is also connected to the DOTS in this TMZ article.
http://michaeljacksonhoaxforum.com/phpbb2/viewtopic.php?f=50&t=11146#p186110
The are going to control the flow of information and what we can share with one each other, one way or another.
Key News Audiences Now Blend Online and Traditional Sources
Audience Segments in a Changing News Environment
August 17, 2008
For more than a decade, the audiences for most traditional news sources have steadily declined, as the number of people getting news online has surged. However, today it is not a choice between traditional sources and the internet for the core elements of today's news audiences.
A sizable minority of Americans find themselves at the intersection of these two long-standing trends in news consumption. Integrators, who get the news from both traditional sources and the internet, are a more engaged, sophisticated and demographically sought-after audience segment than those who mostly rely on traditional news sources. Integrators share some characteristics with a smaller, younger, more internet savvy audience segment.
Like web-oriented news consumers, Integrators are affluent and highly educated. However, they are older, on average, than those who consider the internet their main source of news. Overall, Integrators spend more time with the news on a typical day than do those who rely more on either traditional or internet sources; far more enjoy keeping up with the news a lot than in any other news segment.
Integrators also are heavier consumers of national news -- especially news about politics and Washington -- and are avid sports news consumers. Television is their main news source, but more than a third cite the internet as their primary source of news during the day. This reflects the fact that a relatively large proportion of Integrators log on to the internet from work (45%).
The 2008 biennial news consumption survey by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press was conducted by telephone -- including both landline phones and cell phones -- from April 30 to June 1 among 3,612 adults nationwide. It finds four distinct segments in today's news audience: Integrators, who comprise 23% of the public; the less populous Net-Newsers (13%); Traditionalists -- the oldest (median age: 52) and largest news segment (46% of the public); and the Disengaged (14%) who stand out for their low levels of interest in the news and news consumption.
Net-Newsers are the youngest of the news user segments (median age: 35). They are affluent and even better educated than the News Integrators: More than eight-in-ten have at least attended college. Net-Newsers not only rely primarily on the internet for news, they are leading the way in using new web features and other technologies. Nearly twice as many regularly watch news clips on the internet as regularly watch nightly network news broadcasts (30% vs. 18%).
Click to read more.
http://pewresearch.org/pubs/928/key-news-audiences-now-blend-online-and-traditional-sources
And this why those in power want to control the Internet. They tell us it is to control pornography, bullying and many other evils but there is always more to think about when these types of policies are being implemented.
-
I'm starting to think the Obama administration is only after power and control of everything!!! And I thought Bush was bad :shock:
Yeesh from this oil spill suspicious happening, Michael being gone, now this internet control garbage ALL during Obama's term. Things went from bad to worse ever since he's been in office and I don't want to think this way I really don't but things are just mounting up day by day.
-
Well look like I'm alone in this one. But the keyword ''proposed''. I can't believe how many people are so quick to criticize President Obama. When George Bush stayed in office 8 years did nothing and is responsible for the economic disaster.
-
Well look like I'm alone in this one. But the keyword ''proposed''. How do we even know this is true? I can't believe how many people are so quick to criticize President Obama. When George Bush stayed in office 8 years did nothing and is responsible for the economic disaster.
Dictonary
pro·pose (pr-pz)
v. pro·posed, pro·pos·ing, pro·pos·es
v.tr.
1. To put forward for consideration, discussion, or adoption; to suggest: propose a change in the law.
2. To recommend (a person) for a position, office, or membership; nominate.
3. To offer (a toast to be drunk).
4. To make known as one's intention; purpose or intend:
Thesaurus
Verb 1. propose - make a proposal, declare a plan for something; "the senator proposed to abolish the sales tax"
suggest, advise
advocate, recommend, urge - push for something; "The travel agent recommended strongly that we not travel on Thanksgiving Day"
advance, throw out - bring forward for consideration or acceptance; "advance an argument"
proposition - suggest sex to; "She was propositioned by a stranger at the party"
feed back - respond to a query or outcome
put forward, state, submit, posit - put before; "I submit to you that the accused is guilty"
make a motion, move - propose formally; in a debate or parliamentary meeting
declare - state emphatically and authoritatively; "He declared that he needed more money to carry out the task he was charged with"
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/proposed
-
What I'm not understanding is why you all are mad at the president he didn't propose the bill and he sure as hell doesn't vote. George Bush so much under handed shit but nobody speaks about that the minute a story about President Obama comes out everybody jumps on it. I wonder why?
-
unintended consequences
yeah right
-
What I'm not understanding is why you all are mad at the president he didn't propose the bill and he sure as hell doesn't vote. George Bush so much under handed shit but nobody speaks about that the minute a story about President Obama comes out everybody jumps on it. I wonder why?
Please don't get offended, as I am not in favor of either party, but there is no difference between Obama and Bush in my eyes. Obama is continuing with Bush's legacy and not to mention past presidents with their NWO agenda.
-
What I'm not understanding is why you all are mad at the president he didn't propose the bill and he sure as hell doesn't vote. George Bush so much under handed shit but nobody speaks about that the minute a story about President Obama comes out everybody jumps on it. I wonder why?
Senate Considers Making the President King of Cyberspace
Written by Michael Tennant Monday, 14 June 2010 17:00
The Internet is a wonderful invention that has allowed for the dissemination of a wide variety of ideas. Not surprisingly, politicians, never ones to brook dissent cheerfully, are not terribly fond of it. In 1998, then-First Lady Hillary Clinton said, “We’re all going to have to rethink how we deal with the Internet. As exciting as these new developments are, there are a number of serious issues without any kind of editing function or gatekeeping function.”
Recently President Obama lamented the fact that the smorgasbord of news sources now available to Americans can “reinforce and even deepen the political divides in this country” because people can choose only to listen to those with whom they agree; he was particularly concerned with rhetoric that speaks of “our government” as “some menacing, threatening foreign entity.”
The only question for the politicians, then, is how to implement a “gatekeeping function” without running afoul of Americans’ natural preference for freedom of speech and of the press.
The Federal Trade Commission is proposing government licensing of news organizations, accompanied by taxes on other websites that link to these government-approved sources and taxes on electronic news-reading devices to prop up dying government-approved newspapers.
The U.S. Senate, for the third time in the last year, is attempting to go even further, putting forth legislation that would, according to CNET News, “grant the president far-reaching emergency powers to seize control of or even shut down portions of the Internet.” The 197-page bill, called the Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act (PCNAA), was announced on June10 by Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.). (The previous two attempts were draft proposals to do substantially the same thing as PCNAA.)
Under PCNAA, the President may unilaterally “issue a declaration of national cyber emergency to covered critical infrastructure.” Once the declaration has been issued, says CNET, “companies such as broadband providers, search engines, or software firms that the government selects ‘shall immediately comply with any emergency measure or action developed’ by the Department of Homeland Security. Anyone failing to comply would be fined.” Furthermore, this also applies to “any company on a list created by Homeland Security that also ‘relies on’ the Internet, the telephone system, or any other component of the U.S. ‘information infrastructure,’” according to CNET. These entities will come under the command of a new bureaucracy, the National Center for Cybersecurity and Communications (NCCC), housed within Homeland Security.
Once issued, the cyber emergency declaration ostensibly expires at the end of 30 days. However, given that the President, with the consent of the Director of Cyberspace Policy (head of the proposed White House Office of Cyberspace Policy who is appointed by the President), can extend the emergency for another 30 days at will, the “emergency” can, for all practical purposes, continue indefinitely.
It’s not hard to imagine a scenario in which an embattled President seizes upon a minor incident — one, perhaps, that he says he can’t even reveal because to do so would compromise U.S. national security — to declare such an emergency and then uses that emergency to crush dissenting websites under the theory that such websites “send signals to the most extreme elements of our society that perhaps violence is a justifiable response,” as Obama said in the speech referenced earlier.
Even if a cyber emergency is never declared, PCNAA still provides for a vast increase in the federal government’s control over cyberspace. CNET reports:
The NCCC also would be granted the power to monitor the “security status” of private sector Web sites, broadband providers, and other Internet components. Lieberman’s legislation requires the NCCC to provide “situational awareness of the security status” of the portions of the Internet that are inside the United States — and also those portions in other countries that, if disrupted, could cause significant harm.
Selected private companies would be required to participate in “information sharing” with the Feds. They must “certify in writing to the director” of the NCCC whether they have “developed and implemented” federally approved security measures, which could be anything from encryption to physical security mechanisms, or programming techniques that have been “approved by the director.” The NCCC director can “issue an order” in cases of noncompliance.
Among those selected private companies will surely be large, established firms who can bear the costs of compliance, knowing that those same costs will keep competitors from springing up.
These and other companies’ compliance will also be procured by the immunity from civil lawsuits that PCNAA offers. Once the President has declared a cyber emergency, any company that complies with NCCC’s directives cannot be sued for economic harm. Moreover, says CNET, “if the harm is caused by an emergency order from the Feds, not only does the possibility of damages virtually disappear, but the U.S. Treasury will even pick up the private company’s tab.”
For those cybersecurity producers that still look askance at federal oversight, there’s also language in the bill requiring federal agencies to beef up their cybersecurity, which will surely mean increased federal purchases of security products. Lieberman is leaving nothing to chance.
If PCNAA becomes law, Clinton will finally have her “gatekeeping function,” and Obama and future Presidents will have it within their power to silence critics on the Web in the name of national security. Meanwhile, the independence of websites and Internet service providers and the privacy of their customers will be severely compromised, emergency or no emergency. It makes one long for the days when politicians merely claimed to have invented the Internet, not to own it.
http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/usnews/congress/3776-senate-considers-making-the-president-king-of-cyberspace
Excerpt From An Obama Speech - From the White House Website
Today’s 24/7 echo-chamber amplifies the most inflammatory soundbites louder and faster than ever before. And it’s also, however, given us unprecedented choice. Whereas most Americans used to get their news from the same three networks over dinner, or a few influential papers on Sunday morning, we now have the option to get our information from any number of blogs or websites or cable news shows. And this can have both a good and bad development for democracy. For if we choose only to expose ourselves to opinions and viewpoints that are in line with our own, studies suggest that we become more polarized, more set in our ways. That will only reinforce and even deepen the political divides in this country.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/remarks-president-university-michigan-spring-commencement
Don`t you see that they want to control your opinion your thoughts. If you do not agree, you are a terrorist, a racist, evil. If you criticize a policy you are labelled in the same way. Obama is an eloquent speaker and mixes candy coatings and platitudes in speeches but the truth is right there for you to see and hear. Step back he is just a man but he is a controlled man. The puppet masters behind the curtain are pulling his strings as they have done with all presidents. This isn`t just happening in America, it is happening all over the world.
-
Hurry up Michael - please, hurry up. This is scary stuff.
-
I voted for Obama! I'm not mad at him but I am concerned over all this stuff happening while he's in office. It looks bad but I'm not on a definate *down with Obama* road. I'm just wondering why on earth all of this is happening just like I wondered with every other President and what all happened during their terms as well. So I'm certainly not putting Obama in some class by himself. I think most Presidents have good and bad qualities as do all people in general.
-
What I'm not understanding is why you all are mad at the president he didn't propose the bill and he sure as hell doesn't vote. George Bush so much under handed shit but nobody speaks about that the minute a story about President Obama comes out everybody jumps on it. I wonder why?
Bush was in office two years ago. We are discussing what is happening since Obama has been in office. Everytime something happens he blames it on the Bush administration. The fact is he takes no responsibility for the things that have happened since he has been in office. He does not have leadership skills or military experience. He has implemented his socialistic agenda since he took office, with total disreguard of the constitution and the laws of the land.
-
Internet is a source of knowledge and a source of fresh information, people communicate with each other through internet - it's not right to take this away from people.
-
Bush was in office two years ago. We are discussing what is happening since Obama has been in office. Everytime something happens he blames it on the Bush administration. The fact is he takes no responsibility for the things that have happened since he has been in office. He does not have leadership skills or military experience. He has implemented his socialistic agenda since he took office, with total disreguard of the constitution and the laws of the land.[/quote]
I think he takes responsible and he has tired to work with his counterparts but they have given him the cold shoulder. So he shouldn't have to kiss anybody's ass. People are to quick to jump down his throat. No matter what he does or doesn't it will never be good enough for some. President Obama is smart, college education and at least other countries are willing to deal with the U.S again.
-
ok people forgive me for sounding so thick but i did'nt fully understand this article, does it mean that the internet may fully be disconnecting from us or does it mean the goverment will control what information we can have access to and limit information for the public to see online or in the future we may not even have any internet?
-
ok people forgive me for sounding so thick but i did'nt fully understand this article, does it mean that the internet may fully be disconnecting from us or does it mean the goverment will control what information we can have access to and limit information for the public to see online or in the future we may not even have any internet?
The U.S. Senate, for the third time in the last year, is attempting to go even further, putting forth legislation that would, according to CNET News, “grant the president far-reaching emergency powers to seize control of or even shut down portions of the Internet.”
Under PCNAA, the President may unilaterally “issue a declaration of national cyber emergency to covered critical infrastructure.” Once the declaration has been issued, says CNET, “companies such as broadband providers, search engines, or software firms that the government selects ‘shall immediately comply with any emergency measure or action developed’ by the Department of Homeland Security. Anyone failing to comply would be fined.” Furthermore, this also applies to “any company on a list created by Homeland Security that also ‘relies on’ the Internet, the telephone system, or any other component of the U.S. ‘information infrastructure,’” according to CNET. These entities will come under the command of a new bureaucracy, the National Center for Cybersecurity and Communications (NCCC), housed within Homeland Security.
Selected private companies would be required to participate in “information sharing” with the Feds. They must “certify in writing to the director” of the NCCC whether they have “developed and implemented” federally approved security measures, which could be anything from encryption to physical security mechanisms, or programming techniques that have been “approved by the director.” The NCCC director can “issue an order” in cases of noncompliance.
Among those selected private companies will surely be large, established firms who can bear the costs of compliance, knowing that those same costs will keep competitors from springing up.
If PCNAA becomes law, Clinton will finally have her “gatekeeping function,” and Obama and future Presidents will have it within their power to silence critics on the Web in the name of national security. Meanwhile, the independence of websites and Internet service providers and the privacy of their customers will be severely compromised, emergency or no emergency. It makes one long for the days when politicians merely claimed to have invented the Internet, not to own it.
http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/usnews/congress/3776-senate-considers-making-the-president-king-of-cyberspace
They will be able to shut down websites, portions of the Internet or the entire Internet. Internet companies will have to provide federally approved security measures, the cost associated with this, could put smaller and/or independent companies/websites out of business, limiting your choices and what you can access on the Internet. Larger Internet companies which are federally approved could decide to prevent you from being able to visit certain websites; this is censorship of what you are ALLOWED to view. Companies will have to provide the government with personal information about consumers, such as which sites you are visiting, list of memberships and any other information the government deems necessary; this is invading your privacy.
-
this is some BS...
I guess the people have become accustomed to being watched & monitored online, so now they want more "control"
I would charge millions of dollars a year for such a button... hmm makes you think just how powerful the internet is...
that it needs its own button, up there with the "war" button....
-
seems these days the presidents have something in common with murry.they are just the fall guys
-
seems these days the presidents have something in common with murry.they are just the fall guys
Actually I will have disagree with Presidents being fall guys.
A fall guy is a person used as a scapegoat to take the blame for someone else's actions but these Presidents and other governmental officials know exactly what they are doing. They are active participants and are being rewarded with positions of power, influence, celebrity etc etc. They are not scapegoats for other's actions as they are involved in perpetrating the plans and may also be involved in planning as well. Each of us is responsible for our own actions and behaviour, President or not.
-
[youtube:2m7yf9zy]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RRj2HJx5Il0&feature=related[/youtube:2m7yf9zy]
-
So this is really why their storing all
tweets from Twitter @ the Library of Congress now, too!!
Trust me, Twitter will be one of the first social medias
to be shut down; when the "emergency" happens.
So the TRUTH won't spread around.
SMFH...
True, as we begin to enter 2012
(some say the Age of Enlightenment; others say the apocalypse)
There ain't shit we can do, but KNOW about it!!!! :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :!: :!: :!:
-
Are you guys really surprised? Obama is nothing more then a puppet and is carrying out orders from his masters it's slavery all over again except the black man is getting paid this time
-
Are you guys really surprised? Obama is nothing more then a puppet and is carrying out orders from his masters it's slavery all over again except the black man is getting paid this time
I concur!
-
I am going to go against the grain and say this will never happen. This is an article that was printed to create mass fear in the people. Do you honestly believe that they'll shut down the internet? Come on. They could do it now if they wanted to.
People need to stop being afraid and just continue living their lives, standing up for their principles, and stop giving in to the public fear that the politicians want to create.
-
I am going to go against the grain and say this will never happen. This is an article that was printed to create mass fear in the people. Do you honestly believe that they'll shut down the internet? Come on. They could do it now if they wanted to.
People need to stop being afraid and just continue living their lives, standing up for their principles, and stop giving in to the public fear that the politicians want to create.
;)
-
I am going to go against the grain and say this will never happen. This is an article that was printed to create mass fear in the people. Do you honestly believe that they'll shut down the internet? Come on. They could do it now if they wanted to.
People need to stop being afraid and just continue living their lives, standing up for their principles, and stop giving in to the public fear that the politicians want to create.
I doubt they are going to do so, it is just for fear, just like they did with the "2012" theory. It's full of sh*t.
-
I am going to go against the grain and say this will never happen. This is an article that was printed to create mass fear in the people. Do you honestly believe that they'll shut down the internet? Come on. They could do it now if they wanted to.
People need to stop being afraid and just continue living their lives, standing up for their principles, and stop giving in to the public fear that the politicians want to create.
I doubt they are going to do so, it is just for fear, just like they did with the "2012" theory. It's full of sh*t.
And let me tell you they are extremely happy that you feel that way. The more people who don't believe it the easier it is to get the bills pushed through and quicker it is to get that censorship ball rolling.
There is a huge controversial occurring in Australia over the legislation that filters the Internet there. The system has been black listing sites that do not have pornographic material, which is the supposed premise. Protect children from pornography, isn't that a parents job? But it's ok for children to play video games which are loaded with sexual material as well as extremely violent content? Makes no sense to me. Google it.
China has a massive censorship of the Internet as well invasion of privacy issues and that is where this is headed for ALL countries. Google it.
-
I am going to go against the grain and say this will never happen. This is an article that was printed to create mass fear in the people. Do you honestly believe that they'll shut down the internet? Come on. They could do it now if they wanted to.
People need to stop being afraid and just continue living their lives, standing up for their principles, and stop giving in to the public fear that the politicians want to create.
I doubt they are going to do so, it is just for fear, just like they did with the "2012" theory. It's full of sh*t.
And let me tell you they are extremely happy that you feel that way. The more people who don't believe it the easier it is to get the bills pushed through and quicker it is to get that censorship ball rolling.
There is a huge controversial occurring in Australia over the legislation that filters the Internet there. The system has been black listing sites that do not have pornographic material, which is the supposed premise. Protect children from pornography, isn't that a parents job? But it's ok for children to play video games which are loaded with sexual material as well as extremely violent content? Makes no sense to me. Google it.
China has a massive censorship of the Internet as well invasion of privacy issues and that is where this is headed for ALL countries. Google it.
whats the use of paying for net services if it has limited use?
-
to me it is more about COMMUNICATION
communication has always been a threat to CONTROL
-
I am going to go against the grain and say this will never happen. This is an article that was printed to create mass fear in the people. Do you honestly believe that they'll shut down the internet? Come on. They could do it now if they wanted to.
People need to stop being afraid and just continue living their lives, standing up for their principles, and stop giving in to the public fear that the politicians want to create.
I doubt they are going to do so, it is just for fear, just like they did with the "2012" theory. It's full of sh*t.
And let me tell you they are extremely happy that you feel that way. The more people who don't believe it the easier it is to get the bills pushed through and quicker it is to get that censorship ball rolling.
There is a huge controversial occurring in Australia over the legislation that filters the Internet there. The system has been black listing sites that do not have pornographic material, which is the supposed premise. Protect children from pornography, isn't that a parents job? But it's ok for children to play video games which are loaded with sexual material as well as extremely violent content? Makes no sense to me. Google it.
China has a massive censorship of the Internet as well invasion of privacy issues and that is where this is headed for ALL countries. Google it.
I never said they weren't filtering the Internet. If you checked the previous posts you would've seen I didn't support anything of what they are trying to do. What I believe is that they are just trying to play with our minds, like they did with the 2012 BS.
They will be able to shut down websites, portions of the Internet or the entire Internet. Internet companies will have to provide federally approved security measures, the cost associated with this, could put smaller and/or independent companies/websites out of business, limiting your choices and what you can access on the Internet. Larger Internet companies which are federally approved could decide to prevent you from being able to visit certain websites; this is censorship of what you are ALLOWED to view. Companies will have to provide the government with personal information about consumers, such as which sites you are visiting, list of memberships and any other information the government deems necessary; this is invading your privacy.
Websites being shut down happens everyday, if you run a site and even more, if you have an online company dealing with many customers shouldn't you try to protect them by providing strong security measures?
I know Google is already collaborating with the CIA and the government to give private information about who they are interested in, that always happened and we can do nothing to change it, but I highly doubt Internet would be entirely shut down since it would affect them more than us. Internet is a huge source of information and manipulation, and closing it would screw them.
What I do think, and I'm completely against it, is the fact that the government is bringing down many pages because they speak the truth, like some youtube videos or any other sites. I am actually wondering how did they allow those videos and data owned by ordinary people about the NWO, illuminati, 9/11 and conspiracies in the government.
-
What I'm not understanding is why you all are mad at the president he didn't propose the bill and he sure as hell doesn't vote. George Bush so much under handed shit but nobody speaks about that the minute a story about President Obama comes out everybody jumps on it. I wonder why?
Bush was in office two years ago. We are discussing what is happening since Obama has been in office. Everytime something happens he blames it on the Bush administration. The fact is he takes no responsibility for the things that have happened since he has been in office. He does not have leadership skills or military experience. He has implemented his socialistic agenda since he took office, with total disreguard of the constitution and the laws of the land.
He has implemented his socialistic agenda since he took office, with total disreguard of the constitution and the laws of the land.[/quote]
A non american would also be in disregard of the constitution and laws of the land. hmmm?
-
Sangre:
Internet is a source of knowledge and a source of fresh information, people communicate with each other through internet - it's not right to take this away from people.
Exactly. And just imagine if they controlled the internet or even worse, shut it down :!: Imagine how it will al turn out if we didn't get to read the internet information and base our own opinions and investigations from it, like for example if it is a fact or just BS like the tabloids!?
Oh hell no
-
Sangre:
Internet is a source of knowledge and a source of fresh information, people communicate with each other through internet - it's not right to take this away from people.
Exactly. And just imagine if they controlled the internet or even worse, shut it down :!: Imagine how it will al turn out if we didn't get to read the internet information and base our own opinions and investigations from it, like for example if it is a fact or just BS like the tabloids!?
Oh hell no
Imagine one day there's a terrorist bombing or a catastrophe, internet will be switched out and people have no idea what's happening. Keeping people clueless is the best way to control them and they have no choice other than to obey.
-
Imagine one day there's a terrorist bombing or a catastrophe, internet will be switched out and people have no idea what's happening. Keeping people clueless is the best way to control them and they have no choice other than to obey.
And while the internet is switched off, all people can do is turn on their radios and TVs, and the mainstream media can then again shove their fabricated BS stories down their throats...
-
Imagine one day there's a terrorist bombing or a catastrophe, internet will be switched out and people have no idea what's happening. Keeping people clueless is the best way to control them and they have no choice other than to obey.
And while the internet is switched off, all people can do is turn on their radios and TVs, and the mainstream media can then again shove their fabricated BS stories down their throats...
Exactly. :shock:
-
I believe it's all about fear. Remember the internet and computer, electricity, and everything else was supposed to shut down in 1999. If you fear them then of course you'll do whatever they say because when you're afraid you'll do anything.
As long as they keep trying to present this constant threat of attack or fear, mindless people will do anything in my opinion. But THEY have no control over my life, over my computer system, and I refuse to sit here and be told that I am going to do what they tell me to do just because of their own corruption/financial greed.
If anything Michael would want us to be strong, stand up, and not be afraid.
-
to me it is more about COMMUNICATION
communication has always been a threat to CONTROL
bingo....
-
This proposal for an emergency Internet kill switch would not surprise me, if this proposal is at all true. It would all be about control.
However, there are more satelites in Earth's orbit than the ones owed/ used by the USA.
Ergo: do not panic YET even if it would be true.
The countries in the far East that are economically advancing fast and well and are doing great business with the Western world, are not going to fall to their knees for any control of the USA. Or intimidation for that matter.
Many Western countries depend on the far East countries for the cheap production of many of their goods.
An emergency Internet kill switch for the USA would damage their economy very seriously , if they would ever use it.
They had better think twice.........and they will.
The far East is not scared of the Illuminati groups of the Western world and their control. They have their own!!
-
Guess Who Wants to Kill the Internet?
Maidhc Ó Cathail
Opinion Maker
July 4, 2010
Since 9/11, the Independent senator from Connecticut has introduced a raft of legislation in the name of the “global war on terror” which has steadily eroded constitutional rights. If the United States looks increasingly like a police state, Senator Lieberman has to take much of the credit for it.
On October 11, 2001, exactly one month after 9/11, Lieberman introduced S. 1534, a bill to establish a Department of Homeland Security. Since then, he has been the main mover behind such draconian legislation as the Protect America Act of 2007, the Enemy Belligerent, Interrogation, Detention, and Prosecution Act of 2010, and the proposed Terrorist Expatriation Act, which would revoke the citizenship of Americans suspected of terrorism. And now the senator from Connecticut wants to kill the Internet.
According to the bill he recently proposed in the Senate, the entire global internet is to be claimed as a “national asset” of the United States. If Congress passes the bill, the US President would be given the power to “kill” the internet in the event of a “national cyber-emergency.” Supporters of the legislation say this is necessary to prevent a “cyber 9/11” – yet another myth from the fear mongers who brought us tales of “Iraqi WMD” and “Iranian nukes.”
Lieberman’s concerns about the internet are not new. The United States Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, which Lieberman chairs, released a report in 2008 titled “Violent Islamist Extremism, The Internet, and the Homegrown Terrorist Threat.” The report claimed that groups like al-Qaeda use the internet to indoctrinate and recruit members, and to communicate with each other.
---> (sure.... make up another excuse please)
Immediately after the report was published, Lieberman asked Google, the parent company of You Tube, to “immediately remove content produced by Islamist terrorist organizations.” That might sound like a reasonable request. However, as far as Lieberman is concerned, Hamas, Hezbollah and even the Iranian Revolutionary Guard are terrorist organizations.
It’s hardly surprising that Lieberman’s views on what constitute terrorism parallel those of Tel Aviv. As Mark Vogel, chairman of the largest pro-Israel Political Action Committee (PAC) in the United States, once said: “Joe Lieberman, without exception, no conditions … is the No. 1 pro-Israel advocate and leader in Congress. There is nobody who does more on behalf of Israel than Joe Lieberman.”
Lieberman has been well-rewarded for his patriotism – to another country. In the past six years, he has been the Senate’s top recipient of political contributions from pro-Israel PACs with a staggering $1,226,956.
But what is it that bothers Lieberman so much about the internet? Could it be that it allows ordinary Americans access to facts which reveal exactly what kind of “friend” Israel has been to its overgenerous benefactor? Facts which they have been denied by the pro-Israel mainstream media.
How much faith would American voters have in the likes of Lieberman, who claims that the Jewish state is their greatest ally, if they knew that Israeli agents planted firebombs in American installations in Egypt in 1954 in an attempt to undermine relations between Nasser and the United States; that Israel murdered 34 American servicemen in a deliberate attack on the USS Liberty on June 8, 1967; that Israeli espionage, most notably Jonathan Pollard’s spying, has done tremendous damage to American interests; that five Mossad agents were filming and celebrating as the Twin Towers collapsed on September 11, 2001; that Tel Aviv and its accomplices in Washington were the source of the false pre-war intelligence on Iraq; and about countless other examples of treachery?
In his latest attempt to censor the internet, does Lieberman really want to protect the American people from imaginary cyber-terrorists? Or is he just trying to protect his treasonous cronies from the American people?
-
Hurry up Michael - please, hurry up. This is scary stuff.
This is said with the utmost respect to you but,
We Better Get Off Our A$$es Today and STOP Waiting on Michael and Do Something About this OURSELVES! Keep your ears and eyes open people.
:!:
-
I don't want to entertain the thought of a "kill switch" being tested TODAY here in the states, but it looks like it may have been possible. The city in which I live in BARELY had internet access today. One of my co-workers called the internet provider and they said it was the whole city, not to mention family members with different providers experienced the same thing today. ***Please advise.
-
To be honest with you guys, Michael is not going to expose the iluminati, and i don't care what anybody says. If he expose them he'd be dead, he can expose them by hidden messages and through his music, but cannot expose them out of his mouth. Look what happen to 2pac, exposing them and look where he end up. Micheal can change the world through his music but not through his mouth.
We can't do anything about this oil spill whether its a conpirsacy or not, we cant do nothing. Hate to say this but Illuminati will always win they'd always be in control.
-
Hurry up Michael - please, hurry up. This is scary stuff.
This is said with the utmost respect to you but,
We Better Get Off Our A$$es Today and STOP Waiting on Michael and Do Something About this OURSELVES! Keep your ears and eyes open people.
:!:
i agree
-
I don't want to entertain the thought of a "kill switch" being tested TODAY here in the states, but it looks like it may have been possible. The city in which I live in BARELY had internet access today. One of my co-workers called the internet provider and they said it was the whole city, not to mention family members with different providers experienced the same thing today. ***Please advise.
U know now that I think of that I actually didnt have internet either! hmmm how weird!
(on the same day)
-
It is interesting to read that whilst not yet proposing a security switch, the UK government is now seeing "Cyber crime" as a top threat for the UK... I read we want to take control over the internet!
See an extract from an article published on the BBC website recently:
Full article ---> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11562969
Terrorism and cyber attacks among top threats to UK
Terrorism and attacks on computer networks are among the biggest threats to the UK, Home Secretary Theresa May has said ahead of the publication of a new National Security Strategy
The strategy will form the background for Tuesday's Strategic Defence Review, setting out the shape of UK forces after expected budget cuts of 8%.
While "very serious", terrorism was just one of many threats, Mrs May said.
Cyber crime was a "new and growing" danger, she told the BBC.
The National Security Council, set up by David Cameron in May, is publishing an updated approach to national security which identifies 16 threats to the UK.
The most serious - which they are calling "Tier 1" - comprises acts of international terrorism, hostile computer attacks on UK cyberspace, a major accident or natural hazard such as a flu pandemic, or an international military crisis between states that draws in the UK and its allies.
Intelligence priority
Speaking ahead of the strategy's launch in the Commons on Monday afternoon, Mrs May said she was not prepared to rank these in order of gravity but acknowledged they were of a "different nature" to other potential threats.
On terrorism, she said the threat level to the UK had been at severe - which means an attack is likely - for "some time".
"We are facing a very serious threat from international terrorism... we must all be vigiliant," she told BBC Radio 4's Today programme.
Rather than focusing on different areas in isolation, she said the security strategy had looked at the overall picture "in the round".
"We have to look at the whole picture. That is what we have been doing and that is not what has been done in the past."
As part of the exercise, she said officials had identified attacks on government and business IT systems as as a "new and growing threat".
Last week, Iain Lobban, the head of the UK's communications intelligence agency GCHQ, spoke of hundreds of malicious e-mails already being aimed at government computer networks each month.
He also highlighted the use of cyber techniques by countries to target each other and steal their secrets.
The BBC's Secuirty Correspondent Gordon Corera says that with a quarter of a trillion e-mails being sent each day, cyberspace is becoming the new battleground.
Ahead of Wedesday's Spending Review, Mrs May said the Home Office had to "play its part" in cutting spending to deal with the deficit.
Intelligence, counter-terrorism and cyber security are all expected to escape major cuts and in some cases may even be given fresh investment, increasing speculation that police forces could face the brunt of any cuts.
While declining to be drawn on the details, Mrs May said she had always made it clear there was scope for the police to make savings without hitting beat operations by cutting bureaucracy and increased collaboration between forces.
While welcoming efforts to tackle cyber attacks, Labour - which developed the first national security strategy in 2008 - said the plan offered little new.
"The government seem to be producing a reheated security strategy to provide cover for a rushed defence review rather that producing a renewed and careful consideration of the UK's defence and security priorities," said shadow foreign secretary Yvette Cooper.
With L.O.V.E
-
Bumping the thread, asking for your thoughts - will twitter be the next social brain washing weapon? It is an excellent marketing tool as showbiz keeps demonstrating. Would it be on for propaganda, too?
From bloggers of Myanmar's 2007 Saffron Revolution to tweeters of the protests that followed Iran's 2009 election, the Internet has proven itself to be a tool in promoting change and democracy in the world.
But Evgeny Morozov, author of The Net Delusion, argues that it doesn't always work out that way.
Read An Excerpt
"The change is not always positive," Morozov tells NPR's Neal Conan. "Yes, [social media] are affecting the world. But it also looks like the other side — the authoritarian governments — are getting empowered as well."
Sure, election protesters in Iran were able to tweet, blog and record the violence they saw, which prompted some to claim the victory of a social media revolution. But think about the flip side, Morozov cautions.
Authoritarian governments can harness the Internet's power to serve their purposes as well. Some use it for surveillance, Morozov says, "tracking down what's happening on social networks, trying to identify who are all of those people tweeting."
Others use the Web to distribute propaganda.
"We are seeing a lot of these regimes going online and ... creating blog posts and tweets, and even hiring bloggers to push their messages," he explains.
Taken together with more traditional censorship efforts, Morozov says, the Internet "actually empowers the other side much more than it does the social movements and the dissidents and the human rights activists."
Morozov used to think the reverse was true, but during the April 2009 protests against the government in Moldova, he changed his mind.
"As it happened, there were still a lot of networks that were analog ... human networks — protesters talking to each other on the phone, or just talking to each other in real life, and actually encouraging each other to appear in the square," Morozov says.
But because the digital messages on Twitter and Facebook were visible to everyone, much of what happened in Moldova in 2009 was attributed to the Internet.
Excerpt: 'The Net Delusion' by Evgeny Morozov
In June 2009 thousands of young Iranians — smartphones in their hands — poured into the stuffy streets of Tehran to protest what they believed to be a fraudulent election. Tensions ran high, and some protesters, in an unthinkable offense, called for the resignation of Ayatollah Khamenei. But many Iranians found the elections to be fair; they were willing to defend the incumbent President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad if needed. Iranian society, buffeted by the conflicting forces of populism, conservatism, and modernity, was facing its most serious political crisis since the 1979 revolution that ended the much-disliked reign of the pro- American Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi.
But this was not the story that most Western media chose to prioritize; instead, they preferred to muse on how the Internet was ushering in democracy into the country. "The Revolution Will Be Twittered" was the first in a series of blog posts published by the Atlantic's Andrew Sullivan a few hours after the news of the protests broke. In it, Sullivan zeroed in on the resilience of the popular microblogging site Twitter, arguing that "as the regime shut down other forms of communication, Twitter survived. With some remarkable results." In a later post, even though the "remarkable results" were still nowhere to be seen, Sullivan proclaimed Twitter to be "the critical tool for organizing the resistance in Iran" but didn't bother to quote any evidence to support his claim. Only a few hours after the protests began, his blog emerged as a major information hub that provided almost instantaneous links to Iran-related developments. Thousands of readers who didn't have the stamina to browse hundreds of news sites saw events unfolding in Iran primarily through Sullivan's eyes. (And, as it turned out, his were a rather optimistic pair.)
It didn't take long for Sullivan's version of events to gain hold elsewhere in the blogosphere — and soon enough, in the traditional media as well. Michelle Malkin, the right-wing blogging diva, suggested that "in the hands of freedom-loving dissidents, the micro-blogging social network is a revolutionary samizdat — undermining the mullah-cracy's information blockades one Tweet at a time." Marc Ambinder, Sullivan's colleague at the Atlantic, jumped on the bandwagon, too; for him, Twitter was so important that he had to invent a new word, "protagonal," to describe it. "When histories of the Iranian election are written, Twitter will doubtless be cast a protagonal technology that enabled the powerless to survive a brutal crackdown," wrote Ambinder on his blog. The Wall Street Journal's Yochi Dreazen proclaimed that "this [revolution] would not happen without Twitter," while National Public Radio's Daniel Schorr announced that "in Iran, tyranny has run afoul of technology in the form of the Internet, turning a protest into a movement."
Soon technology pundits, excited that their favorite tool was all over the media, were on the case as well. "This is it. The big one. This is the first revolution that has been catapulted onto a global stage and transformed by social media," proclaimed New York University's Clay Shirky in an interview with TED.com. Twitter seemed omnipotent — certainly more so than the Iranian police, the United Nations, the U.S. government, and the European Union. Not only would it help to rid Iran of its despicable leader but also convince ordinary Iranians, most of whom vehemently support the government's aggressive pursuit of nuclear enrichment, that they should stop their perpetual fretting about Israel and simply go back to being their usual peaceful selves.
Iran's seemed like a revolution that the whole world was not just watching but also blogging, tweeting, Googling, and YouTubing. It only took a few clicks to get bombarded by links that seemed to shed more light on events in Iran — quantitatively, if not qualitatively — than anything carried by what technologists like to condescendingly call "legacy media." While the latter, at least in their rare punditry-free moments of serenity, were still trying to provide some minimal context to the Iranian protests, many Internet users preferred to simply get the raw deal on Twitter, gorging on as many videos, photos, and tweets as they could stomach. Such virtual proximity to events in Tehran, abetted by access to the highly emotional photos and videos shot by protesters themselves, led to unprecedented levels of global empathy with the cause of the Green Movement. But in doing so, such networked intimacy may have also greatly inflated popular expectations of what it could actually achieve.
As the Green Movement lost much of its momentum in the months following the election, it became clear that the Twitter Revolution so many in the West were quick to inaugurate was nothing more than a wild fantasy.
Excerpted from The Net Delusion: The Dark Side of Internet Freedom by arrangement with PublicAffairs, a member of The Perseus Books Group. Copyright 2011.
The Net Delusion: The Dark Side Of Internet Freedom
By Evgeny Morozov
Hardcover, 432 pages
PublicAffairs
List price: $27.95
http://www.npr.org/2011/01/04/132653928/in-the-net-delusion-internet-serves-oppressors
-
Hurry up Michael - please, hurry up. This is scary stuff.
This is said with the utmost respect to you but,
We Better Get Off Our A$$es Today and STOP Waiting on Michael and Do Something About this OURSELVES! Keep your ears and eyes open people.
:!:
i agree
Ive been away from here for a while.. about 6 months.. never thought I would manage that, but i didnt think about this site once. Then something brought me back. Billie Jean started playing at a friend's 18th, and this site was all I could think of.
We can sit here going over the facts, the 'clues', the reasons until the end of time but is that what Michael would want. Surely its all a bit of a waste of time.. if Michael is going to come back its not going to be because we find the right clues or because we discover the reason that he's gone...he'll come back when he feels its right.
And consider this.. if we're all wrong.. if he is actually gone... what must he think of us now... wasting time looking for clues...
All I'm asking is...
What did Michael want more than anything in the world? What did he devote his life to?
This is what we should be aiming for. What we have to do, for Michael.