Skip navigation

Tag Archives: i-PATRIOT Act

Wikileaks Linked to US Intelligence and Spying Networks

4 DECEMBER 2010 673 VIEWS 2 COMMENTS

By @nit2am.

Julian Assange’s outright dismissal of the 9/11 cover-up as a ‘false conspiracy’ rang alarm bells with me. How could a purported ‘whistleblower’, claiming to be exposing the lies of corrupt governments shield the biggest lie of the 21st century from criticism? Anybody willing to do five minutes of research can uncover the trove of evidence suggesting a cover-up and lying at the highest levels of the US government with regards to 9/11. Especially a ‘computer hacker’ of world renown.

What kind of ‘whistleblower’ only leaks his scoops to corporate media outlets such as the Guardian, and New York Times, in the full knowledge that they are subject to editorial bias, censorship and omission? For a group ostensibly devoted to exposing the truth, Wikileaks’ strategy is puzzling.

What kind of ‘whistleblower’ goes to these corporate outlets for live Q&A sessions, complete with a photoshoot, while the world’s most tyrannical governments are supposedly hunting him down? The mere fact that Assange and Wikileaks are receiving such unprecedented promotion in the corporate media is something to be concerned about.

The fact that the leaks have overwhelmingly supported and bolstered the US-Israeli anti-Iranian propagandaefforts is somewhat less surprising in light of these facts. Still, the Left ignores this. Like dogs thrown a bone, progressives abandon critical thinking and brainlessly defend Assange purely because he’s denounced by the elite. This is all part of the plan; denunciations from the politicians have the purpose of maintaining Assange and Wikileaks’ credibility. Credibility that was originally cemented by the leak of Collateral Murder.

At the time of writing, Wikileaks has released only 842 cables out of over 250,000, a meagre 0.34%. Despite this, the pseudo Left is in a fever at finally learning the ‘truth’. Wikileaks bears all the hallmarks of a limited hangout operation.

Wikileaks, Google, and the CIA

A company known as In-Q-Tel is a CIA venture capital firm that has the aim of maintaining the CIA’s intelligence capabilities. See: http://www.iqt.org/about-iqt/history.html

In-Q-Tel sold 5,636 Google shares in 2005. The stocks were a result of Google’s acquisition of Keyhole, the CIA funded satellite mapping software that we now know as Google Earth.

Earlier this year it was reported that In-Q-Tel and Google Ventures are buying Recorded Future, a web analytics and spying outfit whose software “scours tens of thousands of Web sites, blogs and Twitter accounts to find the relationships between people, organizations, actions and incidents”. See:http://gcn.com/articles/2010/07/29/inqtel-google-fund-web-analysis-firm.aspx

See the Washington Post on Google’s partnership with NSA: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/03/AR2010020304057.html

So we’ve established that Google is in bed with the major US intelligence networks.

Now for the interesting part. A man named Ben Laurie is an Advisory Board member of Wikileaks:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Laurie

He used to be a security boss at Google, and he is currently working for them in London.

See the references to his work at Google on his blog: http://www.links.org/

See his page on Google: http://www.google.com/research/pubs/author9639.html

So here we have a Wikileaks advisory board member working for a corporation that has partnered with the CIA to buy a firm specialising in software perfectly suited to spying, infiltration and COINTELPRO. Not to mention Google’s partnership with the NSA which is ostensibly in the name of cyber security after cyber attacks it says ‘originated in China’. The recently-leaked cables even suggested that China was behind the attacks (convenient huh?)

I don’t know about you but I think this is a bit too close for comfort.

———————————–

RELATED:

Law Professor: Counter Terrorism Czar Told Me There Is Going To Be An i-9/11 And An i-Patriot Act
Steve Watson
Infowars.net
Tuesday, August 5, 2008

Amazing revelations have emerged concerning already existing government plans to overhaul the way the internet functions in order to apply much greater restrictions and control over the web.

Lawrence Lessig, a respected Law Professor from Stanford University told an audience at this years Fortune’s Brainstorm Tech conference in Half Moon Bay, California, that “There’s going to be an i-9/11 event” which will act as a catalyst for a radical reworking of the law pertaining to the internet.

Lessig also revealed that he had learned, during a dinner with former government Counter Terrorism Czar Richard Clarke, that there is already in existence a cyber equivalent of the Patriot Act, an “i-Patriot Act” if you will, and that the Justice Department is waiting for a cyber terrorism event in order to implement its provisions.

During a group panel segment titled “2018: Life on the Net”, Lessig stated:

There’s going to be an i-9/11 event. Which doesn’t necessarily mean an Al Qaeda attack, it means an event where the instability or the insecurity of the internet becomes
manifest during a malicious event which then inspires the government into a response. You’ve got to remember that after 9/11 the government drew up the Patriot Act
within 20 days and it was passed.

The Patriot Act is huge and I remember someone asking a Justice Department official how did they write such a large statute so quickly, and of course the answer was
that it has been sitting in the drawers of the Justice Department for the last 20 years waiting for the event where they would pull it out.

Of course, the Patriot Act is filled with all sorts of insanity about changing the way civil rights are protected, or not protected in this instance. So I was having dinner with
Richard Clarke and I asked him if there is an equivalent, is there an i-Patriot Act just sitting waiting for some substantial event as an excuse to radically change the way
the internet works. He said “of course there is”.

Watch Lessig reveal the details at 4.30 into the following video:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4631871144083884704#

My note: this video gets right into the actual part in question. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7IgUfEsGM9I

Lessig is the founder of Stanford Law School’s Center for Internet and Society. He is founding board member of Creative Commons and is a board member of the Electronic Frontier Foundation and of the Software Freedom Law Center. He is best known as a proponent of reduced legal restrictions on copyright, trademark and radio frequency spectrum, particularly in technology applications.

These are clearly not the ravings of some paranoid cyber geek.

The Patriot Act, as well as its lesser known follow up the Domestic Security Enhancement Act 2003, also known as USA Patriot Act II, have been universally decried by civil libertarians and Constitutional scholars from across the political spectrum. They have stripped back basic rights and handed what have been described by even the most moderate critics as “dictatorial control” over to the president and the federal government.

Many believed that the legislation was a response to the attacks of 9/11, but the reality was that the Patriot Act was prepared way in advance of 9/11 and it sat dormant, awaiting an event to justify its implementation.

In the days after the attacks it was passed in the House by a majority of 357 to 66. It passed the Senate by 98 to 1. Congressman Ron Paul (R-Tex) told the Washington Times that no member of Congress was even allowed to read the legislation.

Now we discover that exactly the same freedom restricting legislation has already been prepared for the cyber world.

An i-9/11, as described by Lawrence Lessig, would provide the perfect pretext to implement such restrictions in one swift motion, as well as provide the justification for relegating and eliminating specific content and information on the web.

Such an event could come in the form of a major viral attack, the hacking of a major city’s security or transport systems, or some other vital systems, or a combination of all of these things. Considering the amount of unanswered questions regarding 9/11 and all the indications that it was a covert false flag operation, it isn’t hard to imagine such an event being played out in the cyber world.

However, regardless of any i-9/11 or i-Patriot Act, there is already a coordinated effort to stem the reach and influence of the internet.

We have tirelessly warned of this general movement to restrict, censor, control and eventually completely shut down the internet as we know it, thereby killing the last real vestige of free speech in the world today and eliminating the greatest communication and information tool ever conceived.

Our governments have reams of legislation penned to put clamps on the web as we know it. Legislation such as the PRO-IP Act of 2007: H.R. 4279, that would create an IP czar at the Department of Justice and the Intellectual Property Enforcement Act of 2007: S. 522, which would create an entire ‘Intellectual Property Enforcement Network’. These are just two examples.

In addition, we have already seen how the major corporate websites and social networks are decentralizing and coming together to implement overarching identification, verification and access systems that have been described by Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg as “the beginning of a movement and the beginning of an industry.”

Some of these major tech companies have already joined efforts in projects such as the Information Card Foundation, which has proposed the creation of a system of internet ID cards that will be required for internet access. Of course, such a system would give those involved the ability to track and control user activity much more effectively. This is just one example.

In addition, as we reported yesterday, major transportation hubs like St. Pancras International, as well as libraries, big businesses, hospitals and other public outlets that offer wi-fi Internet, are blacklisting alternative news websites and making them completely inaccessible to their users.

These precedents are merely the first indication of what is planned for the Internet over the next 5-10 years, with the traditional web becoming little more than a vast spy database that catalogues people’s every activity and bombards them with commercials, while those who comply with centralized control and regulation of content will be free to enjoy the new super-fast Internet 2.

We must speak out about this rampant move to implement strict control mechanisms on the web NOW before it is too late, before the spine of the free internet is broken and its body essentially becomes paralyzed beyond repair.

Related: Get Outraged And Get Active About Internet Censorship

Hat Tip: Harold Gray, JustGetThere.us

Comment: Watch establishment shills such as Barbara Boxer use the leaking/hacking of the “Climategate” emails as “justification” for the passage of Jay Rockefeller’s Cyber Security Act of 2009, aka the “i-PATRIOT Act”.

Flashback: Lawrence Lessig predicts cyber-9/11 will result in cyber-PATRIOT Act

————————–

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/70249-boxer-hacked-climategate-emails-may-face-criminal-probe

Leaked e-mails allegedly undermining climate change science should be treated as a criminal matter, Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) said Wednesday afternoon.

Boxer, the top Democrat on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, said that the recently released e-mails, showing scientists allegedly overstating the case for climate change, should be treated as a crime.

“You call it ‘Climategate’; I call it ‘E-mail-theft-gate,’” she said during a committee meeting. “Whatever it is, the main issue is, Are we facing global warming or are we not? I’m looking at these e-mails, that, even though they were stolen, are now out in the public.”

The e-mails, from scientists at the University of East Anglia, were obtained through hacking. The messages showed the director of the university’s Climate Research Unit discussing ways to strengthen the unit’s case for global warming. Climate change skeptics have seized on the e-mails, arguing that they demonstrate manipulation in environmental science.

Boxer said her committee may hold hearings into the matter as its top Republican, Sen. James Inhofe (Okla.), has asked for, but that a criminal probe would be part of any such hearings.

“We may well have a hearing on this, we may not. We may have a briefing for senators, we may not,” Boxer said. “Part of our looking at this will be looking at a criminal activity which could have well been coordinated.

“This is a crime,” Boxer said.

Flashback:
BILL WOULD GIVE OBAMA ‘EMERGENCY’ CONTROL OF INTERNET

August 28, 2009 12:34 AM PDT

Internet companies and civil liberties groups were alarmed this spring when a U.S. Senate bill proposed handing the White House the power to disconnect private-sector computers from the Internet.

They’re not much happier about a revised version that aides to Sen. Jay Rockefeller, a West Virginia Democrat, have spent months drafting behind closed doors. CNET News has obtained a copy of the 55-page draft (excerpt), which still appears to permit the president to seize temporary control of private-sector networks during a so-called cybersecurity emergency.

The new version would allow the president to “declare a cybersecurity emergency” relating to “non-governmental” computer networks and do what’s necessary to respond to the threat. Other sections of the proposal include a federal certification program for “cybersecurity professionals,” and a requirement that certain computer systems and networks in the private sector be managed by people who have been awarded that license.

“I think the redraft, while improved, remains troubling due to its vagueness,” said Larry Clinton, president of the Internet Security Alliance, which counts representatives of Verizon, Verisign, Nortel, and Carnegie Mellon University on its board. “It is unclear what authority Sen. Rockefeller thinks is necessary over the private sector. Unless this is clarified, we cannot properly analyze, let alone support the bill.”

Representatives of other large Internet and telecommunications companies expressed concerns about the bill in a teleconference with Rockefeller’s aides this week, but were not immediately available for interviews on Thursday.

A spokesman for Rockefeller also declined to comment on the record Thursday, saying that many people were unavailable because of the summer recess. A Senate source familiar with the bill compared the president’s power to take control of portions of the Internet to what President Bush did when grounding all aircraft on Sept. 11, 2001. The source said that one primary concern was the electrical grid, and what would happen if it were attacked from a broadband connection.

When Rockefeller, the chairman of the Senate Commerce committee, and Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) introduced the original bill in April, they claimed it was vital to protect national cybersecurity. “We must protect our critical infrastructure at all costs–from our water to our electricity, to banking, traffic lights and electronic health records,” Rockefeller said.

The Rockefeller proposal plays out against a broader concern in Washington, D.C., about the government’s role in cybersecurity. In May, President Obama acknowledged that the government is “not as prepared” as it should be to respond to disruptions and announced that a new cybersecurity coordinator position would be created inside the White House staff. Three months later, that post remains empty, one top cybersecurity aide has quit, and some wags have begun to wonder why a government that receives failing marks on cybersecurity should be trusted to instruct the private sector what to do.

Rockefeller’s revised legislation seeks to reshuffle the way the federal government addresses the topic. It requires a “cybersecurity workforce plan” from every federal agency, a “dashboard” pilot project, measurements of hiring effectiveness, and the implementation of a “comprehensive national cybersecurity strategy” in six months–even though its mandatory legal review will take a year to complete.

The privacy implications of sweeping changes implemented before the legal review is finished worry Lee Tien, a senior staff attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation in San Francisco. “As soon as you’re saying that the federal government is going to be exercising this kind of power over private networks, it’s going to be a really big issue,” he says.

Probably the most controversial language begins in Section 201, which permits the president to “direct the national response to the cyber threat” if necessary for “the national defense and security.” The White House is supposed to engage in “periodic mapping” of private networks deemed to be critical, and those companies “shall share” requested information with the federal government. (“Cyber” is defined as anything having to do with the Internet, telecommunications, computers, or computer networks.)

“The language has changed but it doesn’t contain any real additional limits,” EFF’s Tien says. “It simply switches the more direct and obvious language they had originally to the more ambiguous (version)…The designation of what is a critical infrastructure system or network as far as I can tell has no specific process. There’s no provision for any administrative process or review. That’s where the problems seem to start. And then you have the amorphous powers that go along with it.”

Translation: If your company is deemed “critical,” a new set of regulations kick in involving who you can hire, what information you must disclose, and when the government would exercise control over your computers or network.

The Internet Security Alliance’s Clinton adds that his group is “supportive of increased federal involvement to enhance cyber security, but we believe that the wrong approach, as embodied in this bill as introduced, will be counterproductive both from an national economic and national secuity perspective.”

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10320096-38.html

———————————–

My comment (screen capture posted here in case CNET deletes/censors it) :

cnet-comment

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.