Aaron Swartz is dead, CISPA raises its ugly head again, and the peoples privacy, personal data, and emails are in peril yet again - all in the name of "security." With its "refinements" it EXPANDS the reach of the so-called cyber-security - saying it will interpret crime, protection and prosecution of "cyber-crime," personal injury, minors from physical and psychological harm, and lets not forget the broad term which has been used for all sorts of secrecy and abuse - "national security."
It literally guts the 4th Amendment by saying it does not apply online! All they have to do is claim some sort of contrived "cyber-security" crime left to their whims and interests. Note that they are always protecting us from "foreign enemies," China is going to get you! So they have to "protect" those corporations from enemies foreign and domestic and extraterrestrial! It is worse than the mobs protection racket (the underworld could never hold a candle to the destruction done by the over-world).
The broad language ALWAYS leads to interpretive abuses, look at the recent case with Aaron Swartz. Just like drones are used against foreign "terrorists" and end up killing innocent bystanders - and the recent use of those same drones suddenly became "vital" for domestic criminal and domestic surveillance of protesting political dissenters, and police departments have turned into you local combat units. Where is the domestic hit list, who is on it - is my grandmother on it? How many more private for profit prisons will they build for those domestic "cyber-terrorists?"
It was like Obama could not wait for the flowers to fade on Aaron's grave before he jumped to resuscitate this crony bill. They will soon be arresting kids for unkind words to one another online, to protect others from their interpretation of "psychological" harm (just like they are doing to what used to be acts of indiscretion on school grounds, creating a school to prison pipeline and making crumpling a piece of paper and throwing it in a classroom a class B felony!). Don't be fooled, you cannot cover so much territory regarding "cybercrime" without massive collections of private data for the purpose of prosecution.
They want to turn private companies into government informants, not that this is not already in place in infant form - they want to make it "law." They want to immunize corporations from any form of protest which would include even evidence that is detrimental to the general public - give corporations immunity. Corporations do not have to be "good citizens," they arrogate to themselves personhood (through "legal findings"), they are the new "we the people," and what they want is what this government serves - their interests (not that this is anything new, they have just become less adept to hiding this fact, they are emboldened by the peoples silence and complicity). It (this bill) assumes the sacred nature of the corporations by bequeathing automatic innocence. As I have said in the past, making something a "law" in many instances is just enshrining a process which has already illegally been in practice. Look at the Stratfor prosecution course, they are trying to give Jeremy Hammond life in prison accusing him of compromising computers. So far he has been in prison for almost a year without trial, and have chosen to place him in solitary - he was denied bail under any circumstances. Property above people at any and all costs. Make no mistake, this is a war on the people - the concern about supposed foreign enemies is merely peripheral. Do you ever get the feeling that you are perpetually in a Fight? You are, its a fight for your freedom - it never ends under the current system.They see everything going online, and they want to maintain the monopolistic control of their legalized franchise - they have got to keep the people in chains in cyberspace just like they do in reality - and they are in chains for the enrichment of the few, their dominance (this is what the government franchise is all about).
* You have to understand the backdrop of CISPA under current abuses of privacy which are ongoing. The following points are taken from the Electronic Frontier Foundation, and even though they are not complete (because they assume the administrations willingness to work out these issues under the presidents executive order, classically misunderstanding the nature and function of this government):
"Companies have new rights to monitor user actions and share data "including potentially sensitive user data" with the government without a warrant.
CISPA overrides existing privacy law, and grants broad immunities to participating companies. CISPA also raises major transparency and accountability issues.
Users probably won't know if their private data is compromised under CISPA, and will have little recourse.
* Do you want to see where your data packets go? These are choke points, where data is milked indiscriminately by the NSA. Essentially what the government is trying to do is militarize cyberspace, so to speak. It is a war on your privacy, it is essentially a war on the people, not merely "foreign enemies" - it has been said that if tyranny comes it will be in the name of a foreign enemy (it has already arrived). The government, which is merely a franchise of the elite realizes its area of new warfare, it calls it cyberspace - and it wages war not merely on declared foreign enemies, but on the American People. All warfare development is eventually used on the people domestically, lest they rise up and when they do become aware it will truly become an Bellum omnium contra omnes -
So you need to connect the dots, listen to the time lines in this next video - ask yourself the question, why is there such a push to enact this quickly? Everything has been built and has been operating for a long time, if you do not think what I am writing about is a great danger than listen too this next video - listen to the deadlines for the programs to "officially" go online. Every administration is the same (except for minor differences), one builds the foundation and the other the superstructure on the foundation. This is why you see such pushing of the envelop with this administration, it has a job to do (not for you and I, but for a moneyed few), why some of the acts of Obama exceed those of George Bush, and why the entire government is GOING TO WORK TOGETHER SWIFTLY IN CONCERT ON THIS GOAL - listen to the video below carefully (especially the last part, look at Binney's face when he says "this is supposed to be a democracy" toward the end of the video) -
I am not naive enough to believe that this clandestine activity has not been going on for a long long time (the facts are indisputable). There are two purposes of the bill, one is to bless what has been already transpiring with a veneer of legitimacy, the second is so they can ramp up this program to full bore - use the "incriminating" data they have already illegally gathered, and get ready for their prosecution party.
"The greater threat [to privacy] is from the attacker coming in and trying to make something public that shouldn't be." - John Engler, Business Roundtable
I think this is a complete sidestep to the issue, the issue is that these companies and the government do not want anything they do which is wrong and damaging to individuals and public exposed. They want a free pass so that no conscience can see the light of day, they want to penalize anyone who exposes their activity regardless of who they have harmed with their activity, both corporations and the government - they want to throw accountability to the wind so they can do as they please with no penalty. They don't want to be accountable to the people, whose public funds they use (they want to be public "servants" while they make you serve like slaves). The "cyber-crime" is just a side issue, they put something having to do with harming children to make the other activity (exposing their dirty activity by pulling it out of cyberspace) look really heinous by written association (they always use kids to stand behind, like they care), and threw in foreign espionage activity for good measure.
As an example, we can see what representative Rogers wants, by what he wanted done to Bradley Manning - death penalty for treason, or to endlessly torture someone to death - specifically for pulling their recorded activity off of the internet for all to see (the evidence), they want to criminalize it with severe penalties. They not only want impunity for needless wars, but impunity for those who supply what is needed for the war - corporations, and this is just one example, it can virtually be anything harmful to the public. They want to keep the propaganda machine going with no exposure (corporations/government, does not matter which or both). They want to do what they are doing to Julian Assange as a matter of course - big time, for anyone else who wants to expose corporate or government activity in a similar manner. They want to criminalize dissent if it exposes their activity, whereas an individual can be investigated and evidence be brought against them for criminal activity, they do not want any person(s) to uncover what they do (government, corporations) and make them pay a penalty (I can understand why, because they are congenital thieves and mass murderers!). The issue is that we have both a criminal government and corporations. They want to resume assassinations and imprisonments on a large scale against dissent, against anyone who opposes the corporate/government (they are virtually indistinguishable at this point, it is like a revolving door out of corporations into government and back again).
They want you to be quiet, they want you to die without a whimper as they enact their fascist policies (because that is what fascism is, the complete melding of business and government - and the consequent attempts to silence protest by any means necessary), because that is what this is - it is a fascist bill, it is a Nazi bill. They want you to remain silent as they plunge a knife into democracy - don't let them do it!!!
So why all of the desperate measures to stop these hacktivists? Good question, I think it all boils down to truly reducing what is done by both these corporations and government(s) not wanting to be found out for what they are really doing. Not so much the acts themselves (although they are very damning and telling), but because of what occurs when you put the whole of all these activities together. What it all boils down to is showing that they are not serving the people as a whole at all, but the moneyed interest of the few. What they are doing is damaging to the people both domestically and in a foreign sense, in other words, it exposes the government and the corporations for what they really are - and there is no way to deny it. Therefore, they will do anything in their power to see that this does not occur, and that you wake up every morning and live in their dream world - which is your nightmare. AS YOU CAN SEE THINGS ARE JUST BEGINNING TO WARM UP:
Now who am I to argue with a lot of people in regard to the USA and its government, if they want to believe that it was once pristine and they want to clean things up then I am all for it. Because it does not matter if you believe what I do, that the government always has been a franchise of the elite, or that it stopped representing the people at any given time - what matters is where we are at right now, and we all agree that everything has to substantially change.
ELIZABETH WARREN: BANKS TO BIG TO GO TO TRIAL? (BELOW)
This is an interesting exchange, almost seems challenging - but really it is tepid at best, compared to what these institutions do backed by their government franchise. At best this is probably an act, to try to release some of the pressure building - what is all so obvious to the people at this point. Actually, exposing their dirty laundry from their "secret" electronic communications is not much of anything, especially when the people should hang them from the lampposts. I guess anything can become virile that just has the weakest amount of light shown on it.
"An arrestable class and an unarrestable class. We always suspected it, now it's admitted. So what do we do?" (ABOVE)
EVERYONE IS A TERRORIST UNTIL PROVEN OTHERWISE
Keep in mind, wherever you see the rubric of "terrorist" whether in description of a party or an "enforcement" agency it has an extremely broad application. This tag of being called a terrorist is not new at all, it has been going on literally for hundreds of years - it was first brought up as a descriptive phrase in the French Revolution. The king and royalty used it to describe the people who wanted to dethrone abusive rulers and bring democracy, it was used (terrorism) to protect the ill gotten gain and titles of the few - it has NOT changed in hundreds of years!
A few years back, there was an article written that brought out this point, written by Nir Rosen (no matter where he stands today) that almost perfectly articulated the use of "terrorism" by those in power (by power I mean the moneyed few who the government serves, and that government(s) as the visible vocal and punitive power of those few) -
"Terrorism is a normative term and not a descriptive concept. An empty word that means everything and nothing, it is used to describe what the Other does, not what we do. The powerful whether Israel, America, Russia or China will always describe their victims' struggle as terrorism, but the destruction of Chechnya, the ethnic cleansing of Palestine, the slow slaughter of the remaining Palestinians, the American occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan with the tens of thousands of civilians it has killed … these will never earn the title of terrorism, though civilians were the target and terrorising them was the purpose.
Counterinsurgency, now popular again among in the Pentagon, is another way of saying the suppression of national liberation struggles. Terror and intimidation are as essential to it as is winning hearts and minds.
Normative rules are determined by power relations. Those with power determine what is legal and illegal. They besiege the weak in legal prohibitions to prevent the weak from resisting. For the weak to resist is illegal by definition. Concepts like terrorism are invented and used normatively as if a neutral court had produced them, instead of the oppressors. The danger in this excessive use of legality actually undermines legality, diminishing the credibility of international institutions such as the United Nations. It becomes apparent that the powerful, those who make the rules, insist on legality merely to preserve the power relations that serve them or to maintain their occupation and colonialism."
The above quote is true, it is true whether we are talking about foreign or DOMESTIC activity, power which does this in a foreign field will do it at home, because they perceive the people to be on the same footing as foreign people (regardless of how they try to differentiate you through their propaganda). They will paint with the brush of "terrorism" all forms of resistance, both foreign and domestic.
So why am I bringing up this point, I want you to be aware that this is the framework of President Obama's new cyber-security executive order, it is the same as the CISPA bill in all respects. If you parse the language used in the order you will find this broad use once again of "terrorism" whether address a supposed foreign activity of domestic activity of hactivists. It proposes bringing in the military, NSA, quasi-clandestine agencies, law enforcement and reduction down to the smallest element of information and territory.
It is contradictory in design, whereas in one part it talks about privacy issues and agencies. in another part it talks about brushing aside as "too burdensome" to make invasion as seamless and easy as possible -
"(c) Within 2 years after publication of the final Framework, consistent with Executive Order 13563 and Executive Order 13610 of May 10, 2012 (Identifying and Reducing Regulatory Burdens), agencies identified in subsection (a) of this section shall, in consultation with owners and operators of critical infrastructure, report to OMB on any critical infrastructure subject to ineffective, conflicting, or excessively burdensome cybersecurity requirements. This report shall describe efforts made by agencies, and make recommendations for further actions, to minimize or eliminate such requirements." http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/02/12/executive-order-improving-critical-infrastructure-cybersecurity
"Sec. 10. Adoption of Framework. (a) Agencies with responsibility for regulating the security of critical infrastructure shall engage in a consultative process with DHS, OMB, and the National Security Staff to review the preliminary Cybersecurity Framework and determine if current cybersecurity regulatory requirements are sufficient given current and projected risks. In making such determination, these agencies shall consider the identification of critical infrastructure required under section 9 of this order. Within 90 days of the publication of the preliminary Framework, these agencies shall submit a report to the President, through the Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism, the Director of OMB, and the Assistant to the President for Economic Affairs, that states whether or not the agency has clear authority to establish requirements based upon the Cybersecurity Framework to sufficiently address current and projected cyber risks to critical infrastructure, the existing authorities identified, and any additional authority required." Keep in mind that these departments in part are "counterterrorism" in description which by logic means fighting terrorism as defined solely by the government agency, and as stated above - as a mode of fighting resistance (both foreign and domestic). Anyone with a lick of sense can see where this is going, along with the plea from the executive to have legislative participation to strengthen inter-government design and cooperation, soliciting a veneer of public representation (which they are only to willing to do).
THE "UPSTANDING" COMPANIES PARTNERING WITH GOVERNMENTS
There has been no lack in this administration in the White House or the previous of military invocation in the name of Cyber-security, presidential directives from last year and the Bush administration have been "classified (and remain classified even after numerous and continuous FOIA request for years in regard to some)." I am speaking primarily of directive directive 54 and directive 20, where the military has been said to be active or activated in regard to cyber-security. In this age where Presidents seem to think they can declare war, and have done so without any activity from the representative side of government with a declaration of presidential infallibility (unitary presidency has not been abolished under this administration it has been built upon and expanded), which has brought us wars and torture - drone strikes and assassinations of both declared foreign enemies and even American citizens, I think it is something that needs to come up in the cyber-security issue. After all, if strikes can be had in conventional warfare and those of a clandestine nature, why not in the cyber realm? The system always looks for "wars" and declares wars everywhere and for anything!
Who is to say that the harsh activity against hacktivists does not have behind it the cyber-war secret activity, causing severe activity in the civilian side - like harassing hacktivists to death (or other), or the draconian sentences handed out (not to mention the militarization of both legal and police authorities, this is not a stretch). Look at the agencies involved in the recent "cyber-war" from government origin, FBI - CIA - Secret Service - NSA - Military branches, etc.
Even in the most recent Executive Order you have military agencies invoked in regard to the issue of cyber-security in secret directives (see NSA, and military), in fact the raw data necessary to launch this so-called war on what is termed cyber-terrorism (convenient) has ALREADY been collected in the trillions of communications from cyber and other various sources as a ever present threat to the people. To think this has not been accessed is ridiculous in the face of such continuing abuses in regard to the American public.
Takes aim once again at cyberthreat info-sharing bill
By John Eggerton -- Broadcasting & Cable, 2/21/2013 11:09:19 AM
"Activist group Demand Progress is continuing its fight against a cybersecurity information sharing bill re-introduced last week and backed by cable ops and other ISPs.
The group said Thursday that over 90,000 members had expressed their displeasure with CISPA (the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act) introduced last week by Rep. Mike Rogers (R-Mich.).
Rogers introduced the same bill last year, after which Demand Progress members -- over 200,000 the group says -- called or emailed their legislators to complain. That complaint is that the bill preempts all online privacy laws by allowing for the sharing of cybersecurity threat information between industry and government without a warrant and with liability protections for industry.
The group even invoked its late founder, Aaron Swartz, who dubbed CISPA the "Patriot Act of the Internet."
CISPA passed the House 248-168 last April before running into a Senate controlled by Democrats favoring a bill with cybersecurity guidelines Republicans feared would morph into mandates.
The president two weeks ago mandated that voluntary guidelines be created, but the language was general enough that it drew little pushback from industry."
So in conclusion a question must be asked, why all these activities and abuses? I think two things are very clear - first it is not the American Peoples interest that is being served here, and second this is not going to stop, it is on a course to get worse. What is the course of action - we may have to appear physically when we are expected to via this online medium. There has to be a binding together of all concerned people, perhaps a national town hall where this is laid out in the open for all to see. In the meantime we just wait and see when we need participatory democracy - a democracy of action which demands not one which merely complains in protest. They must be forced to the point of proving (all actors government/corporate) whose side they are on, with the people in openness and mutual liberty or with the few in secrecy and ever encroaching tyranny. It has really come down to this, if this is how they want to act or portray the reigning system, then I say fuck the system -
"Unfortunately, we can't work with hosting companies based in the United States. Safe harbour for service providers via the Digital Millennium Copyright Act has been undermined by the Department of Justice with its novel criminal prosecution of Megaupload. It is not safe for cloud storage sites or any business allowing user-generated content to be hosted on servers in the United States or on domains like .com / .net. The US government is frequently seizing domains without offering service providers a hearing or due process." mega.co.nz
Something you should strongly consider (above quote)
The real fact of the matter is this, this type of a system does not have the right to continue to exist - that is, one that says its prime concern is just the interest of the few and abuse for the majority. Its time has ended, it can no longer subsist - it does not deserve to continue, all one has to do is look at the long history of abuse which spans hundreds if not thousands of years. You have to make a decision, because your elite franchise is up - you did not think there was a shelf life, but now you are going to find out you were wrong.
You cannot stifle innovation and advance in the name of a moneyed elite, and any government which holds this as their crown jewel is doomed to failure (and any which has held this as their agenda, while fooling the people is going to find out what happens when the people wake up). We can see it in the kingdoms of old, through feudalism and into the present day capitalism - the preservation and wealth of the few in contradistinction the many. This is what the Occupation movement was about, this is what the demand of a vanguard on the web is all about exposing this destructive activity, this is what the Arab Spring is about, and this is what any and every resistance of the people globally is about. It is all coming to a head, and you have to decide whether you will be on the right side of history or not.