Dont laugh, the internet as we know it is in danger.
Cyberspace police state dismissed by some, yet agenda for regulated,
>controlled, patrolled "Internet 2" advances
>
>Paul Joseph Watson
>Prison Planet
>Thursday, November 30, 2006
>
>The Internet is the last true unregulated outpost of freedom of speech
>but moves are afoot to stifle, suffocate and control the world wide web.
>These threats are not hidden nor are they hard to deduce and yet a
>significant minority of truth seekers and activists remain naive as to
>their scope.
>Following our publication of yesterday's article, RIAA Legal Ruling
>Could Shut Down The Internet, we received a mixed response. Many were
>aware of the imminent dangers that threaten to change the face of the
>Internet but others were more hostile to the supposition that the world
>wide web could be devastated by landmark copyright case rulings as well
>as plans to develop "Internet 2."
>Some accused us of yellow journalism and scaremongering yet the warning
>that the Elektra vs. Barker case could criminalize the very mechanism
>that characterizes the Internet was not concocted by Alex Jones or Paul
>Joseph Watson, it was a statement made by the very lawyer fighting the
>case, Ray Beckerman.
>It was a danger also reported on by one of the UK's biggest technology
>news websites, the Inquirer, which also yesterday highlighted the
>frightening development in an article entitled, RIAA wants the Internet
>shut down.
>The RIAA's argument is that defendant Tenise Barker downloaded music
>files and made them available for distribution by placing them in a
>shared folder. Though Barker paid for the files and downloaded them
>legally, and the files were not copied by anyone, the RIAA's motion
>states that simply making the files available constitutes copyright
>infringement.
>As Beckerman points out, the entire Internet is nothing more than a
>giant network of hyperlinks making files 'available' to other people. If
>we link to CNN.com, we are making the file that constitutes the CNN
>homepage 'available' to other users. We don't own the copyright to any
>of CNN's material therefore if the RIAA's argument is accepted, by
>simply making that CNN file available from our website, even if no one
>clicks on the link, we are committing a breach of copyright.
>At no point in our article did we suggest that the ruling definitely
>would shut down the Internet, we highlighted the fact that hundreds of
>transnational corporations like Amazon.com who solely rely on Internet
>trade would scream bloody murder. But what the ruling would grease the
>skids for is the move towards a strictly regulated Internet whereby
>government permission would be required to run a website and that
>website would be subject to censoring and deletion if it violated any
>"terms of use."
>The example I highlighted yesterday on the Alex Jones Show was that
>running a blog would be like having a You Tube account - any politically
>sensitive or controversial information that the owners dislike would
>immediately be removed as it is frequently on You Tube.
>In addition, the slide towards a licensed Internet that will be sold
>using fear of identity and credit card fraud could lead to mandatory
>biometric thumb or finger scanning simply to access the world wide web.
>This is hardly a stretch of the imagination, since numerous public
>services and functions of society are increasingly accessible only
>through providing some form of biometric identification. Credit passes
>for travel, ATM terminals and access to theme parks like Disneyland are
>just a few of the many services we use that are shifting towards
>mandatory biometric gatekeeping.
>Furthermore, Pay By Touch Online and other companies have already
>developed and launched keyboard biometric finger scanning terminals that
>require users to submit their biometric print before they can access the
>Internet or buy online.
>Piggybacking the net neutrality debate, Internet 2 is being shaped to
>replace the old Internet, which will be allowed to self-destruct as it
>labors under the pressures of being relegated to slower and slower pipes
>and users will simply desert a painstaking system.
>Earlier this year under the headline, The End of the Internet?, The
>Nation magazine reported,
>"The nation's largest telephone and cable companies are crafting an
>alarming set of strategies that would transform the free, open and
>nondiscriminatory Internet of today to a privately run and branded
>service that would charge a fee for virtually everything we do online."
>"Verizon, Comcast, Bell South and other communications giants are
>developing strategies that would track and store information on our
>every move in cyberspace in a vast data-collection and marketing system,
>the scope of which could rival the National Security Agency. According
>to white papers now being circulated in the cable, telephone and
>telecommunications industries, those with the deepest
>pockets--corporations, special-interest groups and major
>advertisers--would get preferred treatment. Content from these providers
>would have first priority on our computer and television screens, while
>information seen as undesirable, such as peer-to-peer communications,
>could be relegated to a slow lane or simply shut out."
>Internet 2 is being billed as the next generation of the world wide web
>and it has already set global speed records in terms of data transfer,
>far outstripping the old Internet.
>One of the fathers of the Internet, David Clark, who served as chief
>protocol architect for the government's internet development initiative
>in the 1980s, has been given $200,000 by the National Science Foundation
>to covertly work on a "whole new infrastructure to replace today's
>global network," according to Wired Magazine.
>Clark has vowed to create a "brave new world" in designing the new
>Internet, characterizing what he wanted for the new network to be "a
>coherent security architecture."
>Dovetailing the onset of Internet 2 are government propaganda campaigns
>to demonize the existing Internet as a wild backwater for hate crime,
>child pornography and a terrorist recruiting ground.
>Establishment kingpins and their cheerleaders have increased their level
>of vitriolic rhetoric against the Internet in recent months, as
>legislation in both the U.S. and Europe to regulate, stifle and license
>the Internet moves forward.
>The White House's own recently de-classified strategy for "winning the
>war on terror" targets Internet conspiracy theories as a recruiting
>ground for terrorists and threatens to "diminish" their influence.
>In addition, the Pentagon recently announced its effort to infiltrate
>the Internet and propagandize for the war on terror.
>In a speech last month, Homeland Security director Michael Chertoff
>identified the web as a "terror training camp," through which
>"disaffected people living in the United States" are developing "radical
>ideologies and potentially violent skills."
>Chertoff pledged to dispatch Homeland Security agents to local police
>departments in order to aid in the apprehension of domestic terrorists
>who use the Internet as a political tool.
>The European Union, led by former Stalinist and potential future British
>Prime Minister John Reid, has also vowed to shut down "terrorists" who
>use the Internet to spread propaganda.
>The dangers to the freedom and very existence of the Internet as we know
>it are all too real and the way to counteract these developments is to
>get involved and get the word out. Simply burying our heads in the sand
>and being apathetic and naive about the threat is only going to aid
>those who wish to see the last outpost of freedom of speech shut off
>forever.
Cyberspace police state dismissed by some, yet agenda for regulated,
>controlled, patrolled "Internet 2" advances
>
>Paul Joseph Watson
>Prison Planet
>Thursday, November 30, 2006
>
>The Internet is the last true unregulated outpost of freedom of speech
>but moves are afoot to stifle, suffocate and control the world wide web.
>These threats are not hidden nor are they hard to deduce and yet a
>significant minority of truth seekers and activists remain naive as to
>their scope.
>Following our publication of yesterday's article, RIAA Legal Ruling
>Could Shut Down The Internet, we received a mixed response. Many were
>aware of the imminent dangers that threaten to change the face of the
>Internet but others were more hostile to the supposition that the world
>wide web could be devastated by landmark copyright case rulings as well
>as plans to develop "Internet 2."
>Some accused us of yellow journalism and scaremongering yet the warning
>that the Elektra vs. Barker case could criminalize the very mechanism
>that characterizes the Internet was not concocted by Alex Jones or Paul
>Joseph Watson, it was a statement made by the very lawyer fighting the
>case, Ray Beckerman.
>It was a danger also reported on by one of the UK's biggest technology
>news websites, the Inquirer, which also yesterday highlighted the
>frightening development in an article entitled, RIAA wants the Internet
>shut down.
>The RIAA's argument is that defendant Tenise Barker downloaded music
>files and made them available for distribution by placing them in a
>shared folder. Though Barker paid for the files and downloaded them
>legally, and the files were not copied by anyone, the RIAA's motion
>states that simply making the files available constitutes copyright
>infringement.
>As Beckerman points out, the entire Internet is nothing more than a
>giant network of hyperlinks making files 'available' to other people. If
>we link to CNN.com, we are making the file that constitutes the CNN
>homepage 'available' to other users. We don't own the copyright to any
>of CNN's material therefore if the RIAA's argument is accepted, by
>simply making that CNN file available from our website, even if no one
>clicks on the link, we are committing a breach of copyright.
>At no point in our article did we suggest that the ruling definitely
>would shut down the Internet, we highlighted the fact that hundreds of
>transnational corporations like Amazon.com who solely rely on Internet
>trade would scream bloody murder. But what the ruling would grease the
>skids for is the move towards a strictly regulated Internet whereby
>government permission would be required to run a website and that
>website would be subject to censoring and deletion if it violated any
>"terms of use."
>The example I highlighted yesterday on the Alex Jones Show was that
>running a blog would be like having a You Tube account - any politically
>sensitive or controversial information that the owners dislike would
>immediately be removed as it is frequently on You Tube.
>In addition, the slide towards a licensed Internet that will be sold
>using fear of identity and credit card fraud could lead to mandatory
>biometric thumb or finger scanning simply to access the world wide web.
>This is hardly a stretch of the imagination, since numerous public
>services and functions of society are increasingly accessible only
>through providing some form of biometric identification. Credit passes
>for travel, ATM terminals and access to theme parks like Disneyland are
>just a few of the many services we use that are shifting towards
>mandatory biometric gatekeeping.
>Furthermore, Pay By Touch Online and other companies have already
>developed and launched keyboard biometric finger scanning terminals that
>require users to submit their biometric print before they can access the
>Internet or buy online.
>Piggybacking the net neutrality debate, Internet 2 is being shaped to
>replace the old Internet, which will be allowed to self-destruct as it
>labors under the pressures of being relegated to slower and slower pipes
>and users will simply desert a painstaking system.
>Earlier this year under the headline, The End of the Internet?, The
>Nation magazine reported,
>"The nation's largest telephone and cable companies are crafting an
>alarming set of strategies that would transform the free, open and
>nondiscriminatory Internet of today to a privately run and branded
>service that would charge a fee for virtually everything we do online."
>"Verizon, Comcast, Bell South and other communications giants are
>developing strategies that would track and store information on our
>every move in cyberspace in a vast data-collection and marketing system,
>the scope of which could rival the National Security Agency. According
>to white papers now being circulated in the cable, telephone and
>telecommunications industries, those with the deepest
>pockets--corporations, special-interest groups and major
>advertisers--would get preferred treatment. Content from these providers
>would have first priority on our computer and television screens, while
>information seen as undesirable, such as peer-to-peer communications,
>could be relegated to a slow lane or simply shut out."
>Internet 2 is being billed as the next generation of the world wide web
>and it has already set global speed records in terms of data transfer,
>far outstripping the old Internet.
>One of the fathers of the Internet, David Clark, who served as chief
>protocol architect for the government's internet development initiative
>in the 1980s, has been given $200,000 by the National Science Foundation
>to covertly work on a "whole new infrastructure to replace today's
>global network," according to Wired Magazine.
>Clark has vowed to create a "brave new world" in designing the new
>Internet, characterizing what he wanted for the new network to be "a
>coherent security architecture."
>Dovetailing the onset of Internet 2 are government propaganda campaigns
>to demonize the existing Internet as a wild backwater for hate crime,
>child pornography and a terrorist recruiting ground.
>Establishment kingpins and their cheerleaders have increased their level
>of vitriolic rhetoric against the Internet in recent months, as
>legislation in both the U.S. and Europe to regulate, stifle and license
>the Internet moves forward.
>The White House's own recently de-classified strategy for "winning the
>war on terror" targets Internet conspiracy theories as a recruiting
>ground for terrorists and threatens to "diminish" their influence.
>In addition, the Pentagon recently announced its effort to infiltrate
>the Internet and propagandize for the war on terror.
>In a speech last month, Homeland Security director Michael Chertoff
>identified the web as a "terror training camp," through which
>"disaffected people living in the United States" are developing "radical
>ideologies and potentially violent skills."
>Chertoff pledged to dispatch Homeland Security agents to local police
>departments in order to aid in the apprehension of domestic terrorists
>who use the Internet as a political tool.
>The European Union, led by former Stalinist and potential future British
>Prime Minister John Reid, has also vowed to shut down "terrorists" who
>use the Internet to spread propaganda.
>The dangers to the freedom and very existence of the Internet as we know
>it are all too real and the way to counteract these developments is to
>get involved and get the word out. Simply burying our heads in the sand
>and being apathetic and naive about the threat is only going to aid
>those who wish to see the last outpost of freedom of speech shut off
>forever.
