Being careful then to make mention of the U.S. Department Of Defense being attacked no less than three million times per day. And being carefuller still to list various hypothetical threats to the U.S. banking system and electricity grid posed (potentially) by just “some kid in Latvia” Rockefeller, (who was of course voicing the concerns of an undisclosed security comity rather than those of his constituents) then finished by saying, “It is a fearsome, awesome problem,”
“I wonder where this stands with you?” the Senator thus asked the sixth richest politician in Washington. “What your thoughts are, and what you think we ought to be doing about it?”
To clarify, it was March 2009. Autumn of 2008 had seen UK police
discover that Chinese manufactured chip and pin card readers had been
copying consumer credit card data and relaying this data back to Lahore
in Pakistan. August of the same year had seen Chinese ‘cyber spies’
infiltrate John McCain and Barack Obama’s respective campaigns for the
US presidency. And right on the heels of Senator Rockefeller’s address
to Congress, breaking news from Toronto was that 1200 media outlets and
embassies in 103 countries, had just then been confirmed to have been
compromised by espionage malware undoubtedly having originated from
Beijing.America it was being suggested, had been caught unaware by the Internet. She and her allies had grossly under invested in critical cyber security services and infrastructure projects, and because of this oversight the lights of the free world could well be about to go out forever.
Senator Rockefeller, courtesy of typical Rockefeller opportunism, had therefore perhaps picked the most opportune moment in modern history to attempt to put the lid back on this fearsome and awesome thing called the Internet. Early 2009 was for instance, a period still drunk on blind idealism left over from the sold out January inauguration of Barack Obama. The attitude of the moment was that America was good again. Its political hierarchy was perceived as a fresh and half decent one. And the mood of Joe public was one almost expectant of measures which would have to be taken sooner or later, if the world really was to become more balanced and better tempered.
And so on April 1st 2009, Senator Rockefeller presented to the U.S. House of Representatives his very own Cyber Security Act. Legislation which (if passed) would have granted the United States Secretary Of Commerce the power to sequester (meaning to isolate or hide away) any information being stored on or exchanged via U.S servers considered part of critical infrastructure projects. Moreover, Rockefeller’s bill proposed that such should be done “without regard to any provision of law, regulation, rule, or policy restricting such access.” Similarly, the Act would have granted the United States President the power to declare undefined states of ‘cyber-emergency’. Ones which if ever implemented, would have granted the president the authority to shut down traffic to any United States based server which he (or in the future she) might consider a threat to national security.
Knowing however, that too many people starting to ponder such specifics could well prove detrimental to the cybersecurity bill’s success in the first place; Washington’s propaganda mouth piece The Wall Street Journal, then moved quickly to reassure any for whatever reason wary readers, that the new legislation really was in everyone’s best interests.
The Chinese, the journal quoted senior intelligence officials as stating, had after all just attempted to map and potentially compromise the U.S. electricity grid. (Just like Senator Rockefeller had been warning that they would).
A second propaganda piece published just two weeks later then revealed how those dastardly Chinese had in a similar attack, succeeded in infiltrating Lockheed Martin’s F-35 fighter jet program and had subsequently made off with blueprints for the most advanced airplane ever invented.
And so as Cybersecurity bill S. 773 begun being passed backwards and forwards between sub committees and debating chambers, so too began a summer of cyber Psyops. Independence day for instance, saw never to be identified hackers target the White House, Pentagon and South Korean government with a series of denial of service attacks. The culprits (all be them never formally identified) having utilized a botnet which some analysts estimated had been made up of up to 166,000 individually infected computers.
August then saw millions of Facebook users suffer disruptions and all out fails in service, due (apparently) to Russian security services having mounted a DDoS attack against the Georgian blogger ‘Cyxymu.’ Facebook, Twitter and Live Journal being just some services targeted by the attack undertaken solely in order to prevent Cyxymu from publishing criticism of Moscow’s war in South Ossetia.
“Cyberattacks on the U.S. Department of Defense, many of them coming from China, have jumped sharply in 2009,” online magazine Computerworld.com then took time in November to popularise further the suggestion that the US was under constant (albeit invisible) attack.
“There were 43,785 malicious cyber incidents targeting Defense systems in the first half of the year. That’s a big jump. In all of 2008, there were 54,640 such incidents. If cyber attacks maintain this pace, they will jump 60% this year.”
(http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9141209/Cyberattacks_on_U.S._military_jump_sharply_in_ 2009)
Computerworld then went on to quote Chris Poulin, a former manager of intelligence networks within the U.S. Air Force as saying, “China’s definitely initiating attacks. State-sponsored? Who knows. But they’re certainly not state-choked.” And because China bashing had by then become so popular, more prominent news outlets such as the BBC were quick off the mark to propagate their own anti-China propaganda. “Chinese spies are aggressively stealing secrets to build up China’s military and economic power,” Auntie tutted and told the world whilst being careful to point out that China was also its biggest greenhouse gas producer.
Of course no mention was given to the fact that Chinese military websites such as www.mod.gov.cn were themselves claiming to have had to endure no less than 2.3 million hacker attacks in the space of just two months. (As opposed that is to the 43,785 attacks suffered over a six month period by various U.S websites).
(http://www.dailytech.com/China+Defense+Ministry+Targeted+by+Cyber+Attacks+2+Million+Times/ article16891.htm)
The climax however, of Americas most drawn out (to date) drive to have the words Russia, China and Internet become synonymous with Pure and Evil, came in January 2010 with the ‘Do No Evil’ self appointed guardian of cyberspace, Google, itself being hacked by the Communist Peoples Republic. Citing then, Googles own expeditiously put together report on the matter, Senator Rockefeller finally took to his New World Order war horse.
“Cyber attacks are increasing exponentially and we need to get serious about America’s cybersecurity.” he told the world courtesy of an official press release. “Our nation’s public and private infrastructure is too critical to remain vulnerable and unprotected. It’s an understatement to say that cybersecurity is one of the most important issues we face; the increasingly connected nature of our lives only amplifies our vulnerability to cyber attacks and we must act now.”
As such, and with Rockefeller himself now chairing the Senate Comity on Science, Commerce and Transportation taxed with approving his cybersecurity bill in the first place, March 2010 saw the members of this comity unanimously (and without debate or consideration of any amendments made since its first reading) vote in favour of Cybersecurity Bill S. 773 being forwarded to Congress in order for it to become law.
Thankfully however, a group called the Centre For Democracy & Technology, had since May 2009 been attempting to raise awareness of how bill S.773 failed to draw any distinctions between private (personal computers) and those of private business networks. That over all, the bill being proposed had the capacity to irreparably impair free speech supporting elements of the Internet. And that presidential powers to shut down Internet traffic to critical infrastructure systems was in the very least case completely unnecessary.
Furthermore, with over a third of Senate seats being up for grabs in upcoming midterm elections, Congress itself was desperate to steer clear of controversy. This being the case, the bill which could have ended the Internet as we know it died in the end due simply to thirty seven very rich old men being too afraid of being fired.
However, such spinelessness is also rather telling. The best paid, most easily lobbied, and most scandal survivable politicians in the world had for instance, just been told by the likes of former Intelligence Director Michael McConnell that,
“If we [the U.S.] went to war today in a cyberwar, we would lose.”
Moreover, newspapers, televisions and Whitehouse spokespeople had been reporting for eighteen months continuously that such a war had in fact already started. That all of Congress could therefore have let such a crucial bill fail in favour of looking out first and foremost for just its own members continued job security, was tantamount in the very least case to treason.
In fact the actions of America’s senior representatives can only be said to make any kind of sense if one introduces the supposition that they knew all along that it was safe to let such a bill fail. And indeed, the June 2010 discovery of the Stuxnet computer virus, an unprecedentedly malicious computer worm created in a joint venture between the US and Israel, did somewhat turn the tables on the idea of America being the innocent victim of an incomprehensible information age.
Uncle Sam it appeared, had whilst whining about possible power outages caused by tech savvy terrorists, used the clandestine meanwhile to himself compromise the industry and energy infrastructure of another nation state via just such tactics. More than that though, the United States had in the process released a self replicating virus onto the worlds Internet designed specifically to disable the most critical systems of your average nuclear power station.
Similarly, although since June 2013 it has largely been the ‘how they spy on you’ content of Edwards Snowden’s should be secret NSA scrapbook, which has garnered so much publicity. It is also rather interesting to note the original dates of publication on many of the documents so far made public.
The above for example, details how the United States had by May 2008 already begun implanting clandestine wifi technology and malware into arguably the most commonplace peripheral computer device on the planet.
Similarly, the below document details an even earlier 2007 deal between the US and UK in which US security services were permitted to (covertly) begin collecting phone, internet and email records of UK citizens not suspected of any wrongdoing.
Perhaps more disquieting however, is the fact that there currently exists an entire 2008 series of NSA documents which together form a catalogue of devices ranging from wifi routers to computer models and smart phone devices. Ones which had by then been successfully intercepted by the NSA in transit, and had physical and software back doors implanted into them in order to grant the spy agency unfettered access to the systems when finally put into operational use by unsuspecting people like you and I.
The below for instance, is a copy summary of the NSA’s 2008 Dropout Jeep, iphone specific software implant.
Furthermore, in a December 2013 Der Spiegel International piece, available HERE, Der Spiegel reveals how such implanted back doors currently mean that the U.S can burrow into both individual and networked computer systems and run NSA specific programs via available hardware resources that end users will neither be able to detect nor hinder even by rebooting or completely reinstalling a targeted machines operating system. In fact although Der Spiegel refuses to call it such, the architecture of such an operation is comparable more to that of a massive botnet similar to that responsible for Independence day 2009′s attack on the Pentagon and Augusts 2009′s attack on the blogger Cyxymu, rather than any kind of surveillance tool.
In short therefore, it should be obvious to anyone willing to accept the implication, that Senator Jay Rockefeller’s 2009 warning of a “cyber Katrina” being just around the corner, was nothing more than a knowing wolf cry. In fact the first response to this wolf cry should have been to ask who on earth had had the idea to hook the electricity grid up to the internet in the first place. America wasn’t under attack, (though if she was such an attack would probably be very well deserved). And although the Internet might very well be described as both fearsome and awesome, it is perhaps telling how the only people that are put off by it are usually ones like Rockefeller.
Rockefeller’s cybersecurity bill was however, by far from the first or last attempt to wrestle control of the Internet away from its Netizens. In 2011 for instance, US Senator Lamar Smith introduced the Stop Online Privacy Act. One which if passed would have seen any blogger or youtuber (resident within our outside of the United States) be liable to be blocked by Internet service providers (and possibly even face up to a five year jail sentence) just for infringing upon already confusing, region specific fair use copyright laws.
With key supporters of the bill including Americas motion picture association, its biggest pharmaceutical drug manufacturers, and multinational media businesses, it is therefore safe to assume that if SOPA had passed there would now be markedly fewer blogs like chrisspivey.org doing the rounds. The implications of such legislation, would for instance have made it it very easy for the likes of DMG World Media (the international arm of the Daily Mail’s owner the DMG Media Trust) to have by now filed a copyright infringement complaint on behalf of the Daily Mail in a US court.
Thankfully however, a later suicided for the effort young man (though of course that’s only speculation) chose to save us from SOPA. Founding overnight the internet advocacy group ‘Demand Progress,’ Aaron Swartz managed in just two weeks to publicly shame Congress with a 300,000 signature petition against the bill and in doing so expose not just what SOPA really was, but how deliberately it had been rushed through the Senate in the first place.
Swartz’s movement then became a series of both web hosted and real world protests. And despite some more Russia and China bashing, SOPA just like Rockefellers cybersecurity bill, failed in the end due to Congress simply being too afraid to debate it on public record.
A similar fate then met Michigan Senator Mike Rogers CISPA bill. One which would have granted both US security agencies and businesses free reign to spy on and share any and all web user data, irrespective of national or international privacy laws. Of course just three months post CISPA dying in Congress, it was revealed that everything detailed in the bill had already been under way anyway, therefore the new world order didn’t really loose out on that one.
However, whilst the world has in the months since June 2013 been made to awe and tremble before the revealed reach of the likes of the NSA and GCHQ; it has somehow come to forget that for the past five years a real time, real world war with very real casualties has been fought for not just something called privacy, but also the very existence of Internet itself. In fact the Snowden scandal which has by now become a drip fed staple in the diets of most Netizens minds, can itself be likened to a really rather masterful, (not to mention ingenious) psychic shock and awe campaign.
As for instance, Wikipedia summarises: “Shock and awe (technically known as rapid dominance) is a military doctrine based on the use of overwhelming power, dominant battlefield awareness, dominant maneuvers, and spectacular displays of force to paralyze the enemy’s perception of the battlefield and destroy its will to fight.” Furthermore the timing of CISPA (not to mention the bills recent resurgence) does imply that entities such as the NSA were attempting in the first instance, to retrospectively legalize their activities due to some expectation that they were about to become public.
Also, as the Anti New York Times quite rightly points out in its Fake & Faker breakdown of both the Wikileaks and Snowden sagas, the mission of the global MSM is to steer the peoples’ thoughts and opinions in the direction desired by the ruling class. Secondly, the MSM would never hype a story, or an individual, that poses a true threat to the ruling class which it serves. And thirdly, when all of the MSM start publishing/hyping the same given narrative, of any given issue, all at the same time, understand that the ruling class is selling you something!
(http://www.tomatobubble.com/snowden_fake.html)
And in the case of Snowdengate and revelations that Big Brother really is everywhere already and that as such there’s no real point fighting any of it any more; what the world has thus been sold is fear. Fear which thus sees no open commentary on how Britain’s GCHQ has regularly been hacking Flemish telecommunication firms. Fear which thus sees no charges levied at it for attempting to sexually entrap its own citizens via malware ridden Angrybird downloads. And fear which by virtue of a doughy second cousin to the Queen of England, has hissed and slithered enough to have already had a nice big content filtering firewall built around all of Great Britain’s Internet.
Of course you can opt out of Britain’s big pervert perimeter fence if you want to. Just as I expect, 650 MP’s are doing so right at this moment via frantic calls to Westminster’s own IT department.
Fear however, breeds fear. And as such the same well meaning Brits who didn’t dare speak out against this swiftly delivered made in China cyber censor, due to fear of being branded paedophiles, probably won’t be feeling inclined (just yet), to give BT a bell and arrange getting reconnected to Xtube. Besides, ‘it is all for the sake of the countries children’.
Personally however, I got tired of this ‘its for innocence sake’ argument faster than I got sick of watching everyone but the Guardian fall over themselves in support of it. On the basis for instance, of this ‘the children must be protected’ assertion, a truly objective piece of journalism in regard to the filters being switched on would have read something like what follows.
‘Hear hear people of Great Britain. Let it be known throughout these ethnically and socially divided lands topped full of freemasonic sexual deviants, that the children of the Kingdom are now protected from ever having to learn too much about them. Never again shall any child or young adult ever be forced to wonder why nylon sweeping brush hairs which only came into use in the 1960′s were found enmass amongst the supposedly purely archaeological remains of a large number of children buried beneath Haut de la Garenne children’s home.
‘Hear hear people of these morally festered Isles. Never again shall a child of Great Britain be forced to have to ponder the past virtuousness of this kingdoms esteemed leaders having successively had Jimmy Saville come to dinner at Christmas. And believe this publication when it tells you in no uncertain terms, that you will never now know whether it was Kenneth Clark who gave Saville the keys to Broadmoor.
Everything is fine England. The lines in the sky are normal. Fracking’s going to make us all a fortune,
and finally Great Britain is free of bee stings.’
You see its as much about protecting your kids as Wikileaks is about revealing real secrets. On for instance, the 22nd of November 2011, Turkey implemented an almost identical opt in child and family internet filtering service. Though very quickly, (and just as the UK’s new internet filter has already been found to block file sharing websites) the Turkish filter was found to be blocking at least 130 internet search results concerning the Kurdistan workers party and Kurdish civil rights groups. Furthermore, in light of recent civil unrest, Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan is now seeking to have the countries Internet filter become mandatory and have its parameters widened insofar that any Internet content which the government deems ‘objectionable’ will automatically be effaced from search results in much the same way as it currently is in China.
(https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2011/11/week-internet-censorship-opaque-censorship-turkey-russia-and-britain)
Of course the MI6 run London Telegraph would have you believe that once again the UK government has acted as incompetently as usual, by having spent millions on a filtration service that doesn’t even work in the first place.
Rebellion against Internet censorship is, it is thus suggested, now as easy as a click and thirty second download. Moreover, with everyone from the Metro, makeuseof.co.uk and wired.co.uk all giddily repeating the same, your average Russelbrandite would have you believe that good old Google has just become the hero of the hour.
However, as Aaron Swartz attempted to warn those whom he had inspired to bare mouse and keyboard arms against SOPA just after the bill was defeated, “if we let Hollywood rewrite the story so it was just big company Google who stopped the bill, if we let them persuade us we didn’t actually make a difference, if we start seeing it as someone else’s responsibility to do this work, and it’s just our job to go home and curl up on the couch, pop some popcorn and watch Transformers, well then next time, they might just win.”
And lets face it, Google does have a rather genial relationship with Downing Street. So genial in fact, that despite paying just £6 million in UK corporation tax on its £3 billion per annum UK advertising profits, Eric Schmidt (Google’s Chief Executive) is cordially invited there every quarter as part of his role as a special adviser to Her Majesty’s government. Furthermore Google, just like Ed Balls, George Osborne and nice people like David Rockefeller is a regular attendee of secretive summits like Bilderberg. More to the point though, Google itself is arguably the worlds largest thief and censor of data to begin with.
To demonstrate, on September 8th 2013 a thirteen minute episode of RT’s the Truthseeker detailing false flag terrorism and featuring the father of a 9/11 victim was uploaded by RT to its Youtube channel. Moxnews then uploaded a copy of the same program, and with RT having tweeted its link to the video to 54,000 followers on Twitter, the video started to go viral. In just three days for example, the video received over 130,000 views.
On however, the morning of September 11th 2013, viewer figures flat lined.
Copies of the Truthseeker program then became impossible to locate via Youtube or Google search results. And although alternative uploads of this video are now easily findable, the fact remains that for a period of at least two weeks, the original (and becoming viral) video was made completely impossible to discover without the original RT and Moxnews links.
Furthermore, (and because search terms for the Truthseeker video had been deliberately rendered useless) Youtube then had the audacity to start asking any remaining viewers of the video to, “Be considerate and think twice before sharing.”
However, even if you decided not to be that considerate and share the video anyway, a more sinister twist to the Truthseeker story, saw some people discover that for two weeks post September 11th, the original link was impossible to transmit via email. If forwarded, an email containing it would appear to have been transmitted normally, though then fail to arrive at its targeted destination even if that destination was the senders own inbox.
(http://www.globalresearch.ca/search-engine-manipulation-google-and-youtube-suppress-911-truth/5352982).
Similarly, Youtube, the google chrome web browser and its supposedly open source counterpart chromium, appear to habitually censor region specific video content and search results. If for example, a Youtube viewer from Malta using one of the above browsers attempts to watch videos pertaining to locally politically sensitive subjects, they usually hit on quite a lot of ‘errors occurring.’ (Malta is a very small place after all).
The below for example is what happens when attempting to view a video detailing May 2013′s March Against Monsanto, which took place in Malta’s harbour capital Valletta. (Using Chrome or Chromium).
Whereas when using Firefox the video plays without any problem.
(For the record, the above browser was configured to use tor however, this is not a requirement. Moreover the islands of Malta do not have an official web filter currently in place).
In a similar example of google censorship via stealth, the 19th of November 2012 saw at least 96 Palestinians killed during Israel’s then six day attempt to apparently defend itself against Palestinian rocket fire. Meanwhile, far away in Canada and in what could be interpreted by some as google attempting to encourage pro-Israeli public opinion in regard to this conflict, some chrome users found that the browser would freeze or show just a blank page when searching for terms including “Gaza”, “Israel”, “Libya”, “West Bank” and “Hamas.” – Unless that is, the word ‘terrorist’ was also used as an accompanying search term.
(A video demonstrating this in real time being available here: http://youtu.be/09dI-gzVcj0)
Furthermore, with government requests to Google to have Internet content expunged from its search results currently seeing eight links per second be deleted; the 42% of Internet users currently using a chrome based browser should perhaps consider how they feel about having their thinking circumvented, before blindly downloading something likely just designed to expedite the process.
Besides, this app isn’t really for your convenience. Rather, for the while while it will be allowed to work it is designed simply to appease you and keep you from throwing a riot. You have after all just had the Internet itself actually taken from you at the behest of an unelected Prime Minister brought to power on the back of Wonga.com sponsorships and an Israeli Casino tycoons gun money.
Of course, I am aware that such small hurtful truths are difficult ones. ‘Then who can we bloody trust?’ And, ‘So what do you suggest we do?’ Questions often start being slung about as fast and as hard as accusations. Though really, the simple truth is that if something is fast and shiny and just a little bit naughty, then you probably already had a bit of a feeling that it was bad for you in the first place.
Moreover, I didn’t start this piece with such an in depth analysis of Jay Rockefeller’s 2009 cybersecurity bill and a real risk of boring you, just to try and demonstrate that I know a thing or two about what I’m writing about. I did it that because at present the world is void of a few people as brave and ingenious as a twenty six year old kid called Aaron Swartz. But all be that, someone should at least try and warn you that not only is Cybersecurity bill S.773 back, but that this time it will pass.
You see this time Senator Rockefeller’s been a bit more cunning and attached an almost carbon copy of his bill to Washington’s National Defense Authorization Act for for the fiscal year of 2014, or in short 2014 to 2015′s US military budget. Something most members of congress don’t even read before voting on, as if there’s one thing that post 9/11 America will always be in need of its its war machine.
All however, is not lost. Yes we might be about to live through the end of the Internet as we have grown to know it, but really, real peaceable rebellion wasn’t ever going to come about just in cyber space. And neither was any new world saviour going to liberate us from bondage with just a few clever lines of code. Rather, true peaceable revolution will start when someone’s gran mutters “bollocks to this shit,” and goes and throws an old bed sheet over the nearest street cctv camera. It will come when people realize that its better and cheaper to talk than text and that the NSA can’t tap your phone anyway if its lying in the local landfill. And whenever/however it starts it certainly won’t be televised. For one there’ll be no one wanting to watch the greatest show on earth when they could just as easily be part of it, and for another news crews around the world will be too busy running for their lives to really broadcast anything of any real substance.
And actually that’s where I was going to leave this one. This is after all the seventeenth page of something I’ve been trying for five days to condense down now as much as possible. However having now read through a lot of the Snowden material in researching this article, I have hit upon something of an assumption which I thought I’d at least try and share while I have the chance to. You see there has been lots of media hype about how the NSA can turn on parts of your phone or computer without you knowing, even when its in a powered off state. Nothing however, in the Snowden files which I have seen actually explains how they actually physically do this.
Then, whilst having the microchip in my newly adopted dog updated with my details the other day I realised for myself just exactly how they might do it. You see the chip in my dogs neck actually needs to be powered momentarily by a close proximity radio signal in order for it to transmit back the information stored on it and although you might turn off your computer when your finished with it, not many people turn off their wifi router as well.
Of course such an assumption would depend on the NSA and GCHQ being privy to the make, model number and physical MAC address (at least) of every single person in the worlds wifi router. And for that to happen you’d pretty much need a door to door eavesdropper pass by every household in the world once in a while, in order to harvest that data from the airwaves with something like what the NSA affectionately calls Nightstand.
Just a little bit like what Google was caught doing when it gave you street view.
Why for instance, was a project to photograph all of the world from street level even collecting peoples wifi data to begin with?
Therefore if your worried about being snooped on just change your web browser, ditch your phone and turn off the wifi. It is after all slowly cooking your kids ovaries.
Anyway that really is me for now. Chin up World.
Via Christopher Spivey: There above is a truly excellent, albeit long article – fuck all wrong with that – written by my friend in Malta Andy B.
Andy, you may remember, was the man who wrote the article To BBC or not to BBC? It was extremely well received.
In my opinion, this article, if only for the excellent research, submitted proof and effort put into writing the piece is even better than his first and is a must read for anyone worried about the internet becoming nothing more than another propaganda tool for the elites.
Ignore it at your peril.
Source
No comments:
Post a Comment