What is CISPA? (by LibertyNewsNetwork1)
What is CISPA?
The Cyber Intelligence Sharing & Protection Act is a proposed bill that will essentially give the government, private security agencies, and corporations the right to anonymously access your private information on your computer and let them do with it what they please. The bill was proposed in hopes to cut down on piracy, but CISPA poses much more problems for citizens than actually fixing them.
- 11 months ago > seattle-gadgets
PBS’s Charlie Rose Runs Away From Bilderberg Questions
CHECK http://twitter.com/lukewearechange for when the WeAreChange Bilderberg Donation Drive Broadcast from Chantilly, VA goes LIVE @ http://ustream.tv/wearechange. Please help WeAreChange! All we have is you! http://wearechange.org/donate
For decades, a shadowy and secret elite organization called the Bilderberg Group has plotted policy together that subjugates humanity under the cover of darkness. From June 1-3, WeAreChage will be broadcasting LIVE from from Chantilly, VA @ http://ustream.tv/wearechange If you want to continue to hold these politicians accountable and make sure the elites continue to hear the voice of the people, donate @ http://www.WeAreChange.org/donate
- 1 year ago > newstome1
Congress Likely To Reauthorize Warrantless Electronic Surveillance Powers
By Madison Ruppert
Editor of End the Lie
In July 2008, Barack Obama, then a Senator and presidential candidate, voted for the FISA Amendments Act, while claiming that, if elected, he would push to amend it while also giving a meaningless statement saying that the bill was flawed.
Unsurprisingly, once elected Obama vehemently defended and has fought to keep these warrantless wiretapping powers. Saying that the bill was flawed is wholly meaningless due to the fact that he still voted for it, which is all that matters.
I see this hollow statement much like Obama’s signing statement when signing the horrific National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2012 into law.
Of course, this was completely meaningless since he signed the bill into law with the indefinite detention provisions intact which, contrary to some erroneous claims made by the media and other government apologists, do apply to Americans as evidenced by a federal judge’s decision.
Both Republican and Democrat legislators seemed quite willing to grant the Obama administration’s request to continue allowing the federal government to conduct warrantless electronic surveillance, further showing that the two party system in America is an absolute joke.
However, some of our so-called legislators said that Americans – or at least the members of Congress themselves – deserve to know how many of our fellow citizens have been targeted by this warrantless surveillance dragnet.
The bill at issue, the FISA Amendments Act, allows the government to monitor the phone calls, emails and other communications of Americans without any probable cause whatsoever so long as one of the parties involved in the communication is supposedly outside of the U.S.
This is done in the name of the government’s effort “to acquire foreign intelligence information.”
Yet since there is absolutely no oversight whatsoever, we do not know how this is actually being used. Even our so-called representatives are left in the dark.
“Reauthorizing this authority is the top legislative priority of the intelligence community,” wrote Director of National Intelligence James Clapper and Attorney General Eric Holder in a letter to the leaders of the House and Senate.
Keep in mind, this is the same James Clapper who nonsensically claimed that Iran could attack the United States earlier this year in saying that Iranian leaders “probably including Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei – Have changed their calculus and are now more willing to conduct an attack in the United States in response to real or perceived U.S. actions that threaten the regime.”
Eric Holder, of course, is the same individual who claimed that secret reviews of evidence which is never made public by an unaccountable and unelected group of individuals counts as due process when it comes to the murder of Americans at the hands of the federal government.
I bring these facts up because clearly Clapper’s claim is ludicrous and has never materialized. Similarly, Holder’s claim is clearly laughable and has no basis in reality whatsoever. Trusting the word of these individuals, or even giving their assertions legitimacy is irresponsible.
The 80 minute long hearing before the House Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security revealed that many lawmakers are willing to go along with the Obama administration’s demands.
“Foreign terrorists remain committed to the destruction of our country,” claimed Representative Jim Sensenbrenner, the chairman of the committee.
Rep. Sensenbrenner’s claims are neither borne out through data nor through projections made by groups with similar ideologies and motivations such as the Homeland Security Policy Institute (HSPI).
The HSPI report released last year, which is devoid of any factual basis whatsoever, claims that the focus should be shifted towards domestic terrorism, a position which has been consistently supported by others like the Department of Homeland Security and the Federal Bureau of Investigation, as evidenced by their actions.
“We have a duty to ensure the intelligence community can gather the intelligence it needs to protect our country and our citizens,” Sensenbrenner added, resorting to the tired tactics which have become all too common in the government’s attempts to justify their anti-American activities.
Thankfully, we can look to some of our founding fathers to see just how flawed and illegitimate this logic really is.
Benjamin Franklin touched upon this issue in writing, “They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
If Sensenbrenner and others had their way, we would have to completely disregard the principles upon which the United States of America was founded in favor of their twisted worldview.
One can relatively safely conclude that Franklin and others like him would thoroughly reject the FISA Amendments Act since it generally forces the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) Court to approve any and all electronic surveillance requests targeting the communication of Americans, so long as they claim it is terrorism-related.
To make matters even more ridiculous, the surveillance can actually begin a week before the request is even made and the government does not even have to bother identifying the target or facility they will be monitoring.
Furthermore, if the FISA Court happens to reject the surveillance application (which almost never happens), the government is still allowed to continue surveillance during the appeals process.
The rulings of the FISA Court are never made public and the FISA Amendments Act even gives the government the power to force internet giants like Google and Facebook (though I seriously doubt that they ever need to be forced) to help the government in their surveillance activities.
I say that they likely never have to be forced because Google has an incredibly close relationship with the government and a court actually ruled that Google never has to disclose the true nature of their relationship with the National Security Agency (NSA).
Unfortunately, not a single lawmaker voiced clear opposition to the reauthorization of the Act, although some voiced a slight bit of disapproval in saying that here should be more accountability and records of how the bill is actually used.
There is essentially no public information available on the program and what little we know has been the product of anonymous statements.
One such statement in 2009 from an unnamed source brought The New York Times to conclude that the surveillance of communications “went beyond the broad limits established by Congress.”
Considering just how broad the limits already are, this should be a matter of considerable concern for Americans, at least those who still care even slightly about their privacy and rights as protected by the Constitution.
Thankfully there were a few voices of clear opposition at the hearing, including representatives of the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU).
Both groups said that if the government were to reauthorize the legislation, they should commit to being more transparent. They said that the government should report the number of both Americans and non-Americans who have been monitored under the bill, something which I do not think the government will actually agree to.
Unsurprisingly, the Obama administration is completely opposed to any transparency. This serves as even more proof, if we needed any, that Obama completely disregarded his promises and has actually become one of the least transparent administrations in history, refusing to even tell the American people why they think they have the authority to murder us.
One lone voice of apparent support was Representative Bobby Scott, a Virginia Democrat.
“We should not be surveilling Americans with this low standard without significant oversight,” Scott said, without outright rejecting the legitimacy of such practices.
One voice of sanity was the director of the ACLU’s Center for Democracy, Jameel Jaffeer, who rightfully pointed out that the legislation was unconstitutional.
“The act’s effect is to give the government nearly unfettered access to Americans’ international communications,” Jaffeer said during his testimony.
The committee ultimately took no action whatsoever and Sensenbrenner announced that the committee would meet in secret with Clapper and others to discuss the legislation further.
In defense of this assault on our right to know what our government is doing, Sensenbrenner nonsensically claimed that giving any data about the spy program could “give the other side an indication of the extent of the operational strength of our national security agencies.”
This is yet another example of Sensenbrenner attempting to justify his beliefs with tired, intellectually bankrupt logic.
Thankfully the executive director of EPIC, Mark Rotenberg, was there to reply to Sensenbrenner’s claim, “I don’t see how it would.”
“There should be greater public accountability,” Rotenberg said during his testimony before the committee.
Others supported the notion that while the American people can be left in the dark about how our own government is operating, at least Congress should be made aware of the government’s surveillance activities.
“I come to this hearing disturbed by how little we know and how much more we need to know,” said Michigan Democrat John Conyers.
Keep in mind, U.S. intelligence officials have refused to tell legislators how many people are actually being targeted by the massive surveillance apparatus legitimized by the FISA law.
Thankfully, there might be a legitimate legal challenge to the act, thanks to the Supreme Court agreeing to decide on whether or not they will kill an attempt to challenge the legality of the act.
However, it is very important to note that they have only decided that they will agree the ruling of a lower court (which did not comment on the merits of the case) to reinstate the challenge at an as of yet unspecified date.
They did so without any comment, and yet this is still a landmark decision since it will be the first time the Supreme Court has ever agreed to review any case that even begins to touch on the secret surveillance program installed in the aftermath of the tragic events of September 11, 2001 by the Bush administration.
All we can do is hope that somehow our so-called representatives will realize what they are doing and actually stand up for the American people and honor their oath of office.
Otherwise, we’ll likely see even more of this widespread, wholly unconstitutional and unjustified surveillance activity at the hands of our increasingly tyrannical federal government.
Did I forget anything or miss any errors? Would you like to make me aware of a story or subject to cover? Or perhaps you want to bring your writing to a wider audience? Feel free to contact me at admin@EndtheLie.com with your concerns, tips, questions, original writings, insults or just about anything that may strike your fancy.
- #FISA Amendments Act
- #Warrantless Electronic Surveillance Powers
- #surveillance society
- #Big Brother
- #United States
- #Barack Obama
- #Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 Amendments Act of 2008
- #Eric Holder
- #Jim Sensenbrenner
- #National Defense Authorization Act
- #Voice message
- #Operating system
- #European Parliament
- 1 year ago > newstome1
This Stossel special will blow your mind! The government, especially the EPA is out of control as well as local prosecutors trying to make a name for themselves.
- #John Stossel
- #United States
- #Bilderberg Group
- #Gucci Mane
- #Voice message
- #Operating system
- #Nanny state
- #big goverment
- #big brother
- #big sister
- 1 year ago
New Yorkers Sound Off on Bloomberg’s Drink Ban (by ReasonTV)
New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg outlined a plan Wednesday to ban the sale of sugary soft drinks larger than 16 ounces at restaurants, movie theaters, street carts and other venues.
Reason.tv’s Anthony Fisher took to the streets to ask New Yorkers what they thought about Bloomberg and the ban.
Approximately 2 minutes.
Camera by Kaplan Akincilar. Produced by Anthony Fisher
Visit http://www.reason.tv for downloadable versions and subscribe to ReasonTV’s YouTube Channel to receive automatic updates when new material goes live.
- #Anthony Fisher
- #Michael Bloomberg
- #Soft drink
- #United States
- #Application programming interface
- #Real Time Streaming Protocol
- #Voice message
- #Operating system
- #nanny state
- 1 year ago
“Liberals are sure they’re in the reality-based community and anyone who disagrees with them either has a bad brain, or in some other way rejects empiricism and science, and they are the only ones working with the building blocks of facts and reason,” says National Review’s Jonah Goldberg, author of the new book, The Tyranny of Cliches: How Liberals Cheat in the War of Ideas.
“And I call bullshit on that.”
Goldberg, who became the editor of National Review Online in 1999, is responsible for creating the tone and format of the highly trafficked website, which built on the magazine’s venerable reputation while signaling, as he puts it, “that this is not your father’s National Review.” Goldberg’s new book, which follows his best-selling 2008 Liberal Fascism, argues that liberals should stop claiming their ideas derive solely from science and fact but never ideology—a way of arguing that stifles honest debate. Liberal arguments sometimes take the form of hackneyed cliches meant to sound self-evident but that in reality disguise a political bent, such as “violence never solves anything” or “I may disagree with you but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it.”
Goldberg sat down with ReasonTV’s Nick Gillespie for a wide-ranging discussion about liberal and conservative discourse, his early vision for National Review Online, and the firing of long-time National Review contributor John Derbyshire for writing a racist article in Taki’s Magazine. Goldberg also explains why he plans to vote for Mitt Romney despite his lack of enthusiasm for the presumptive GOP nominee.
Approximately 30 minutes.
Shot and produced by Jim Epstein; additional camera by Meredith Bragg.
Go to http://Reason.tv for downloadable versions and subscribe to ReasonTV’s YouTube Channel to receive automatic updates when new material goes live
- #Mitt Romney
- #Jonah Goldberg
- #National Review
- #John Derbyshire
- #War of Ideas
- #Nick Gillespie
- #Voice message
- #Operating system
- #Reason TV
- #National Review Online
- 1 year ago
The Coming Food Police (by LibertyNewsNetwork1)
Tom Eddlem reports on the outlook of the future, investigating government regulated dieting. Will the United States Government soon be force feeding you and your children on what you are and aren’t allowed to eat?
Tweet this: http://bit.ly/KuJ9i5
Here are just a few reasons why states should refuse to create ObamaCare Exchanges.
Jobs. Refusing to create an exchange will block Obamacare from imposing a tax on employers whose health benefits do not meet the federal government’s definition of “essential” coverage. That tax can run as high as $3,000 per employee. A state that refuses to create an exchange will spare its employers from that tax, and will therefore enable them to create more jobs.
Religious freedom. In blocking that employer tax, state officials would likewise block Obamacare’s effort to force religious employers to provide coverage for services they find immoral — like contraception, pharmaceutical abortions, and sterilization.
The federal debt. Refusing to create exchanges would also reduce the federal debt, because it would prevent the Obama administration from doling out billions of dollars in subsidies to private insurance companies.
The U.S. Constitution. The Obama administration has indicated that it might try to tax employers and hand out those subsidies anyway — even in states that don’t create an exchange, and even though neither Obamacare nor any other federal law gives it the power to do so. If that happens, the fact that a state has refused to create an exchange would give every large employer in the state — including the state government itself — the ability to go to court to block the administration’s attempt to usurp Congress’s legislative powers.
A lower state tax burden. States that opt to create an exchange can expect to pay anywhere from $10 million to $100 million per year to run it. But if states refuse, Obamacare says the federal government must pay to create one. Why should states pay for something that the federal government is giving away?
Bye-bye, Obamacare. That is, if the feds can create an exchange at all. The Obama administration has admitted it doesn’t have the money — and good luck getting any such funding through the GOP-controlled House. Moreover, without state-run exchanges, the feds can’t subsidize private insurance companies. That by itself could cause Obamacare to collapse.
Michael F. Cannon is the director of Health Policy Studies at the Cato Institute. Video Produced by Caleb O. Brown and Austin Bragg.
Please Enroll Responsibly: http://amzn.to/ojtR7E Only 99 cents By Lee Doren
Bloomberg Ban: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/31/nyregion/bloomberg-plans-a-ban-on-large-sug…
“We’re forcing you to understand:” http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/05/31/bloomberg_on_sad_ban_were_s…
Military Spending: http://youtu.be/dl51oVh8Q0M
Is the euro a failed experiment, or can it yet survive? Gideon Rose, the editor of Foreign Affairs, interviews Martin Feldstein, the Harvard Professor and author of “The Failure of the Euro.” Feldstein explains the consequences of the European debt crisis, noting the differences among Greece, Italy, Spain, and others.
- 1 year ago > foreignaffairsmagazine
SKorea Teens Flock Online To Snitch On Pro-North Posts
Google is not just a search engine for 26-year-old South Korean Ma Han-joo. Nor is Twitter merely a fun way to share pics of K-pop stars. For Ma and thousands of other young conservative activists – many of them teenagers – they are crucial weapons in their campaign to scrub the Internet of North Korea sympathizers.
Ma, whose delicate frame and shy smile makes her an unlikely warrior in real life, uses Google in her spare time to search for blogs, videos and other Internet postings that identify fellow South Koreans who are “sincerely idolizing” communist North Korea.
In the past year, Ma has reported more than 30 online postings that she considered dangerous and which could “brainwash the minds of South Koreans” to the National Intelligence Service. Using search keywords such as “Great Leader” or “Nation’s Sun” – references to the North’s dynastic leadership – she trawls the Internet until finding offending content and then submits a link along with a screenshot online.
The agency uses the tips to investigate possible violations of South Korea’s National Security Act which prohibits praising or glorifying North Korea – a crime punishable by up to seven years in prison. North and South Korea technically remain at war, having never signed a peace treaty after their 1950-53 conflict ended with a still uneasy truce.
The number of prosecutions under the security law, which are not limited to glorifying North Korea, has risen in recent years. Convictions are harder to secure but not uncommon. Last September, a 43-year-old South Korean man was sentenced to 10 months prison for operating a pro-North Korean website and posting over 300 messages and 6 videos praising North Korea.
The zealous policing of the Internet by a rising movement of young nationalists seems at odds with the wealthy, dynamic and democratic image that South Korea projects to the outside world. Yet for South Koreans it is unremarkable, even if not accepted in all corners of society. Anti-communist instruction was a staple of the curriculum in South Korea’s schools into the 1980s. Liberal groups say similar anti-North Korea education has been revived under conservative President Lee Myung-bak, although the education ministry disputes that.
Activists like Ma see themselves as cyber guardians of national security, keeping the Internet in South Korea safe from infiltration by pro-North Korean ideas. In doing so, they have become a vigorous vanguard for enforcement of the national security law, which critics argue puts excessive limits on freedom of expression.
The young activists are a “manifestation of misleading patriotism,” said Park Lae-goon, director of Human Rights Foundation Saram.
“Under the anti-communism environment, South Korean society has denied diverse values,” Park said. “In a democratic society, we should be able to talk about different ideologies and opinions.”
The National Intelligence Service sees it differently and rewards informants with a metal watch that has become a coveted item among teenagers. They call it “the One Watch,” after “the One Ring” in the popular “The Lord of the Rings” movie trilogy.
Ma and another activist Park In-beom, 17, both received the One Watch. Park said he was extremely happy when he got the gift that came with a thank you letter from the spy agency.
“I realized I was doing the right thing,” he said.
Many of the activists say it was North Korea’s shelling of a South Korean island in 2010 that catalyzed their anger and mobilized them. It was the first assault by the North on a South Korean civilian area since the Korean War, singling it out from North Korea’s other deadly provocations over the years.
At a recent retreat near Seoul attended by about 40 online campaigners, Park In-beom recalled that the attack made “his blood boil” and his body “shiver with indignation.”
“I seriously contemplated what I can do for my country. Because I’m not an adult, I can contribute by reporting the posts that threaten national security in the cyber world,” he said.
In summer or winter vacations, he goes online for two to three hours a day, wading through web page after web page looking for North Korea sympathizers. For each spell online, he would usually report three to four cases to the intelligence agency. He wants to work for the government in the area of national defense.
It is unclear if there is a link between the Internet patrolling and the rise in prosecutions or increased government censorship of the Internet. The amount of pro-North Korea commentary on the Internet and the level of censorship waxes and wanes with the degree of tension between the two nations.
The conservative government that took power in 2008 has taken a harder line against North Korea sympathizers. Last year it blocked access to 187 pro-North Korean accounts on Twitter and other social networking services. It also removed 79,038 online posts that glorified North Korea, about a 40-fold increase from 2008.
“Cyber activities undermining national security have been increasing but what the state can do about them is limited,” said Yoo Dong-ryul, a senior researcher at the conservative Police Science Institute, a state-run think tank. The teenage activists are part of a “self-cleansing process without state intervention.”
The Supreme Prosecutors Office said it received 127 recommendations to prosecute alleged violations of the security law last year, double the number in 2009. The number of suspects indicted rose from 43 to 63 in the same period.
In 2010, 52 people were indicted by prosecutors. Some 20 were found guilty and seven received prison sentences, according to Lee Yong-kyung, a former lawmaker of a minor opposition party, who received the figures from the Ministry of Justice.
It’s not known how many of those prison sentences were for glorifying North Korea. The justice ministry and the Supreme Prosecutors’ Office didn’t respond to requests for details.
A focal point for the activists is Naver, South Korea’s largest web portal, which hosts three online communities dedicated to weeding out pro-North Korean sentiment. All have started in the past one to two years.
The “Blue Eyes” community was launched following North Korea’s artillery attack on Yeonpyeong island and attracted over 4,000 members with over half under 30, said its manager Jang Mun-jun. Another online group started by a 15-year-old attracted nearly 1,000 members, mostly teens, in a little over a year.
Members proudly share the screen images of pro-North Korean content they have submitted to the intelligence agency and encourage each other.
These have also made inroads into Twitter to counter left-wing pundits advancing reconciliation with the North. The microblogging service has become popular among South Korean liberals who are critical of President Lee Myung-bak.
“Twitter is not a tool for communication but a weapon,” said one 16-year-old student who had reported more than 100 cases of pro-North Korean online content to the intelligence agency. “Joining Twitter is a must-do for patriotic activities.” The student requested anonymity, citing the possibility of becoming a target for pro-North Korea activists who might include teachers.
Kim Jong-bo, a member of Lawyers for a Democratic Society, said that having grown up with anti-communism education, he can understand why students follow the government without questioning.
“I’d like to tell them to listen to different opinions,” Kim said.
- 1 year ago > newstome1
How Monsanto and their GMO agenda dominate our colleges and universities:
We’ve told you how Monsanto dominates American agriculture. We’ve told you how they dominate the government departments that are supposed to be overseeing them (see: Monsanto empoloyees in the halls of government). And we’ve told you how Monsanto dominates the researchers who should be determining the safety of their GMO products (see: Monsanto blocks research on GMO safety). Now a new report shows how Monsanto is dominating the colleges and universities that train the next generation of farmers, researchers and regulators.
Here’s what happens when corporations begin to control education.
pic: anti monsanto crop circle in the Philippines.
- 1 year ago > iggymogo-deactivated20120925