This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Is Copyright Infringement Now Seen As Terrorism?
We reported last year:
The government treats copyright infringers as terrorists, and swat teams have been deployed against them. See this, this, this and this.
As the executive director of the Information Society Project at Yale Law School notes:
This administration … publishes a newsletter about its efforts with language that compares copyright infringement to terrorism.
The American government is using copyright laws to crack down on political dissent just like China and Russia.
We noted last month that the “cyber-security” laws have very little to do with security.
The Verge reported last month:
In the State of the Union address Tuesday, President Obama announced a sweeping executive order implementing new national cybersecurity measures, opening the door for intelligence agencies to share more information about suspected “cyber threats” with private companies that oversee the nation’s “critical infrastructure.” The order is voluntary, giving companies the choice of whether or not they want to receive the information, and takes effect in four months, by June 12.
***
“Cyber threats cover a wide range of malicious activity that can occur through cyberspace,” wrote Caitlin Hayden, spokeswoman for the White House National Security Council, in an email to The Verge. “Such threats include web site defacement, espionage, theft of intellectual property, denial of service attacks, and destructive malware.”
***
“The EO [executive order] relies on the definition of critical infrastructure found in the Homeland Security Act of 2002,” Hayden wrote.
The Homeland Security Act of 2002 (PDF), passed in the wake of the September 11, 2001 terror attacks, was what created the Department of Homeland Security. At that time, the US was still reeling from the attacks and Congress sought to rapidly bolster the nation’s defenses, including “critical infrastructure” as part of its definition of “terrorism.” As the act states: “The term ‘terrorism’ means any activity that involves an act that is dangerous to human life or potentially destructive of critical infrastructure or key resources…”
But again, that act doesn’t exactly spell out which infrastructure is considered “critical,” instead pointing to the definition as outlined in a 2001 bill, also passed in response to September 11, which reads:
“The term “critical infrastructure” means systems and assets, whether physical or virtual, so vital to the United States that the incapacity or destruction of such systems and assets would have a debilitating impact on security, national economic security, national public health or safety, or any combination of those matters.”
This is the same exact definition that was originally provided in the president’s cybersecurity order as originally published on Tuesday, meaning that the White House appears to be relying to some degree on circular reasoning when it comes to that definition. Some in Washington, including the right-leaning think tank The Heritage Foundation, are worried that the definition is too broad and “could be understood to include systems normally considered outside the cybersecurity conversation, such as agriculture.”
In fact, the Department of Homeland Security, which is one of the agencies that will be sharing information on cyber threats thanks to the order, includes 18 different industries in its own label of “critical infrastructure,” from agriculture to banking to national monuments. There’s an argument to be made that including such a broad and diverse swath of industries under the blanket term “critical” is reasonable given the overall increasing dependence of virtually all businesses on the internet for core functions. But even in that case, its unclear how casting such a wide net would be helpful in defending against cyber threats, especially as there is a limited pool of those with the expertise and ability to do so.
It’s not just intellectual property. The government is widely using anti-terror laws to help giant businesses … and to crush those who speak out against their abusive practices, labeling anyone who speaks out as a potential bad guy.
- advertisements -
and now that corporations are people, they are only acting in "the public interest."
redefinition solves everything
No, mega corporations are better than people. They don't pay taxes and their social engineering is tax free. They launder trillions in drugs and nobody in the organnizations are held accountable except the whistle blowers.
The truth is it is the financial power perched on top of the major corporations that is the REAL POWER in play here - the so called POWER OF MONEY that Eisenhower called out as being "gravely to be regarded."
"In this revolution, research has become central, it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government.
Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers.
The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present – and is gravely to be regarded.
Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite."
http://www.keepandshare.com/doc/4768883/debtmoneytyranny-6-1-pdf-60k?tr=77
Actually, I thought the law was pretty clear - the corporation has one goal, the maximization of profits.
Once you realize that the graveley to be regarded power of money controls both Big Agra and Big Pharma, you will understand that the way to maximize profits is to use Big Agra to drive hunger, obesity and chronic disease so that Big Pharma can mop up the profits on the back end.
Karl Marx is proud of you. The rest of us know you're an idiot.
What logic did you use to conclude Karl Marx would be proud of me exposing the fraud that is debt based money and the criminal multi-national corporations that are controlled by the money definer/creator class that inflict Debt Money Tyranny on society?
You did use some thoguht and logic, right?
Or am I feeding a troll?
+1 as always. Yep. Your, "corporations are people" phrase reminds me of Charlton Heston in Soylent Green (Harry Harrison is one of my all time favourite authors). Apt too since corporations are entities that mash up people into unrecognizable cogs in their machine to prostitute themselves and their products to the comsumer world.
It is a bit odd that the US Supreme court does not recognize actual human beings as "People" under the law, if they were from, say Yemen, and were kidnapped and tortured by the lovely goons from Langley in cases of mistaken identity. Whereas foreigners suddenly become "People" (To sue) if they run a multi-billion dollar company that had the misfortune of putting their logo on an American oil platform, run by American oil rig workers, maintained by American safety companies, that had critical safety parts made in America which blew up causing an environmental disaster. Odd.
Don't overstate the power of so-called "elites" - no capitalist actually really takes decisions on their own; they all depend on such so-called minions as "experts", "advisers", "analysts", you name it, for everything, including their private lives (ie: fortune managers, personal secretaries, etc. - this, not to mention butlers, cooks, janitors,...), so who really controls whom and what?
There's a (Benjamin Fulford's) interview with Rockefeller, where at some point this has to ask some such "assistant" what the hell was he talking about; at other point, this just tells him whether he should answer or not - so, again, the question is: who actually controls whom and what?
This is a constant throughout History, and many (all?) empires have fallen precisely because of it.
I think you don't properly construe the power of the dElites.
Have you ever heard the term "the buck stops here?"
Do you know why that term exists?
Do you know WHO has the most "bucks" to do the most "stopping" whenever they chose?
http://www.keepandshare.com/doc/4768883/debtmoneytyranny-6-1-pdf-60k?tr=77
If the richest person on the planet has an agenda that is important to them, they get it done.
Well, I don't know as I want a lawyer to tell me what I cannot do. I hire him to tell how to do what I want to do.
- J. P. Morgan
I don't think you paid attention to what I said (and I meant overestimate, btw).
JP Morgan (heck, anyone, for that matter) could've said whatever the hell he wanted - he could even try to do it - that doesn't change he was no one man band, which only happens when it can't be avoided, as any small time bandit could tell you (to prove: JPM himself was nothing more than a Rotschild minion, which, again, only existed as a necessity).
So do you think you could run the world all by yourself, say, if you just had all the money in it?
First, even before that could happen, said "money" would simply lose all its value, which is nothing more than a function of its demand (and therefore, also its offer); then, really, who are you - omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent GOD? Because, apparently, even this needed (business?) angels for at least minor administrative tasks - and you know just what happened to one such characters and the ensuing management problems that has apparently brought onto the whole operation...
Good - you have done some research and have some insight into the power structure.
Your view of one person "running everything" as though "one person" had to personally manage "everything" is an impossibility - of course that doesn't exist. Even a group of people can't individually handle it all. But they can create systems in which others naturally follow their economic instincts in order to fulfill globalist objectives, can they not?
"Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers.
The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present – and is gravely to be regarded.
Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite"
~Dwight Eisenhower, Fairwell Speech
These people are master of economics and how to use cost / benefit to manipulate people to make the right decision. Let me give a specific example.
Big Pharma is a major subdivision of Big Finance Capital (with the Rothschilds way up the membership ladder). They don't want the major media telling people that Big Pharma products (FDA approved and properly prescribed) kill, deader than a hammer, over 100,000 people a year - a 9/11 body count every 11 or 12 days, repeated over and over and over.
The fact they test vaccines until they kill children isn't good for business, either.
Under your scenario, as I understand it, it is implausible for a Rothschild to run around and control all the news agencies. I agree. Therefore, you conclude no control is present. I disagree. You aren't visualizing the systems they set up in order to make their agenda THE ECONOMIC OUTCOME.
They lobby government to allow Big Pharma advertising on the MSM - NOW MSM MANAGEMENT, WHOSE SOLE JOB IS TO MAXIMIZE PROFITS, KNOWS THEY WILL LOSE MILLIONS IN PROFITS IF THEY MAKE BIG PHARMA MAD. THEY NOW SELF CENSOR BECAUSE BIG FINANCE CAPITAL SET UP THE ECONOMICS TO ACHIEVE THEIR OWN ENDS.
This isn't hypothetical, it is real:
Unsettling Accounts:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZkDikRLQrw
If someone screws up, they get fired and the "news" gets covered up. Dylann Ratigan is an example. He screamed for banksters to go to jail and he was - POOF - Gone from prime time in a week (and the message to every other anchor was sent loud and clear, there is aline you don't cross if you want your job intact). Cenk wasn't sucking up to government on MSNBC, so they told him to "look more like a congressman," offered him double the money to give up his show for a bit part and fired him when he didn't suck up - even though his ratings were great.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5x7o0sNrulg
Judge Nap was canned for telling the truth...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mIX5_mFVXZM
I'm not arguing for absolute control. That's a straw man. If they had absolute control, Unsettling Accounts (from the The Corporation documentary) and Cenk's expose wouldn't exist. Judge Nap wouldn't have glotched the Matrix for 5 minutes. But they do and he did - AND IT STILL DOESN'T MATTER.
Hell, the official Big Finance Capital sponsored narrative of 911 is physically impossible - it wouldn't be if they were all powerful.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NiHeCjZlkr8&list=UUxvGFyCUkbMk4pB0C-AUJw...
https://www.youtube.com/user/DavidChandler911
The beauty of their system is that they can make mistakes left and right AND STILL GET AWAY WITH IT.
Their seizure and design of the schooling/conditioning system appears to play a key role in manipulating people into believing their lies.
https://www.tragedyandhope.com/th-films/the-ultimate-history-lesson/
The monetary system is a 5th grade level total fraud - and I've posted this and the Fed's criminal bubble blowing over 15,000 times and received maybe 10 responses to the biggest con game and Art of War operation in human history.
http://www.keepandshare.com/doc/4768883/debtmoneytyranny-6-1-pdf-60k?dn=y
http://www.keepandshare.com/doc/3324744/wmdebt-graph-3-79k?dn=y
Even though the Fed is a black letter law criminal organization that is trivial to expose BEYOND ANY AND ALL DOUBT, NO ESTABLISHMENT ENTITY IN THE LAST 30 YEARS HAS EXPOSED THEM.
I have a proposition for you.
If you can get the absolute facts, as presented in the two PDFs I've posted, on to the MSM then I will admit it isn't controlled. The "news" (which isn't news, but corporate lies as per Unsettling Accounts) ahs to report on this - you can't call in and hijack a radio show against the will of the station.
I bet you can't.
In fact, I bet you already know you can't and won't even bother to try.
I mean, this is the story of a decade - the Fed is a black letter law criminal that blew the world's greatest credit bubble contrary to law and is the root cause of the economic collapse that continues to persist...
Get it on the MSM and prove my hypothesis wrong. Or right - when you fail miserably... and you may well get put on a watch list.
Close networks with multiple layers of encryption, redirectors outside their jurisdiction will give them fits.
Multiple hops are a must.
Single points of failure must be avoided.
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=onion+router
MUTE, Garlic routing, Freenet, Sneakernet, foreign (non Echelon countries) anon VPNs, anon file hosts, anon email, etc.
It will only go downhill, from here.
Not tor or onion. That is good for certain applications but in that case you have to know that certain 3 letter agencies and other entities purposely have nodes operating in that cluster. The only way to combat that is to use encrypted messaging something that for example uses public and private keys if open source. They can't decrypt that without having both keys. I would say use vpn or openvpn tunnels with encrypted messaging in the tunnel as a more secure transport method.
If you really think public private key encryption is secure... The hard part is the keys... there is the tricky bit about "knowing" who you are talking to. Think about certificates and who controls them.
... and who created the Inter-NET, and how it is used today. Wiki-Pedia called it's site "Temple for a mind" two days ago. This is not true. The internet was created AS a Temple in Mind, but there should be NO MONEY and NO TRADE in The Temple.
I told Israelitos in 2008 that the Internet COULD BE their The Third Temple,
(here: http://forum.souz.co.il/viewtopic.php?t=79126)
but they did not listen.
Th Google company advertises here, E-bay sells here, Big Banks transfer money here. This is not a kind of a Temple for sure.
Point taken. Every technique has certain vunerabilities to it. But assuming I know who am talking to I can generate my own self signed certificate. My point is this is related to protection against traffic sniffing and MITM attacks on the network level. If the actual machines are compromised that is another story.
same goes for anon proxies, vpns, p2p, etc. - 1st rule of anonymity is don't trust you're anonymous.
Best fucking comment I've seen on ZH.
War-driving a spoofed MAC at truck stops, hotels, even neighborhoods, is the only "anonymous proxy" you need.
That means 99/100 ZH posers need to get out of mommy's basement.
...and change your keys!
Nothin' like drawing attention to one's self.
No no it's okay, you just steal a different van every day before you head out.
What?
http://www.zdnet.com/blog/facebook/british-student-jailed-for-hacking-in...
McDonald's worker who hacked into emails between Selena Gomez and Justin Bieber jailed for 12 monthshttp://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/celebritynews/9279990/McDonalds-worker-w...
Court Upholds Google-NSA Relationship Secrecyhttp://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/05/google-nsa-secrecy-upheld/
Google Transparency Report
https://www.google.com/transparencyreport/removals/government/
Like other technology and communications companies, Google regularly receives requests from government agencies and courts around the world to remove content from our services. In this report, we disclose the number of requests we receive from each government in six-month periods with certain limitations.
Kim.com down in NZ is fighting back. He is a pretty smart German-Finn who is probably more intelligent and articulate than all the Ju-st-i-c-e D-e*p-t lawyers. The New Zealand govt is pretty embarrassed after their SWAT raid on hi smansion in NZ. NZ'ers and the govt have rallied around him against Ob-um--mbe-rs go-ons.
The police state is starting to enclose us pretty good now. Good luck controlling such a large geographic area with the boot, but we'll see, I guess.
We The People aka the 'american' middle class run a business of extorting the weak, farming the poor.
Any extortion or farming scheme needs an enforcer.
State institutions like the army, the Police, the Justice work as primary enforcers for the 'american' middle class.
All of them are middle class institutions.
Control is and will be effective.
Actually, you could just cut to the quick with all of this, and simply state that 'terrorism' is now everything and anything which the state has not explicitly mandated you to do.
But that would leave legions of blog writers under-employed, and over-tasked with dwelling upon the stark reality of that truth.
I imagine the 2700+ MRAPS armored vehicles will make it much easier...
And with zero resistance, why should they ever back off?
I don't think they would back off even with a lot of resistance. In fact I can't think of any amount of resistance that would do the trick.
And that of course is the problem.
cougar_w said:
I don't know if, at the end of the day, all that much resistance will be necessary. In the long run I think the system is more susceptible to ignore-ance (as in being ignored).
Exactly. All resistance against a facade does is to strengthen it. Facades are undermined by the widespread discovery of their illegitimacy, not campaigns to create a more just version of it.
But no, let's all "fight the good fight," and die stupid.
Divide and conquer is certainly alive and well. I'd like to think that the doctrine of the lesser of two evils isn't that complicated, but then I come into these threads, it's like it never existed.
Here's the clue folks. Social harmony will never emerge from violence, as it carries the seeds of its own destruction. Sure you can "beat" evil, but only by being more evil. Now, where's the value in that?
The only true way to win against evil is to smother it with love. Look around, and it's fairly obvious that evil has nothing to worry about.
Ridicule works too ;-)
Two to the chest, one to the head- is an old cliche that comes to mind.
Head or hips. avoid the body armor.
Double-Tap
In Amerika, not is own books, CDs, VHS, or media... media is own you.