Jay Rockefeller-Evidence of Psychosis: I OWN THE INTERNET/OBAMA CAN PULL PLUG

[Dig]

Sen. Rockefeller Lets Slip the Spying Truth: Drift Nets To Be Legalized
http://www.infowars.com/sen-rockefeller-lets-slip-the-spying-truth-drift-nets-to-be-legalized/
Ryan Singel Wired February 05, 2008   

In a Senate floor speech, Senator Jay Rockefeller (D-West Virginia) inadvertently made plain that the proposed changes to the nation’s spying laws radically expand how the government wiretaps inside the United States. Rockefeller was decrying an amendment that would require the government to discard non-emergency evidence if a court later finds that the spying methods violate the law.

Rockefeller makes clear that the impending changes to the law aren’t about making it easier for the National Security Agency to listen in on a particular terrorism suspect’s phone calls. Instead, the changes are about letting the nation’s spooks secretly and unilaterally install filters inside America’s phone and internet infrastructure.

[Dig]

sorry for the repost, but...

Hey Jay Rockefeller,

we already know all about your planned cyberattack:


Live Free or Die Hard, PTECH, Next 9/11 the writing is on the walls
Live Free or Die Hard 2: Ptech/CVE.MITRE.ORG/DHS/Horizons/EA/IT Governance/USAID

Booz Allen Hamilton-Staged Cyber Attacks-Everything backdoored w/Ptech
Allbaugh-Rothschild-NORTHCOM-J. Beatty/TSSI-MUMBAI FF was for US Policestate

Smart Grid: Government spying targets Rural America
Booz Allen Hamilton, a subsidiary of Halliburton? | Black OP Assassins Exposed
GIG "Interoperability" = e-Governance, False Flag Extortion for Non-Compliance
Drills/CBRNE/CCMRF/"Preparedness"=False Flag Pandemic/Attacks    
NRO Declassified 9/11-Pretext for Forced Enterprise Architecture/Vertical Integration/GIG FSD    
EDMO dhsMRR Criminal Database - Ptech, NIEM, N-DEx Cognitive Engineering
PROMIS/Ptech/Choicepoint/Infragard/DIEBOLD=World ID/Carbon Tax/IPv6
Ptech CONFIRMED-Booz Allen, *False Flag Warning* to usher in Internet2/GIG
Net-Centric "Warfighters" to kill women & children "WE play God, SHUT UP!"
Joint Subscription Proxy Agent/Services/Alert Manager (J-SPASAM)=TREASON
Confirmed FBI Cover-Up Sibel Edmonds Nuke Secrets Case
Raytheon/E-Systems exposed - Direct involvement in 9/11 black op


EVERYBODY KNOWS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Dig]

Hey Jay, we even know about one of the patsies set up to take the fall:

Resigned Cybersecurity "chief" to be used as scapegoat for 2009 false flag
http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=91406.0


We watched live free or die hard and we do not believe it.

This is planned, staged, and architected by you, your pappy, Rothschild, Brzezinski, the Trilateral Commission, the CFR, and Bilderberg.

EVERYBODY KNOWS!

[Dig]

Jay Rockefeller - John McDonnell - Army Intelligence - Booz Allen Hamilton - Director of National Intelligence

February 1, 2007
Senate Select Committee on Intelligence: Opening Statement at Confirmation of John M. McConnell to be DNI
http://rockefeller.senate.gov/press/record_committee.cfm?id=281555&&
Chairman John D. Rockefeller IV



Today the Committee begins its consideration of the nomination of Mike McConnell to be the next Director of National Intelligence.

Admiral McConnell appears before us after a long absence from government service.  He has not, however, been absent from the field of intelligence.  He served in the United States Navy for 29 years, rising to the rank of Vice Admiral, a rare accomplishment for an intelligence officer.

During this period of public service, he served as Director of Intelligence on the Joint Staff during the Persian Gulf and as Director of the National Security Agency, our nation’s largest intelligence agency.

Upon retiring from the Navy Admiral McConnell went to work for Booz Allen Hamilton where he has been a Senior Vice President for Intelligence and National Security business.   He also is currently Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Intelligence and National Security Alliance, an industry group that works with the government looking for ways to solve some of our complex intelligence problems.

Admiral McConnell, I was particularly interested in reading in your responses to our pre-hearing questions on how you came to be an intelligence officer.  As you described it, after serving a tour in combat in Vietnam you wanted to know how to provide better intelligence to those in combat who needed it.  This tells me some important things about you.  First, you know what combat is really like and how important it is to try to keep the young men and women serving in our military out of harms way whenever possible.  Second, you know how important intelligence is to our military commanders and to those who make the decisions affecting our national security.  And finally, you are an intelligence professional by choice, not accident, and that means you have a dedication to this field.

If you are confirmed, you will be taking over an experiment still in its early stages -- an experiment intended to make sure that U.S. intelligence provides policy makers, military commanders and other decision makers with the best information available.

While the Congress passed the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 in the wake of the 9/11 Commission Report and this Committee’s report on problems with prewar intelligence related to Iraq, those were only the most recent in a long line of studies and reports describing structural problems in the Intelligence Community.  The question we will have for you today, and the challenge you will face if confirmed, will be to figure out if we got it right.

I am convinced that separating the DNI from the day-to-day operation of the Central Intelligence Agency was the right step.  For the first time ever we now have someone whose primary responsibility is organizing the different pieces of the intelligence community.  I also think the arrangement benefits the CIA since it now has the undivided attention of its director.

But beyond the act of separating the two jobs, it is less clear whether the structure of the Office is the DNI is ideal to accomplish its mission.  We did not pull the technical collection agencies out of the Defense Department and we did not give the DNI direct authority over the main collection or analytic components of the community.

We gave the DNI the authority to build the national intelligence budget, but we left the execution of the budget with the agencies.  We gave the DNI tremendous responsibilities, the question is did we give the position enough authority.

I will also want to hear from you today about how you envision your relationship with us.  And this will be an important line of questioning.  This Committee is charged with overseeing the operation of the Intelligence Community.  That is a job that Vice Chairman Bond and I and all the other members take very seriously.

Congressional oversight is sometimes viewed only as criticism, and at times we will criticize.  But it is our goal to make the Intelligence Community the best that it can be.  Oversight should be cooperative not confrontational.

In order to accomplish this goal we will have to work together to ensure that this Committee has the access to the materials it needs to conduct oversight.  It is no secret that I have not been happy in the past with decisions by the Administration to restrict access to required information by our members and staff.  Depriving our Committee the information it needs, or over-restricting access to the information, not only weakens congressional oversight of secretive intelligence programs, it generates unnecessary suspicion and, worst of all, undercuts the effectiveness of these activities.

Vice Chairman Bond and I are committed to working together to overcome this problem but we will need your help.  In our discussion today I am not interested in rehashing what has or has not transpired in the past.  I want to establish a positive and collaborative relationship for the future.  I look forward to getting your views on these and other issues you are going to be facing.

[Dig]

I think Geo says it best....

To Jay Rockefeller, from all of us here at Prison Planet Forum, we extend a hearty:

F*****************k You!

[Dig]

Senator (D-WV) John D. Rockefeller IV
[In refererence to why he believes the Internet should not exist]
Wednesday, March 18th, 2009
Commerce Secretary Confirmation Hearing:

[...1:53...]
Both the President Bushs'  
Director of National Intelligence,
Mike McConnell who I greatly respect, and
President Obama's Director of National Intelligence,
Admiral (Dennis) Blair, who I greatly respect,
have labelled
cyber security,
perpetrated through the
internet,
as
the #1 national hazard of attack
on the homeland
[...]
It almost makes you ask the question,
'would it have been better if
we'd never invented the internet?'.
[...1:57...]
You have to work very close
live with the intelligence community
because it's a question of trying to keep up.
You never get ahead of those who perpetrate violence,
this kind of violence against us.
All we can try to do is to get ahead for a little bit, then fall behind.
It's a losing game for us.
And it's potentially a...
catastrophic national event,
and i just -- i just think it's got to be at...
the top of your list, and
Americans don't know about it.
We don't believe it's going to happen
because that's not the kind of thing that is likely to happen
in a place called the United States of America,
but it already has.
And it threatens the nation
unlike anything else.
More so than...
suitcase booms,
dirty bombs,
plutonium bombs.
This is what threatens us.
I lay that down as a major, major subject.
We will be having a hearing tomorrow,
be having many, many others.
It's that serious.

[Dig]

January 21,22, 2009...

Colin Powell (Knight's Commander to The Queen of England): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pLPOeQZdHYw

Joseph Biden (Vice President of the USA): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dOwb9l0DtRA&feature=related

Here is an analysis from AJ, skip to 8mins: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yiN2PUKkmvM&feature=related

Transcription of Joe's statement by PP Forum Member Flur:

----------------------------
Joe Biden - October 19th, 2008 - Seattle, WA

"..so there's gonna be a lot of tough decisions Barack's gonna have to make, a lot of very tough decisions, including on foreign policy.  And here's the point I want to make.  Mark my words.  Mark my words.  It will not be 6 months before the world tests Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy.  The world is looking.  We're about to elect a brilliant 47 year old President of the United States of America.  

Remember I said it standing here

if you don't remember anything else I said.  

Watch.  

We're gonna have an international crisis,

a generated crisis to test the mettle of this guy.  

And he's gonna have to make some really tough -- I don't know what the decision's gonna be,

but I promise you it will occur.  

As a student of history, and having served with 7 Presidents.  

I guarantee you it's gonna happen.

 I can give you at least 4 or 5 scenarios from where it might originate.."

Transcripts of the other clips also by Flur:

From:  http://www.clipsandcomment.com/2008/10/19/transcript-colin-powell-on-meet-the-press-endorses-barack-obama-october-19/



Colin Powell on Meet the Press (October 19th, 2008)


MR. BROKAW:  If you were called into the Oval Office on January 21st by the new president, whoever it happens to be, and he said to you, “General Powell, I need from you your recommendation on where I begin.  What should be my priorities?” Where would you start?

GEN. POWELL:  I would start with talking to the American people and talking to the world, and conveying a new image of American leadership, a new image of America’s role in the world.

The problems will always be there, and there’s going to be a crisis come along in the 21st or 22nd of January that we don’t even know about right now.  And so I think what the president has to do is to start using the power of the Oval Office and the power of his personality to convince the American people and to convince the world that America is solid, America is going to move forward, and we’re going to fix our economic problems, we’re going to meet our overseas obligations.  But restoring a sense of purpose, a sense of confidence in the American people and, in the international community, in America.

Starting at around 8 minutes in:

AJ:  He (Obama) can sucker the public 

TM:  Absolutely

AJ:  He can sucker the public better

TM:  And Americans are always on a honeymoon with a new President.  They give him a certain amount of time 

AJ:  And McCain's kinda seen as a Bush III

TM:  Yeah.  McCain as a Bush III.  He's older -- This guy is more vigorous.  He is ready to go.  So when this transformational event that will catapult him into becoming a transformational President, this great event occurs.  It will literally be something so amazing, it will make 9/11 look puny.

AJ:  Well they're saying it's gonna be nukes.  That's an AFP today.  Saying we're gonna get hit by nukes, now I don't know if that's the case.

TM:  If they blame it on Hezbollah or the [sic] Al-Qaeda and say that Iran and Syria masterminded it, it will be discovered by the intelligence agencies that Putin and Russia and somehow the ISI, the intelligence agency of Pakistan were involved.  These are the new enemies of the NEW WORLD ORDER.  But guess what, they have nukes.  This will be World War III and it will end with horrible, horrible destruction.  So don't even think about Wall Street.  I see a little blimp upward.  I see a little sucker rally for people to get involved in.

AJ:  Dead-cat bounce

TM:  The dead-cat bounce.  That's right, they throw it off of the bankers trust building, the tomb of (?) down on Wall Street below and it bounces.  One big bounce.  People get in, they say, "everything is over, everything is gonna be great again."  And by the way, one of the things that they're doing is driving the price of oil down now.  They drove it up, and now the same people, Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, their analysts are putting out reports, "Oil is gonna go down--"

AJ:  I was reading that upwards of 90% of the oil speculation was driven by Goldman Sachs

TM:  Yeah.  Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley.  They're the only 2 left standing, by the way.. with the great big (inaudible).. on Wall Street.

AJ:  So we have this vertical integration happening

TM:  Yeah, and Goldman Sachs, you have Henry Paulson there and by the way, before him the Clinton Administration had Robert Rubin who came from what Wall Street firm?

AJ:  Goldman Sachs

TM:  Well Goldman Sachs.  And Mr. Neel Kashkari?  Ok?

AJ:  Goldman Sachs

TM: Goldman Sachs!  Of course, there they are!

[Dig]

Let me make this very clear if you don't already understand.


Assuming they will carry out a false flag Ptech-based attack (as a result of it's blueprinting capabilities) anyone who accepts their solution to this manufactured crisis will also acquiesce to going to the death camps.

The Internet is THE LAST bastion of virtually complete freedom of speech.

If we stand for this, we lose everything.  There is a plethora of legislative quality, court admissible proof that could put hundreds of key players in prison for life, or sentenced to death for treason.  No one is doing jack sh*t about having all of their money stolen, and what disturbs me about that is there are probably far more people that understand the importance of money to them than anything regarding the Internet.

Most people have been brainwashed to distrust the Internet, and OR they have FAILED to properly deprogram their brains and realize that there is infinitely more truth available there than anywhere else, even physical books.  So when this deathblow to the final frontier of absolute freedom is decimated, most people won't give a sh*t and they will be convinced to thumb or retinal scan to get online in the 100% propagandized, hobbled world of "cloud computing", where ALL trust has been removed from We The People, and handed over 100% to the New World Order.

I just checked my email.  No email from Bermas requesting to be a guest.  Tell you what Alex and Bermas.  You take and read the several hundred pages worth of stuff I posted (which includes all the PDF files) that will take you a few weeks, and if you can understand it like I can, if you can connect the necessary dots, if you can understand at least a basic technical level of it all.

Then you can spend an hour or 2 yourself, and explain it to us on the air.  But you don't have time, because of everything else that is happening, and yes, including things that I myself do not understand (my point is that many people have specialized information and no one knows everything obviously).  But I just figured that, since the Internet is really one of the most important things in the realm of the 1st Amendment, that you might thnik about going into some painstaking detail about what the hell is happening to it, instead of jsut saying "it's a grid" or whatever.  That doesn't cut it, it is far more than that and it is far more serious than that.  Bottom line is this.  In war you have 2 choices, you kill your enemy on the battlefield, or YOU get killed.  Everyone worldwide is going to be forced into a physical war.  There is no escape from it.  Why?  because no one has brought a SINGLE person under arrest, MUCH LESS brought a SINGLE real NWO criminal to justice, PERIOD.  many men before us DIED for less tyranny than this nation and the world is now under.

Nope, no one gives a shit.  The NWO made sure that you have to be worried about shelter, clothing, food, and being able to pay your bills to the point where you could never learn a damned thing about the real world.  And now you get to be a literal, total slave because of it, then you get to die because of it.  You get to die because you thought that watching TV was more important than reading 99 page documents that were largely "dry" reading.  We failed decades ago.  There should have been an all out revolution at least in 1947 when the NSA was passed.  But no.

I could go on but I am at a loss of words for how these criminal scumbag traitors like Jay Rockefeller can think he can open his mouth and utter such viciously wicked fascist psy-op bullshit. 

[Kilika]

Anyone out there think the recent "theft" of those 130 million identities, and Bernake supposedly having his info taken as part of it just an anomoly?

Who's to say they won't come out screaming for more security, saying if the head of the Federal Reserve can't even protect his identity, who can without major changes?

And did anyone else notice the guy they arrested is an admitted government informant for who, the Secret Service, who was previously in trouble for the same thing?

http://www.endpoint-security.info/2009/08/24/data-theft-record-130-million-card-accounts-stolen-by-albert-gonzales/

Data theft record: 130 million card accounts stolen by Albert Gonzales

August 24th, 2009 by Agent Smith

(0) DLP, Data Theft, In The Spotlight, security breach
 
Security magazines and news sites have been raving about the case of Albert Gonzales. This man holds a record no one is really proud of: he has been charged with the largest number of stolen credit and debit cards accounts, about 130 million of them.

The story of Gonzales is rather complicated. After being indicted in May in the TJX breach – the one thought to be the largest in history until recently, it is said Gonzales has worked with the authorities to help them find all those involved in breaches he had taken part in. While his defense lawyer was looking forward to a settlement, new charges have surfaced. The federal authorities have charged him for attacks that breached credit card processor Heartland Payment Systems, retailers 7-Eleven and Hannaford Brothers, and a couple of other companies.

Gonzales seems to be behind all the largest data heists of the past few years:

130 million credit and debit card accounts taken from Heartland Payment Systems’ servers
at least 94 million credit and debit card accounts stolen from TJX
4.2 million accounts were stolen from Hannaford’s servers
 
According to DarkReading, all the attacks Gonzales was involved in used familiar, easy to prevent methods to obtain the information they wanted:

While the attacks appear to be phased-in and coordinated, the attackers didn’t employ any hacks that the victim organizations could not have defended against, experts say. SQL injection, for instance, is the most commonly exploited flaw in Web attacks, according to data from the Web Hacking Incident Database.

Fortunately, Gonzales is being held responsible for the breaches. Let’s just hope no one gets their minds on setting a new record! Apparently, it’s easy to achieve.

I smell a big digital rat!

[Dig]

Jay Rockellefer (1:47)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ct9xzXUQLuY

'It's an individual act, that doesn't require a sleeper cell...'

Give me a break!

[Dig]

[Care of the prison planet forum resident graphics artist Brocke]

[Dig]

Here is 440 pages of fun facts about Rockefeller:

Rockefeller Internationalist - The Man Who Misrules the World
http://www.scribd.com/doc/11999141/Rockefeller-Internationalist-The-Man-Who-Misrules-the-World

[Dig]

Council on Foreign Relations? Motive?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Sovereignty and Globalization
Richard N. Haass, President Council of Foreign Relations
http://yedies.blogspot.com/2007/07/council-on-foreign-relations-supporters.html
February 17, 2006 Project Syndicate

The world’s 190-plus states now co-exist with a larger number of powerful non-sovereign and at least partly (and often largely) independent actors, ranging from corporations to non-government organisations (NGOs), from terrorist groups to drug cartels, from regional and global institutions to banks and private equity funds. The sovereign state is influenced by them (for better and for worse) as much as it is able to influence them. The near monopoly of power once enjoyed by sovereign entities is being eroded.

As a result, new mechanisms are needed for regional and global governance that include actors other than states. This is not to argue that Microsoft, Amnesty International, or Goldman Sachs be given seats in the United Nations General Assembly, but it does mean including representatives of such organisations in regional and global deliberations when they have the capacity to affect whether and how regional and global challenges are met.

Moreover, states must be prepared to cede some sovereignty to world bodies if the international system is to function.

This is already taking place in the trade realm. Governments agree to accept the rulings of the World Trade Organisation because on balance they benefit from an international trading order, even if a particular decision requires that they alter a practice that is their sovereign right to carry out.

Some governments are prepared to give up elements of sovereignty to address the threat of global climate change. Under one such arrangement, the Kyoto Protocol, which runs through 2012, signatories agree to cap specific emissions. What is needed now is a successor arrangement in which a larger number of governments, including the United States, China and India, accept emission limits or adopt common standards because they recognise that they would be worse off if no country did.

All of this suggests that sovereignty must be redefined if states are to cope with globalisation.

At its core, globalisation entails the increasing volume, velocity and importance of flows within and across borders of people, ideas, greenhouse gases, goods, dollars, drugs, viruses, emails, weapons, and a good deal else, challenging one of sovereignty’s fundamental principles: the ability to control what crosses borders in either direction. Sovereign states increasingly measure their vulnerability not to one another, but to forces beyond their control.

Globalisation thus implies that sovereignty is not only becoming weaker in reality, but that it needs to become weaker. States would be wise to weaken sovereignty in order to protect themselves, because they cannot insulate themselves from what goes on elsewhere. Sovereignty is no longer a sanctuary.

This was demonstrated by the American and world reaction to terrorism. Afghanistan’s Taliban government, which provided access and support to al-Qaeda, was removed from power. Similarly, America’s preventive war against an Iraq that ignored the UN and was thought to possess weapons of mass destruction showed that sovereignty no longer provides absolute protection. Imagine how the world would react if some government were known to be planning to use or transfer a nuclear device or had already done so. Many would argue correctly that sovereignty provides no protection for that state.

Necessity may also lead to reducing or even eliminating sovereignty when a government, whether from a lack of capacity or conscious policy, is unable to provide for the basic needs of its citizens. This reflects not simply scruples, but a view that state failure and genocide can lead to destabilising refugee flows and create openings for terrorists to take root.

The North Atlantic Treaty Organisation’s intervention in Kosovo was an example where a number of governments chose to violate the sovereignty of another government (Serbia) to stop ethnic cleansing and genocide. By contrast, the mass killing in Rwanda a decade ago and now in Darfur, Sudan, demonstrate the high price of judging sovereignty to be supreme and thus doing little to prevent the slaughter of innocents.

Our notion of sovereignty must therefore be conditional, even contractual, rather than absolute. If a state fails to live up to its side of the bargain by sponsoring terrorism, either transferring or using weapons of mass destruction, or conducting genocide, then it forfeits the normal benefits of sovereignty and opens itself up to attack, removal or occupation. The diplomatic challenge for this era is to gain widespread support for principles of state conduct and a procedure for determining remedies when these principles are violated.

The goal should be to redefine sovereignty for the era of globalisation, to find a balance between a world of fully sovereign states and an international system of either world government or anarchy.

The basic idea of sovereignty, which still provides a useful constraint on violence between states, needs to be preserved.

But the concept needs to be adapted to a world in which the main challenges to order come from what global forces do to states and what governments do to their citizens, rather than from what states do to one another.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Now, what do you own the world?
How do you own disorder, disorder
Somewhere, between the sacred silence and sleep
Disorder, disorder, disorder"

[Dig]

Quote of the f**king year by anyone on radio or TV:

Anti_Illuminati
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GfUn9DF47wU

"I wanna call out something right now.  I know who’s carrying out…I know that you guys listening that are in intelligence…I know who’s carrying out this false flag cyber crap that you guys are pulling.  

"It’s Booz Allen Hamilton and MITRE Corporation.  

"Both of your organizations are criminal terrorist organizations.  And you’re under the AFCA, which is the Armed Forces Communications and Electronics Association as well as the NCOIC, which is the Network Center Operations Industry Consortium.  

"All of you are criminal terrorists.  And, you Generals that I mentioned, you are enemies of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.  And you need to be arrested, and you need to be tried for treason immediately.  

"Get the hell out of my country!  

"If you think that I will submit to you, or the American people are going to submit to you....  

"You have been illegally set up."

~~~~~[...2-Tier Internet...]~~~~

All you, all of you top brass that are gonna be engaging in this fake, non-existent, cyber terror that’s gonna be staged by Booz Allen Hamilton and all this.  It’s ridiculous.  And I wanna mention one other thing.  

There’s another reason why cyber security is a total fraud.

OK?  NORTHCOM as well as every other one of their allies in the new world order.  

They’re immune to cyber attacks.

Do you know why?  Because they have something called a TechGuard PoliWall filter.  
http://www.techguardsecurity.com/docs/poliwall_data.pdf
It’s a $7,500 transparent network bridge appliance that uses artificial intelligence Neuro-Net devices that heuristically analyzes incoming traffic.  And they…there’s a symposium that they had where they did simulated attacks from China.  
And they were able to successfully defeat everything.  

The new world order systems are immune to attack.

Even the ones that are on the regular grid…irrespective…they have their own separate systems.  But they’re already immune to stuff.  The only ones that aren’t immune are the one’s that they carry false flags out on so that they can sell that as an excuse.  “Well, you need more security because, well, you know, the system needs to be changed because you need to get onto our enslavement system."

[Dig]

Hey in November, Jay Rockefeller was seen as "the people's man":


~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Change At FCC And Congress: Good News For Media Reform
http://www.newscorpse.com/ncWP/?tag=jay-rockefeller
Filed under: FCC, General — Mark @ 2:54 pm 11/21/2008
 

The signature slogan for the 2008 campaign season was a single word that can spark a thousand interpretations: CHANGE! [It narrowly beat out "Maverick" and "You Betcha"] And change there will be.

This week, something happened in the House of Representatives that is almost unheard of. The sacred principle of seniority was set aside when Henry Waxman of California booted John Dingell of Michigan from the chairmanship of the Energy and Commerce Committee. Dingell had been chairing the committee since the flood of Noah, and through most of his tenure he was a friend to the industries over which he had jurisdiction. Waxman, on the hand, is known for his work on the Government Oversight Committee as a bulldog who kept a close watch on the people’s interests. He held numerous hearings to investigate corporate abuse, greed, and corruption.

Since the FCC falls within the Commerce Committee’s jurisdiction, there is good reason to assume that Waxman will put them on a short leash. He is an advocate of Network Neutrality and strict enforcement of anti-trust law. He has been deeply involved with environmental and healthcare issues for many years and will likely want to focus on those matters. Consequently, he may leave a lot of the media-related heavy lifting to Ed Markey, chair of the Telecom subcommittee. Markey is an ally who’s views and priorities are in sync with Waxman.

Combine these adjustments in the House with news that the Senate Commerce Committee is undergoing its own upheaval and there is real hope for reform. Jay Rockefeller will be taking the gavel from Daniel Inouye, another old-time industry bull. Rockefeller is far more likely to support initiatives for far-sighted projects like universal broadband (making the Internet more like a utility that is available to everyone). He will get help from Sen. Byron Dorgan, the chairman of the Subcommittee on Interstate Commerce, who has sponsored legislation to reduce the number of television stations and newspapers that a corporation can own.

In addition to these leaders in Congress, the makeup of the FCC is going to change as well. Barack Obama has gotten off to good start by naming a couple of knowledgeable and forward-looking academics to lead his Transition Team: Susan Crawford and Kevin Werbach. He has also tapped Julius Genachowski and Blair Levin, both top aides to former FCC chairman Reed Hundt, as advisors. One of them may turn out to be the new FCC chair. And given Obama’s own statements on the media, there is more potential for positive developments in the next eight months than there has been in the past eight years. Here is an excerpt from the Technology statement on his website:

“As president, Obama will encourage diversity in the ownership of broadcast media, promote the development of new media outlets for expression of diverse viewpoints, and clarify the public interest obligations of broadcasters who occupy the nation’s spectrum.”

There is much to be done to recover from the past few years of regressive policy and obedience to corporate domination. But this is as promising a beginning as one can expect. It is now up to the new administration to follow through, and an active citizenry to be vigilant and vocal.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Are these people insane?  Rockefeller good for the Internet? He wants to nuke it!

[Dig]

Hey "Net Neutrality" Sheep!  

Do you understand now about "Net Neutrality"?

The people pushing "Net Neutrality" are praising Rockefeller's comments!!!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Chairman Rockefeller elevates cybersecurity to a major priority -- Protecting the cybrastructure
http://precursorblog.com/content/chairman-rockefeller-elevates-cybersecurity-a-major-priority-protecting-cybrastructure
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Thu, 2009-03-19 13:26
Cybersecurity Internet Security Online Safety Open Internet

The cybrastructure is everything that can be digitally connected to the Internet, and the cybrastructure is increasingly vulnerable to cyber attack from hackers, criminals, terrorists and other bad actors. The exploding growth in people, devices, information, and systems connected to the Internet, naturally creates an exponential increase in vulnerabilities that bad actors can exploit.  This makes cybersecurity an increasingly urgent priority.
Many think of cybersecurity as protecting users, organizations, computers, devices, and private/sensitive information, but it is much more. More and more, cybersecurity is about protecting critical systems too; our banking, capital markets, and e-payment systems; our electrical grid and utilities; our health care infrastructure; our public safety and military systems; etc. -- that all can be accessed or hacked by a wide variety users, organizations, computers, and devices.
The cybrastructure now is the vulnerable soft underbelly of our economy and society.  

Fortunately, the security and safety of the cybrastructure is finally getting the priority attention it deserves.  
Today, Chairman Rockefeller of the Senate Commerce Committee said: "It is an understatement that cybersecurity is one of the most important issues we face." Given the serious distress of the world economy, that is saying something. Chairman Rockefeller said he was not being "alarmist," but that he knew what he was talking about since he was just previously Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee 2007-2009.
Yesterday, at the confirmation hearing for the Commerce Secretary nominee, Gary Locke, Chairman Rockefeller called cybersecurity the "number one threat" to the nation's security and Mr. Locke agreed that cybersecurity is "obviously of utmost importance" -- per coverage by Washington Internet Daily.

Please consider this very surprising question that Chairman Rockefeller pondered publicly yesterday: "It almost makes you ask the question, 'Would it have been better if we hadn't invented the Internet?
Wow. Why would a widely-respected, seasoned and even-keeled U.S. Senator raise such a provocative question? The obvious answer is that his extensive experience as Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee strongly suggests to him that the wide open nature of the Internet creates extremely serious security vulnerabilities that most people don't even begin to appreciate.
Now the excellent question that John Markoff of the New York Times asked in the headline of his very important article: "Do We Need a New Internet?" is not the off-base question that his critics tried to imply, but is dead-on point.
It also brings home the chilling assessment of the Internet's original design made recently by the co-father of the Internet, and Google's Internet Evangelist, Vint Cerf.
"It's every man for himself," he says, grinning. "In the end, it seems every machine has to defend itself. The internet was designed that way."    

In sum, why is the security and safety of the cybrastructure is so critically important now?
In the past cybersecurity was not elevated to a high enough priority.
The explosive growth in people, devices and information connected to the Internet naturally produces an exponential increase in vulnerability points for bad actors to exploit.
Our increasingly universal cybrastructure is arguably more important to protect than any individual infrastructure, because it is the internet's cybrastructure that ultimately brings all digitally-enabled infrastructures and systems together into one converged omni-system.    

[Dig]

This is not the first time that John D. Rockefeller IV has used fear to force the circumvention of the US constitution:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Jay Rockefeller Channels Dick Cheney's Fear-Mongering to Urge Telecom Amnesty
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/10/31/4934
Published on Wednesday, October 31, 2007 by Salon.com
by Glenn Greenwald

Leading telecom advocate Fred Hiatt this morning turned over his Washington Post Op-Ed page today to leading telecom advocate Jay Rockefeller, the Democratic Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman, to explain why it is so "unfair and unwise" to allow telecoms to be sued for breaking the law. Just as all Bush followers do when they want to "justify" lawbreaking, Rockefeller's entire defense is principally based on one argument: 9/11, 9/11, 9/11. Thus he melodramatically begins:
In the immediate aftermath of Sept. 11, the Bush administration had a choice: Aggressively pursue potential terrorists using existing laws or devise new, secret intelligence programs in uncharted legal waters. . . .

Within weeks of the 2001 attacks, communications companies received written requests and directives for assistance with intelligence activities authorized by the president. These companies were assured that their cooperation was not only legal but also necessary because of their unique technical capabilities. They were also told it was their patriotic duty to help protect the country after the devastating attacks on our homeland.
Using 9/11 to "justify" telecom amnesty is not only manipulative, but also completely misleading. Telecoms did not merely break the law in the intense days and weeks following the 9/11 attacks. Had they done only that, there would almost certainly be no issue. Indeed, the lead counsel in the AT&T case, Cindy Cohn, said in the podcast interview I conducted with her last week that had telecoms enabled illegal surveillance only in the immediate aftermath of the 9/11 attacks -- but then thereafter demanded that the surveillance be conducted legally -- EFF almost certainly would not have sued at all.

But that isn't what happened. Both the Bush administration and the telecoms jointly broke the law for years. Even as we moved further and further away from the 9/11 attacks, neither the administration nor the telecoms bothered to comply with the law. The administration was too interested in affirming the theory that the President could exercise power without limits, and the telecoms were too busy reaping the great profits from their increasingly close relationship with the Government.

The 9/11 attacks could be a coherent (though not persuasive) defense to lawless surveillance on September 13, 2001 or even on October 13, 2001 -- but not throughout 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006 and into 2007. That is nothing more than deliberate lawbreaking motivated by limitless power (in the case of Bush) and swelling profits (in the case of telecoms). Rockefeller's exploitation of 9/11 and "patriotism" to justify years of illegal spying is shameless in the extreme, and the only thing "unfair and unwise" is to pass laws with no purpose other than to relieve the lawbreakers of all consequences.

Rockefeller continues:
As the operational details of the program remain highly classified, the companies are prevented from defending themselves in court. And if we require them to face a mountain of lawsuits, we risk losing their support in the future.
Here again, Rockefeller is doing nothing more than dutifully reciting the standard Bush script used time and again to "justify" lawbreaking: illegal behavior must be allowed because it is paramount that everything remain secret. Thus, we must allow lawbreakers to be free -- when they torture, abduct innocent people, spy on Americans with no warrants -- because what they did, even though it's against the law, is Secret.

Rockefeller's assertions here are again totally misleading. Courts review classified material all the time. FISA and other laws specifically contain safeguards to ensure that courts can prosecute and otherwise adjudicate lawbreaking while ensuring that genuinely classified information remains concealed. As Cohn explained: "the FISA law has very strict limitations, and allows the judge to exercise a lot of discretion, to keep things that are legimitately national security secrets, secret."

Moreover, the critical facts demonstrating the illegal surveillance here are already public. The Bush administration has admitted openly that it spied on Americans without warrants (which is illegal) and EFF has obtained the AT&T documents detailing its illegal cooperation with the NSA in establishing a domestic dragnet.

Rockefeller's argument is also corrupt because, if accepted, it would mean that high government officials and corporations have a general license to violate our intelligence and surveillance laws with impunity (which is exactly what they have had over the past six years). Lawbreakers have the Jay Rockefellers and Fred Hiatts of our Beltway elite to insist that they cannot be punished because the illegal activities in which they engaged must stay secret.

And that really brings us to the heart of the matter. Rockefeller, Hiatt and their friends plainly see themselves -- along with the telecom executives and lobbyists who flatter and feast them and are their peers and colleagues and friends -- as our elite vanguard. They know best, and when they break the law, it is for our own good. "Laws" are for the masses, to keep social order, to ensure that the Rockefellers and Hiatts can rule in peace and telecom executives can develop their extremely profitable relationships with government agencies without being bothered by "unfair" disruptions, such as court proceedings when they break the law.

"Punishment" for lawbreaking is not for them. Rockefeller -- with his wise and genetically implanted noblesse oblige -- has looked at everything in Secret and knows that there was nothing wrong here. And that's all we need to know. We should place faith in his Judgment that there need be no further examination of what his telecom contributors did. No court proceedings or judges need look at any of this because Jay Rockefeller has adjudged, in secret with Dick Cheney, that telecoms should be protected. Just marvel at these self-loving, patronizing assurances:
Over the past year, the Senate intelligence committee has examined this issue, along with the need to bring the warrantless surveillance program within the law. We closely studied the facts, the documents and the alternatives to liability for the companies. Ultimately, we concluded that if we subject companies to lawsuits when doing so is patently unfair, we will forfeit industry as a crucial tool in our national defense. . . .

Unfortunately, immunity for communications companies has become a cause celebre for opponents of the surveillance program as a whole, and that has led to widespread confusion.
The growing anger over efforts to protect lawbreaking telecoms is nothing more than a "cause celebre." We're just "confused," misdirecting our unbridled, unsophisticated rage to the poor, innocent telecoms. It is up to the Serious Rulers -- Rockefeller and Hiatt and Cheney and Jamie Gorelick -- to protect these executives from the wild masses who are starting to become restless with their childish, confused ideas about how telecoms shouldn't be given license to break what we used to call "the law."

Rockefeller ends his Op-Ed how he began: with condescending deceit. "Lawsuits against the government can go forward," he says, showing how tough he is by declaring: "we rejected the White House's year-long push for blanket immunity covering government officials."

But Rockefeller knows this is untrue. Lawsuits against the government almost certainly cannot proceed. The Bush administration continuously invokes the "state secrets" privilege to compel courts to dismiss any such suits brought against the Government. Worse, because no individual citizens can prove that they were subjected to this illegal surveillance -- because Rockefeller and his friends in the administraiton have ensured that it all has stayed completely secret -- no plaintiff, as the Sixth Circuit has ruled, has "standing" to proceed in NSA lawsuits against the Government.

Thus, amnesty for lawbreaking telecoms would not mean that "we hold government officials accountable for mistakes or wrongdoing." It would mean the opposite. The Cheney-Rockefeller amnesty would strangle to death the sole remaining mechanism for obtaining a judicial ruling as to whether Bush broke the law with his various illegal NSA spying programs. It would be the final nail in the coffin in the attempt to ensure accountability for this lawbreaking.

And Rockefeller knows that, despite his patronizing claims to the contrary. After all, if he were serious about ensuring that Bush officials face consequences for their illegal spying, his bill would include mechanisms to ensure that they cannot invoke legal tactics (states secrets and "standing") to prevent courts from ruling on what they did.

Revealingly, his bill contains no such provisions. Thus, it would simultaneously protect telecoms from being held accountable in courts while allowing Bush officials to continue to shield themselves from legal accountability. It is nothing more noble than an enabling act for government and corporate lawlessness.

Finally, Rockefeller closes with the only other tool in the Bush arsenal: fear-mongering to "justify" lawbreaking. If we do not give amnesty to telecoms, he warns in his most ominous tone, "our intelligence collection could come to a screeching halt" and "the impact would be devastating to the intelligence community, the Justice Department and military officials who are hunting down our enemies." In other words, he tells us -- in his best Cheney impression --unless we give amnesty to his telecom contributors, Al Qaeda will kill us all. That is what his Op-Ed repeatedly asserts.

Again, this argument is so misleading as to be insulting. FISA and other laws already contain amnesty if telecoms can show they acted in good faith. When telecoms comply with the law, they don't get sued. They get sued only when they violate their legal duties to their customers and the country by engaging in exactly the behavior which the American people, through their Congress, decided to prohibit in the form of our "laws."

We want "private industry" -- and government officials -- to be incentivized to abide by our laws, not to break them. That's just so basic. Telecoms will continue to have enormous incentive to cooperate with legal surveillance requests: namely, they earn enormous profits when they receive government contracts for such surveillance. Problems arise only when they break the law, and that's how things work -- or at least are supposed to work -- in a country that lives under "the rule of law."

Rockefeller's bill rewards deliberate lawbreaking. His amnesty gift further bolsters the image he and Fred Hiatt and friends have of America whereby our most powerful Beltway officials and our most lobbyist-protected corporations can break laws with total impunity. No matter how many times Rockefeller and Cheney scream "9/11" and "Terrorists!," the most basic principles of "the rule of law" demand that telecoms and Bush officials -- like everyone else -- be held accountable when they break the law.

Glenn Greenwald was previously a constitutional law and civil rights litigator in New York. He is the author of the New York Times Bestselling book "How Would a Patriot Act?," a critique of the Bush administration's use of executive power, released in May 2006. His second book, "A Tragic Legacy", examines the Bush legacy.
© Salon.com

[Dig]

Another prize winning graphic from Brocke:

[Dig]

Sorry to take so long with getting this out.

I  was a bit tied up with some personal issues yesterday....

Transcript from 1 hour and 14 minutes in on Sunday, March 23rd , 2009's Alex Jones Show on KLBJ.

~~~~~~~~~Begin Transcript~~~~~~~~~~~~
.......
AJ: Josh In NC

Me: Uhh, Yes, Hello Alex. So what I want to try and bring to people’s attention today – is umnn a post that Sane put up on Friday on the forum. But umnnn , what he highlights is ....  just go to YouTube. Rockefeller - basically Jay declared war on the internet. The exact  headline ... umnn...  Hang on let me grab it.

AJ: Yeah, I was listening to BBC radio on XM today - driving into the office  today. ..And they.. Open...They had the inventor of the internet –on there admitting - a British scientist  - that they are already shutting down the original web. Total censorship coming in now, because they are taking over through banking fraud they can’t have us on the web.

Me: (Distortion  over the word– Right)..Exactly and the exact headline at google is “ Jay Rockefeller Internet should have never existed . If you go to YouTube right now and plug that in that should pull it up. And this him basically saying their going to pull the plug on it very soon. And that thread itself  has a lot of evidence  showing that they’re gearing up so that basically ..umnn . you know ... At this point they’ve had kinda their false flag with Marine One

AJ: Yeah claim hackers got the data. Stay there I’m going to put you on hold. Come back to all of your calls after this quick break. I’m Alex Jones – Inforwars.com while you can still visit it and prisonplanet.com. See the Obama Deception online for free. It’s free everywhere just Google the Obama Deception

<Commercial Break>

AJ: Oh Yeah We found the you tube clip of in a senate hearing of senator Jay Rockefeller saying “ hey the Russians the Chinese some kid in another country can attacks us from the internet we got to shut it down. As the New York Times said 2 weeks ago “ A new Safer Internet. Internet 2 where you won’t have any free speech and there will be a few thousand choices of corporate news and information. They’re moving we’re kicking their hind end in now. Good luck in shutting the web down boys. Go ahead and try.
That is coming up a bit later.

AJ: Let’s, who was I talking to just now..? Caller wise? I’ve forgotten the name of who I was directly going too. Ok Josh. I’m talking to Josh in NC. Ok Josh, finish up your points.

Me: Hey yes again Alex great to be back with you. I was the one of course bringing to your attention that rockefe coming out on fri and formally announcing that wish to end the web  well the net in general.   So basically there’s a thread on the prison planet forum discussing  this , there is a a lot of evidence that they are gearing toward this......
.
Alex: ....No  - they admit  Internet2, taxing the web, ending net neutrality, the headlines in Australia , Chinese style internet censorship  . They’re  doing it ...... They’re  doing it.....
 
Me: Yup, their doing it as we speak. And that is the thing Their doing IT NOW. This is happening now. We’re moving to Internet2 and ... as I’m.... ya know ... as I point out on the forum here -ya know -  people are in the matrix....you don’t......  The average Joe doesn’t care about....ya know ... how the internet works it’s like is his TV.

AJ: And the elite Don’t care about him....and...

Me: ..Exactly.....

AJ: And ... And that’s the amazing issue. Thanks for the heads up.  I’ll tell ya,  our listeners give us all these heads up. .....

~~~~End Transcript~~~~~~~

[Dig]

Wow folks, the NWO is completely freaking out over the Internet, just WOW.

Source

Cyber Security Guru Outlines Very Real Threat at ExecutiveBiz Breakfast
January 15th, 2009 by Brian Lustig

It is hard to know what is keeping Melissa Hathaway up at night these days - the cyber security threat facing U.S. citizens, corporations and government entities or the cold and upper respiratory illness she has been battling this week.

Hathaway is Senior Advisor to the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) and Cyber Coordination Executive, and at the ExecutiveBiz Cyber Security Breakfast this past on Tuesday morning she spoke candidly to an audience of Federal IT executives and decision makers about the very real and shared cyber threat facing the country.

For Hathaway, the stakes could not be higher when it comes to the need to dramatically reduce the cyber threat. And now that Hathaway has been asked to remain on board for the incoming Administration, her role as cyber security guru will intensify. In addition to her senior advisor role, Hathaway also chairs the National Cyber Study Group (NCSG), and in January 2008 was appointed the Director of the Joint Interagency Cyber Task Force (JIACTF). I could throw a few more acronyms in her job description but that should offer a glimpse of the extent to which she sits at the heart of the government’s cyber security efforts.

While Hathaway dedicated time to outlining how the cyber threat is real and growing, she stressed that the task of thwarting nefarious cyber activity could not fall solely on the government’s shoulders. Addressing the threat requires greater public discussion and awareness, as well as deeper executive engagement from industry - a public/private sector partnership to identify big crises looming and innovative solutions that could head them off.

And while her cold probably made sleep difficult, what really keeps her up at night is what Hathaway describes as a lack of “situational awareness” - in other words an inability to assess and diagnose current and looming cyber threats across multiple areas of government and the private sector. Though Hathaway painted a dark picture in outlining the challenges, she also came armed with potential solutions - ranging from realigning R&D efforts and improved cyber-education for military professionals to the promise of DARPA’s cyber testing environment.

Hathaway concluded her remarks with a call to action for executives in the room. Not only did she seek a committed partner that would provide the technologies, expertise and resources to address cyber threats, but a partner to help communicate the threat message by monetizing the risk in a way people understand. I may never use my credit card again, but I certainly emerged from the breakfast with a better understand of how real and complex the cyber threat is.
__________________________________________________________________
Source

By Doug Beizer Jan 09, 2009

The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency has awarded multiple contracts to begin the first phase of developing a nation cyber range, a realistic environment for cyber research and testing, DARPA announced.

DARPA officials want the cyber range to be capable of testing several technologies that include security systems that could modify or replace workstation operating systems, and local area network security tools that may replace or modify traditional network operating systems.

Six companies and one university were awarded contracts totaling approximately $30 million DARPA said Jan. 7. BAE Systems, Lockheed Martin Corp., Science Applications International Corp., Sparta, Northrop Grumman Corp., General Dynamics Advanced Information Systems and Johns Hopkins University won contracts, the agency said.

DARPA officials plan to use the cyber range to test technology for the Global Information Grid, the Defense Department's network for warfighters and other personnel. The range must also be able to replicate large-scale military and government networks. It must also replicate commercial and tactical wireless systems.
__________________________________________________________________
Source

With DDK acquisition, ManTech pushes further into cyber security realm
March 22nd, 2009 by JD Kathuria

ManTech recently announced its acquisition of DDK Technology Group, Inc., a provider of cyber security to the Department of Defense, with particular focus on the Naval Criminal Investigative Service (NCIS). Based in Lanham, Md., DDK is expected to generate approximately $14 million in revenue this year.

The acquisition comes at a time when defense companies are positioning themselves to meet growing demands on the cyber front. The Wall Street Journal reports U.S. losses from cyber breaches now run in the billions of dollars, with U.S. agencies from the Pentagon to the Department of Homeland Security having experienced major cyber-break-ins in recent years, including classified systems.



“This acquisition continues ManTech’s focus on the high-end intelligence arena and expands our footprint in cyber security to NCIS,” says George J. Pedersen, Chairman and CEO, ManTech International Corporation.

“Our company has grown around our excellent people and the critical mission requirements of our DoD customer base,” adds Jerry Donahoe, Managing Partner and Tim Donahoe, President of DDK. “Combining with ManTech allows DDK to offer broader solutions to our national security client base. Just as important, aligning our culture with ManTech will afford our professionals with expanded career development opportunities.”
__________________________________________________________________
Source

Cyber security tops 2009 agenda for Lockheed and the public sector
January 13th, 2009 by JD Kathuria

Top defense company Lockheed Martin is taking aim to capture a market share in what is projected to be an $11 billion market for cyber security in the next four years. In 2009 cyber security is expected to be at the top of the agenda for the federal government and major defense companies. By reorganizing existing capabilities in information security assurance Lockheed Martin continues to remain one step ahead of hackers and intruders in order to best serve its government clients.



In 2008, Lockheed set itself apart from the rest with innovative solutions to the cyber threat. In April 2008 it opened a new Wireless Cyber Security Center to test and evaluate wireless communications in a classified environment. Then, in October 2008, it established the new Center for Cyber Security Innovation (CCSI), headed by Lee Holcomb, to centrally manage its technology innovation, best practices, and talent management. In addition to the operation of the center, a key responsibility of Holcomb’s will be developing partnerships with universities and industries.



Working closely with Holcomb, and leading the overall strategy on cyber security solutions at Lockheed Martin, is former DISA director Lt. General Charlie Croom who joined the corporation this past October.



Then there is Linda Gooden who leads Lockheed’s Information Systems and Global Services (ISGS) area. “The whole area of cybersecurity is probably one of the fastest growing areas,” Gooden says in a recent interview. “It’s something that we’re very focused on as I expect there will be a significant focus” on cybersecurity with Obama’s administration. In a speech given at Purdue University last summer, PE Barack Obama remarked that he will make cyber security “the top priority that it should be in the 21st century” and appoint a National Cyber Advisor to report to him. The government has actually already created an inter-agency task force to help combat cyber security threats and this is headed by Melissa Hathaway, the Cyber Coordination Executive for the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (DNI). This renowned security expert will speak at an upcoming breakfast on Jan. 13.
__________________________________________________________________
Source

Lockheed Martin Establishes Center for Cyber Security Innovation
Retired Lt. General Charles E. Croom Jr. to Lead Cyber Security Strategy; Former Senior Executive Service Official Lee Holcomb to Lead Center

Gaithersburg, Md., October 17th, 2008 -- Lockheed Martin (NYSE: LMT) today announced the establishment of its new Center for Cyber Security Innovation (CCSI). The center of excellence represents an evolution for the company and its cyber security capabilities as it organizes to centrally manage its enterprise practice for technology innovation, best practices, and talent management.

"This evolution does not change what we do in cyber security, but how we do it. We intend to uniformly execute the delivery of our cyber security solutions across the company to benefit our customers long-term," said Rick Johnson, Chief Technology Officer, Lockheed Martin Information Systems & Global Services (IS&GS).

As cyber operations and reliance on networks extend throughout a diverse set of civilian, defense, and intelligence agencies, Lockheed Martin's internal infrastructure and best practices will remain critical to mission resilience for its customers. By utilizing integrated cyber security technologies and a defense-in-depth approach, the company will continue to apply real-time protection and attack management to its network and for its customers' networks.

Charles Croom joins the company as Vice President of Cyber Security Solutions to lead the overall cyber security strategy after his recent retirement as U.S. Air Force Lieutenant General, Director of the Defense Information Systems Agency, and Commander of the Joint Task Force for Global Network Operations. Croom will play a pivotal role in driving and shaping the corporation's cyber security strategy.

Former Senior Executive Service official Lee Holcomb has been appointed Vice President to lead the CCSI and manage technology solution development, process excellence, and talent development. Holcomb, also the former Chief Technology Officer for the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, will play a key role in shaping technology initiatives with a significant focus on strategic research and development. Key partnerships with universities and industry will serve to facilitate innovation, leverage the best technologies and solutions, and create a pipeline for talent.

Headquartered in Bethesda, Md., Lockheed Martin is a global security company that employs about 140,000 people worldwide and is principally engaged in the research, design, development, manufacture, integration and sustainment of advanced technology systems, products and services. The corporation reported 2007 sales of $41.9 billion.

[Dig]

JAY ROCKEFELLER:
EVIDENCE OF PSYCHOSIS

The Internets are coming...
They are exposing the 100 years of genocide that...
My family has enacted on millions of people...
They must be stopped...
I must stop the Internets...
What a world...what a world...
Auntie M, Auntie M...
It's a twister, it's a twister...
Pass my satanic legislation now!
The world will know what we did...
Save me oh great architect...
Please, for the love of lucifer, save me!!!!

[Dig]

http://www.nextgov.com/nextgov/ng_20081015_7578.php

FBI Warns of Sweeping Global Threat to U.S. Cybersecurity
Andrew Noyes CongressDaily 10/15/2008

The FBI's newly appointed chief of cybersecurity warned today that "a couple dozen" countries are eager to hack U.S. government, corporate and military networks. While he refused to provide country-specific details, FBI Cyber Division Chief Shawn Henry told reporters at a roundtable cooperation with foreign law enforcement is one of the bureau's highest priorities and added the United States has had incredible success fostering overseas partnerships.

He compared the situation to 1999, when he headed the FBI's National Infrastructure Intrusion Center's computer intrusion unit and "there wasn't all that much we could do" in the face of a cyberattack.

Henry said certain countries have mounted aggressive campaigns to attack U.S. Internet assets like the .gov, .mil and .com Web domains. Some are interested in sensitive research and development data, while others, like terrorist organizations, see the value in stealing and selling sensitive data to fund physical attacks.

"The threat that we face from organized groups that have infiltrated home computers, corporate computers, government computers [is] substantial and its impact on economy is a national security concern," Henry said. He then hinted that an announcement, expected Thursday, will be "an example of really good cooperation" between the FBI and foreign counterparts.

The department's caseload of active cybercrime investigations is well into the thousands and the number has increased steadily in the past year, Henry said. That is due to a "greater sense of awareness about the amount of money that is to be made illegally" on the Web, he said. Malicious activity by armies of corrupted computers known as "botnets" and by criminal gangs is on the rise and a chief concern of the agency. Public awareness of the threat is also growing, he said. The FBI's Internet Crime Complaint Center has fielded more than a million complaints since May 2000 and the center hears from 18,000-20,000 victims per month.

At the briefing, Henry would not comment in detail on President Bush's largely classified government-wide initiative designed to better protect federal computer networks, which is being spearheaded by the Homeland Security Department. He shied away from commenting on a forthcoming report by the Center for Strategic and International Studies' Commission on Cybersecurity for the 44th Presidency, which will recommend that government cybersecurity leadership in the next administration should reside at the White House. Both have been topics of hearings in the 110th Congress.

Henry's comments came a day after Homeland Security Secretary Chertoff spoke about the Bush administration's cybersecurity agenda, noting the topic would be a "major priority" for the next president. Unlike other areas of national security, the cyber realm "is not exclusively or even largely a federal responsibility," Chertoff said in a U.S. Chamber of Commerce speech that stressed the important role of the private sector.
________________________________________________________________________
http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/10/darkmarket-post.html

Cybercrime Supersite 'DarkMarket' Was FBI Sting, Documents Confirm
Kevin Poulsen

DarkMarket.ws, an online watering hole for thousands of identify thieves, hackers and credit card swindlers, has been secretly run by an FBI cybercrime agent for the last two years, until its voluntary shutdown earlier this month, according to documents unearthed by a German radio network.

Reports from the German national police obtained by the Südwestrundfunk, Southwest Germany public radio, blow the lid off the long running sting by revealing its role in nabbing a German credit card forger active on DarkMarket. The FBI agent is identified in the documents as J. Keith Mularski, a senior cybercrime agent based at the National Cyber Forensics Training Alliance in Pittsburgh, who ran the site under the hacker handle Master Splynter.

The NCFTA is a non-profit information sharing alliance funded by financial firms, internet companies and the federal government. It's also home to a seven-agent FBI headquarters unit called the Cyber Initiative and Resource Fusion Unit, which evidently ran the DarkMarket sting.

The FBI didn't return a phone call Monday.

Like earlier crime sites, DarkMarket allowed buyers and sellers of stolen identities and credit card data to meet and do business in an entrepreneurial, peer-reviewed environment. Products for sale ran the gamut from specialized hardware, to electronic banking logins collected from phishing attacks, stolen personal data needed to assume a consumer's identity ("full infos") and credit card magstripe swipes ("dumps), which are used to produce counterfeit cards. Vendors were encouraged to submit their goods for review before offering them for sale.

The unearthed documents, seen by Threat Level, show the FBI sting had begun by November, 2006. An FBI memo sent to the German national police regarding a forum member in that country boasts, "Currently, the FBI has been successful in penetrating the inner 'family' of the carding forum, DarkMarket." A March 2007 e-mail from Mularski's FBI address to his German counterpart puts it bluntly. "Master Splynter is me."

The documents indicate the FBI used DarkMarket to build "intelligence briefs" on its members, complete with their internet IP addresses and details of their activities on the site. In at least some cases, the bureau matched the information with transaction records provided by the electronic currency service E-Gold.

Last month, Master Splyntr -- now identified as Mularski -- announced he was shuttering the site as of October 4th, citing unwanted attention garnered by a fellow administrator, known as Cha0. From his home in Turkey, Cha0 had aggressively marketed a high-quality ATM skimmer and PIN pad that fraudsters could covertly affix to certain models of cash machines, capturing consumers account numbers and secret codes. But he began drawing heat this year after reportedly kidnapping and torturing a police informant. He was arrested in Turkey last month, where police identified him as one Cagatay Evyapan.

That's why it was time to close DarkMarket, Master Splynter explained, in a message that now rings with irony.

"It is apparent that this forum … is attracting too much attention from a lot of the world services (agents of FBI, SS, and Interpol). I guess it was only time before this would happen. It is very unfortunate that we have come to this situation, because ... we have established DM as the premier English speaking forum for conducting business. Such is life. When you are on top, people try to bring you down."

The German report confirm rumors that have swirled around DarkMarket since late 2006, when uber-hacker Max Ray Butler cracked the site's server and announced to the underground that he'd caught Master Splynter logging in from the NCFTA's office on the banks of the Monongahela River. Butler ran a site of his own, and the warning was generally dismissed as inter-forum rivalry, even when Butler was arrested in San Francisco last year on credit card fraud charges, and shipped to Pittsburgh for prosecution.

Until this afternoon, SpamHaus listed Master Splynter as an Eastern European spammer named Pavel Kaminski, who was active as recently as 2005. It's possible the FBI took over the handle sometime thereafter. In 2004, the Secret Service ran a similar scheme on the crime board ShadowCrew, but that agency used an informant, who went on to commit more crimes -- a risk not likely present with agent Mularski.

Lord Cyric, another former DarkMarket administrator, says Master Splynter was invited onto DarkMarket as an admin about two years ago, and was still known as a spammer. Based in Canada, Lord Cyric has sold fake IDs and checks in the underground, but he's convinced he's out of reach of any sting operation.

"Worry? Me? Nah," he wrote in an IM interview. "It's a long, slow hard process for them to interest Canadian [law enforcement] to go after someone who doesn't touch drugs nor deals with skimmers. ... It's all about U.S. busts, unless there's a big drug deal and DEA gets involved."

Threat Level admires Lord Cyric's bluster, but thinks his days in the underground are numbered. The FBI almost certainly closed DarkMarket in preparation for a global wave of arrests that will unfold in the next month or so. The site was likely shuttered to avoid an Agatha Christie scenario in which a diminishing pool of cybercrooks are free to speculate about why they're disappearing one-by-one like the hapless dinner guests in Ten Little Indians.

Kudos to Südwestrundfunk reporter Kai Laufen, who discovered the operation. I'm sending him the "I Spotted the Fed" tee-shirt I took home from DefCon 7.
________________________________________________________________________
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27198621

updated 4:40 p.m. ET Oct. 16, 2008

ISPs Pressed to Become Child Porn Cops

New law, new monitoring technology raise concerns about privacy
Bill Dedman and Bob Sullivan

New technologies and changes in U.S. law are adding to pressures to turn Internet service providers into cops examining all Internet traffic for child pornography.

One new tool, being marketed in the U.S. by an Australian company, offers to check every file passing through an Internet provider's network — every image, every movie, every document attached to an e-mail or found in a Web search — to see if it matches a list of illegal images.

The company caught the attention of New York's attorney general, who has been pressing Internet companies to block child porn. He forwarded the proposal to one of those companies, AOL, for discussion by an industry task force that is looking for ways to fight child porn. A copy of the company's proposal was also obtained by msnbc.com.

Privacy advocates are raising objections to such tools, saying that monitoring all traffic would be an unconstitutional invasion. They say companies can't start watching every customer's activity, and blocking files thought to be illegal, even when the goal is as noble as protecting children.

But such monitoring just became easier with a law approved unanimously by the Congress and signed on Monday by President Bush. A section of that law written by Republican presidential candidate Sen. John McCain gives Internet service providers access to lists of child porn files, which previously had been closely held by law enforcement agencies and the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. Although the law says it doesn't require any monitoring, it doesn't forbid it either. And the law ratchets up the pressure, making it a felony for ISPs to fail to report any "actual knowledge" of child pornography.

That actual knowledge could be handed to the Internet companies by technologies like the one proposed by the Australian company, Brilliant Digital Entertainment Ltd. Known as CopyRouter, the software would let ISPs compare computer files — movies, photographs and documents — against those lists. Banned files would be blocked, and the requestor would receive a substitute file provided by law enforcement, such as a warning message: "The material you have attempted to access has been identified as child pornography." The attempt to send or receive the file could then be reported to law enforcement, along with the Internet Protocol address of the requestor.

The CopyRouter relies on a controversial new technology called "deep packet inspection," which allows Internet companies to analyze in real time the river of data flowing through their networks. The pipeline would know what was passing through it. You can read more about this technology in Bob Sullivan's Red Tape Chronicles.

Child porn foes give proposal to AOL
A PowerPoint slide show from Brilliant Digital Entertainment describing the technology was passed on to AOL last month by two powerful forces in the fight against child porn: the office of New York Attorney General Andrew M. Cuomo, who has been calling out ISPs that won't agree to block sites with illegal images, and Ernest E. Allen, the president and CEO of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, a nonprofit given by Congress a central role in the fight.

When msnbc.com inquired about the proposal, both Cuomo's office and Allen said they were not promoting the technology, merely passing it along to a committee of Internet service providers and software companies as part of "brainstorming" on new technologies to detect illegal images.

One of the leading experts on electronic privacy in the U.S. says the proposal would clearly run afoul of the U.S. Constitution, essentially setting up a wiretap without obtaining permission from a judge.

"This would be plainly illegal in the United States, whether or not a governmental official imposed this on an ISP or the ISP did this voluntarily," John Morris of the Center for Democracy and Technology said after viewing Brilliant Digital's slide show. "If I were the general counsel of an ISP, I wouldn't touch this with a 10-foot pole."

A spokesman for Brilliant Digital Entertainment disputed that, saying the technology would be "non-invasive," would not compromise privacy, would be legal in the U.S. and elsewhere, and most important, would curtail the global proliferation of child pornography.

"I don't think it takes many voices before the Internet industry separates out those who are prepared to build a business on the trafficking of child sexual exploitation," said Michael Speck, Brilliant Digital's commercial manager in charge of law enforcement products. "If boxes started turning up with Pablo Escobar's special-delivery cocaine inside, they'd stop it, they'd do something about it."

Here's how CopyRouter would work, according to the company's slide show:

• A law enforcement agency would make available a list of files known to contain child pornography. Such files are commonly discovered in law enforcement raids, in undercover operations and in Internet searches that start with certain keywords (such as "pre-teens hard core"). Police officers have looked at those files, making a judgment that the children are clearly under age and that the files are illegal in their jurisdiction, before adding them to the list. Each digital file has a unique digital signature, called a hash value, that can be recognized no matter what the file is named, and without having to open the file again. The company calls this list of hash values its Global File Registry.

• Whenever an Internet user searched the Web, attached a file to an e-mail or examined a menu of files using file-sharing software on a peer-to-peer network, the software would compare the hash values of those files against the file registry. It wouldn't be "reading" the content of the files — it couldn't tell a love note from a recipe — but it would determine whether a file is digitally identical to one on the child-porn list.

• If there were no match, the file would be provided to the user who requested it. But if there were a match, transmission of the file would be blocked. The users would instead receive another image or movie or document, containing only a warning screen. The makers of CopyRouter claim that it can even be used to defeat encryption and compression of files in the Internet's Wild West: the peer-to-peer file-sharing tools such as Gnutella and BitTorrent. Many people use those file-sharing systems for legal traffic, such as independent artists distributing their music, or software developers sharing open-source code. But others use them for illegal traffic in copyrighted music and movies. They also are popular for distributing adult pornography, which is legal, and child pornography, which is not.

Can software fool encryption schemes?
Encrypted files on the peer-to-peer network could not be decrypted by CopyRouter, but the company claims it can fool the sender's computer into believing that the recipient was requesting an unencrypted and uncompressed file. The slide show calls this "special handling." This is done by changing the underlying protocol settings that establish how the sender and recipient exchange the file. This trickery, unknown to either the sender or recipient, would make it possible for CopyRouter to see the underlying files, calculate a hash value and compare the files to the list of illegal files, Brilliant Digital says.

A photo of the company's first test machine can be found online, in the online photos of the company's systems architect, Norberto "Beto" Meijome, author of the PowerPoint presentation. Meijome's portfolio of online photos on Flickr includes photos of his Cisco SCE router on the day he unpacked and installed it, Sept. 11, 2007. He labels the SCE router "the new toy."

Brilliant Digital Entertainment has a complicated past. Its subsidiary, Altnet, made news in 2002, when its software shipped with the Kazaa file swapping software, then heir to Napster’s throne as the favored way for file swappers to illicitly trade music. Altnet's program was designed to use unused bandwidth and processing power of Kazaa users for such uses as paid advertising and promotions for commercial products. The company claimed that this activity only occurred if the customer allowed it, but some antivirus firms labeled the software as spyware. Later, Altnet was sued by the recording industry for its role in helping spread the popularity of Kazaa.

After settling a lawsuit with the music industry, Brilliant Digital decided to approach file sharing from a new direction, selling products designed to help copyright holders protect their intellectual property. It now describes itself as a "significant online provider of licensed film and music content."

Seeking allies to move the new product to market
Now the company wants to expand into a new product line: fighting child porn.

"We have been working on it for some time," Speck said in a telephone interview from Australia.

"We've been in negotiations with ISPs and law enforcement agencies and content owners." Speck said he previously led the anti-piracy organization of the Australian sound recording industry.

Now he's lining up meetings in the U.S. next month with Internet providers and the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children.

In advance of his trip to the U.S., Speck spoke with the staff of Andrew Cuomo, whose New York attorney general's office has been pressuring Internet service providers to fight child porn. In June, Cuomo announced he was investigating ISPs, using a modern version of the public stocks to encourage cooperation. He set up a Web site listing Internet providers around the nation that made the changes he demanded, as well as "ISPs that have failed to make the same commitment to stop child porn." Cuomo, who was recently cited by McCain as one Democrat he would like to appoint to federal office, has urged Internet service providers to block access to child porn news groups and "purge their servers of child porn Web sites."

Speck had a conference call in September with Cuomo's staff, which he said gave him a blunt description of the legal and privacy landscape in the U.S.

"We'd be grateful for any assistance in getting this to the relevant ISPs and law enforcement agencies, and making any adjustments necessary," Speck said, recounting the conversation with Cuomo's staff. "It was made very clear that, for this to be a viable law enforcement tool, this would have to operate within the legislative framework within the country."

After talking with Speck, Cuomo's office passed the proposal on to John D. Ryan, AOL's senior vice president, deputy general counsel and head of its public safety and criminal investigations unit. Ryan received the slide show on Sept. 18, the day before attorneys from Cuomo's office arrived at AOL's headquarters in Virginia to discuss new technologies to fight child porn. Both Cuomo's office and AOL said that the CopyRouter was not discussed explicitly during what was described as a brainstorming session.

‘We have nothing to do with this technology’
"We have not pressured anyone to use this technology," said a Cuomo spokesman, Matthew Glazer. "We have nothing to do with this technology."

At the same time, AOL's Ryan received a copy of the slide show from the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. Known as NCMEC, this private nonprofit organization has an increasing role in the law enforcement effort against child porn, and receives more than $35 million in taxpayer funds each year. NCMEC and Cuomo's office have worked together this year on the child-porn fight, holding a joint press conference to announce Cuomo's Web site.

Ryan also has close ties to NCMEC, serving as a member of the board of directors and as leader of its industry Technology Coalition on child porn. Members of that group also include Yahoo, Microsoft, Google and others. (Msnbc.com is a joint venture of Microsoft and NBC Universal.)

AOL officials said they did not feel pressured by Cuomo or NCMEC to adopt any particular technology, adding that the company has a long history of fighting child porn on its own initiative. "The relationship with the attorney general is positive and partnering," Ryan said.

AOL's has a system of its own
AOL officials told msnbc.com that they already examine some files for child porn, block access to those files, and provide evidence to law enforcement. That system (called image detection filtering protocol) apparently is based on the same general principle as CopyRouter, comparing the hash values of files to a known list. But there are significant differences between the two approaches.

AOL checks files uploaded as attachments to e-mail against a list of files that AOL has identified as child porn. If the file matches one on its list, the sender is led to believe that the file has been sent, but it has not. AOL's methods have been shared with other Internet service providers.

But AOL officials said a device like the CopyRouter would be more extensive and more efficient for two reasons: AOL checks only e-mail attachments, not Web searches or other Internet traffic, and its home-grown list of banned files is much shorter than the lists compiled by law enforcement and NCMEC.

"The library of hash values that AOL has, has been derived over time, completely in house from reports from users and files we've stumbled upon," said Christopher G. Bubb, an AOL assistant general counsel in the public safety and criminal investigations unit. "So it's not a government list. Courts have likened it to citizen provided information."

Government role would be problematic
That distinction is important. Internet service providers could be considered agents of law enforcement if they began comparing files to a list provided by the police and intercepting traffic by substituting a legal file for an illegal one. The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution forbids unreasonable search and seizure by the government. Courts have held that Internet service providers are within their rights to examine the traffic that flows through their pipeline — as they must do, for example, to combat spam — because the scrutiny is being done by a company, not the government.

Although they said they could not pass judgment on software proposed by any vendor, the AOL officials suggested that Brilliant Digital's proposal might not work in the U.S., at least not without Congress providing ISPs more legal cover.

""Keep in mind that this is developed in a totally different cultural and legal regime. The Australian legal system is quite different from an American legal system," said Ryan, the AOL executive. "It would raise concerns. ... Would we be deemed an agent of the government?"

‘Not an intelligence-gathering tool’
Speck, the Brilliant Digital official, argued that CopyRouter would not put ISPs in a law enforcement role because the list of banned files would be managed by the law enforcement agency, not handed over to the private companies. CopyRouter would consult that list, but at arm's length from the companies.

"The responsibility is shifted to law enforcement," Speck said. "We've delivered to Internet service providers something they've called for. ... This is not an intelligence-gathering tool. This is not for developing a list of users. This is an extension of what routers already do."

But wouldn't the Internet service provider know which traffic CopyRouter had blocked, and which user had sent or attempted to download it? No, Speck said, because his company's product would be a neutral middleman, not sharing information with the ISP or law enforcement.

"All hashes are provided to Global File Registry, which manages a secure data base and communications channel between law enforcement agencies and the ISP such that the illicit file hashes targeted by law enforcement remain private and secure to the relevant law enforcement agency," he said in an e-mail after the interview. "There is no personal (sender/receiver) information identified, and privacy is maintained."

The company's slide show, however, does describe information on users being passed directly to law enforcement. Any files that matched the child porn list would be reported to a "law enforcement data collector," along with IP addresses identifying the user's computer. The slide show says, "Any hits here will generate a 'red' report, which will be routed to the police collector server ONLY. These reports contain full IP information."

Although Brilliant Digital says no law enforcement agency has signed on to the CopyRouter plan, that hasn't kept the company from including a familiar blue seal in its slide show. At each point when a law enforcement computer is depicted, it bears a mark that closely resembles the FBI logo. Only when the logo is magnified can one see that it says "Friendly Bus Investigator" rather than "Federal Bureau of Investigation." The FBI hasn't signed on to the plan, Speck said, and the logo was not meant to imply any endorsement.

The FBI met a hailstorm of criticism in 2000 when the existence of its Carnivore project was revealed. The packet-sniffing technology was used to monitor and log traffic when installed at an Internet service provider. The FBI by 2005 had stopped using the technology, in favor of commercial tools.

New law may take law enforcement out of the loop
Under the new U.S. law, a system like CopyRouter might not require involvement of law enforcement. The McCain portion of the new child-porn law allows such a system to be set up by the Internet service providers, because it gives them access to those lists of illegal files.

The key player in that transfer is the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. Although it's a nonprofit organization, NCMEC has increasingly taken on law enforcement roles, with Congress requiring that complaints of child pornography be sent to its CyberTipline. Since 1998, NCMEC says, it has received more than 300,000 reports from ISPs. And it gives them a daily list of Internet addresses that appear to host child porn, so the companies can choose to block those Web pages.

The new law authorizes NCMEC to go further, handing to Internet service providers the list of files judged to be child porn. Law enforcement agencies give those hash values to NCMEC, which will be allowed (but not required) to give them to the ISPs. That cooperation would allow the ISPs to use CopyRouter or their own home-grown solutions, without including cops in the loop directly.

That provision was part of the SAFE Act, a bill introduced by Sen. McCain and Democratic Sen. Chuck Schumer of New York. A McCain aide called the bill a "NCMEC wish list." The SAFE Act also made it a felony for ISPs to fail to report child porn, if they discover it, with penalties up to $300,000 for each instance.

McCain's bill got caught in a tug-of-war with a broader bill written by another player in the presidential election, Sen. Joe Biden, the Democratic vice presidential candidate. Biden's solution leaned more toward law enforcement, giving more money to the Justice Department and state Internet Crimes Against Children task forces, which investigate child pornography.

With NCMEC lined up behind McCain's bill, and other child protection activists (and Oprah Winfrey) pushing for Biden's bill, Congress finally passed them both: McCain bill was folded into the Biden bill, which passed the House and Senate without objection. Republicans were able to cut the spending in the Biden bill, down to $300 million.

With the new law in place, NCMEC has a plan for ISPs to use their new access to the hash values.

"We believe that there needs to be more proactive, voluntary methods to identify illegal child pornography content that bring it to their attention," said Allen, the NCMEC president. "We are working with leading ISPs to do that."

He said NCMEC's Hash Sharing System would share with Internet service providers information on only the " worst of the worst" images of child pornography. An image must depict a pre-pubescent child who has been identified by law enforcement. And it must depict one of the following: "oral, vaginal or anal penetration and/or sexual contact involving a child whether it be genital, digital, or a foreign object; an animal involved in some form of sexual behavior with a child; or lewd or lascivious exhibition of the genitalia or anus. "

"Through this project, NCMEC is also working with the members of the Technology Coalition to test existing software and develop new technologies that will enable ISPs to identify apparent child pornography images by hash value and block them," Allen wrote in an e-mail.

Some ISPs willing to police copyright law
The idea of turning Internet service providers into cops has been opposed and embraced by different ISPs in a different realm — copyright protection. The recording and movie industries have pressed ISPs to monitor their customers to detect traffic copyright violations. AT&T has said it hopes to monitor for pirated content, and has been in discussions with content companies, including NBC Universal (co-owner of msnbc.com), which has pushed for such filtering. Microsoft (the other co-owner of msnbc.com) has said it opposes filtering by ISPs.

ISPs also have run into public and government opposition just for slowing down, not blocking, some Internet traffic. The Federal Communications Commission ruled in August, on a 3-2 vote, that Comcast's limiting of BitTorrent traffic was illegal. Comcast said it was merely trying to keep the flood of peer-to-peer file sharing from slowing down the Internet for everyone else. As for CopyRouter, the company's manager said it would not slow down Internet traffic noticeably, because it's not inspecting the contents of files, merely comparing their hash values to a list, which can be done quickly.

Privacy advocates have already raised objections to deep-packet inspection. Earlier this year, a California company named NebuAd proposed a service that would observe Web surfers’ Internet habits through machines installed at ISPs, then inject context-sensitive advertising into the Web sites the consumers visited. It called the system "Behavioral Targeting." Public outcry and rumblings of an investigation from Congress led firms considering the technology to pull out.

Morris, of the Center for Democracy and Technology, said Brilliant Digital's plan constitutes an illegal wiretap, and would run afoul of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act. No firm can listen in on private communications unless it is instructed to do so by a law enforcement official with a proper court order, he said.

‘Enormous First Amendment problems’
Even then, no government agency — even a law enforcement agency or state attorney general's office — could impose a requirement to stop all files on a blacklist, or otherwise create a list of forbidden content, Morris said. Such a list would not pass constitutional muster.

"You can't declare speech, or images, illegal without judicial proceedings," Morris said. "... That creates enormous First Amendment problems. You can't have an agency or outside firm acting as judge and jury on these images."

Also, blocking images before they were delivered would constitute a prior restraint of communication, Morris said, violating the First Amendment right of free speech.

Other methods used to combat child porn — logging IP addresses of frequent senders and investigating them, by using a subpoena to force ISPs to reveal the name, and then knocking on the user's door — raise no such constitutional issues, Morris said. He compared that to a law enforcement official overhearing illegal speech in a public place and prosecuting a speaker. Brilliant Digital's scheme, he said, is more like picking up a telephone and listening in on private conversations.

"As horrible as child pornography is, and it is horrible, you still have to follow the Constitution," Morris said.

At NCMEC, Allen said the privacy interests are being heard. "We have been very sensitive to legitimate free speech and privacy-related concerns. That is one of the reasons we are focusing exclusively on pre-pubescent children and the most egregious images. That does not suggest that child pornography images involving 13-year-old children are acceptable or less serious, however, traditional law enforcement investigation and prosecution efforts are being used for those situations."

A different approach
Another child protection group has a different approach. The National Association to Protect Children, which advised Sen. Biden on his bill, said that blocking of files by Internet service providers could easily be seen by the public as "overreaching," making it harder to get public support for efforts of law enforcement. What's needed, said the group's executive director, Grier Weeks, is for cops to investigate the leads they already have.

"The Department of Justice and all 50 attorneys general are sitting on a mountain of evidence leading straight to the doors of child pornography traffickers," Weeks said. "We could rescue hundreds of thousands of child sexual assault victims tomorrow in America, without raising any constitutional issues whatsoever. But government simply won't spend the money to protect these children. Instead of arrests by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the child exploitation industry now faces Internet pop-ups from the Friendly Bus Investigators. That was always the fundamental difference between the Biden bill and the McCain bill. Biden wanted to fund cops to rescue children. McCain wanted to outsource the job."

Sen. McCain's general counsel, Lee C. Dunn, said that he's happy that both the law enforcement and technology approaches became law, that his focus was on protecting children. She said the new law does not require any Internet provider to monitor traffic.

"They have the responsibility and their right to manage the network as they wish," Dunn said. "If AOL wants to monitor their network for child porn, some customers may go to them, because they'll keep them from getting this stuff showing up in their e-mail. Other companies may choose not to, and other people may prefer that. We're not dictating to them that they monitor their network."

Brilliant Digital Entertainment is betting that most internet companies will choose to monitor their customers. Michael Speck said his company's product pitches have been well received by law enforcement agencies, government officials and Internet service providers.

"I don't think there's anyone in the Internet space," Speck said, "who doesn't think fighting child sexual exploitation is good business."

[Dig]

[Dig]

The Rockefeller File

by Gary Allen Published 1976
http://educate-yourself.org/ga/RFcontents.shtml

Introduction (1975) written by Lawrence P. McDonald, Member of Congress

Dear Reader:

The super rich in America enjoy power and prerogatives un-imaginable to most of us. Who can conceive of owning a private empire that includes 100 homes, 2,500 servants, untold thousands of luxuries, and untold millions of dollars? America has a royal family of finance that has known such riches for generations. It is, of course, the Rockefellers. But if the Rockefellers were content with their wealth, if their riches had satisfied their desires, this book would not have been written. And I would not be urging you to read it. Money alone is not enough to quench the thirst and lusts of the super-rich. Instead, many of them use their vast wealth, and the influence such riches give them, to achieve even more power. Power of a magnitude never dreamed of by the tyrants and despots of earlier ages. Power on a world wide scale. Power over people, not just products.

The Rockefeller File is not fiction. It is a compact, powerful and frightening presentation of what may be the most important story of our lifetime, the drive of the Rockefellers and their allies to create a one world government, combining super-capitalism and Communism under the same tent, all under their control. For more than one hundred years, since the days when John D. Rockefeller Sr. used every devious strategy he could devise to create a gigantic oil monopoly, enough books have been written about the Rockefellers to fill a library. I have read many of them. And to my knowledge, not one has dared reveal the most vital part of the Rockefeller story: that the Rockefellers and their allies have, for at least fifty years, been carefully following a plan to use their economic power to gain political control of first America, and then the rest of the world.

Do I mean conspiracy? Yes, I do.

I am convinced there is such a plot, international in scope, generations old in planning, and incredibly   evil in intent. You will find the truth-often surprising, sometimes unpleasant, always vital-in the pages that follow. Gary Allen has done a masterful job of combining the hundreds of scattered facts and hidden clues of the Rockefeller puzzle until one unmistakable pattern emerges. The picture that is revealed when The Rockefeller File is finally opened may shock you. In this book, you will learn why the Rockefellers follow the policies they do, what their goals are, where they intend to take America ... and why it is essential they be stopped. I urge you to read The Rockefeller File and to encourage your friends to do the same.

November 1975
LAWRENCE P. Mc DONALD
Member of Congress

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Chapter One
The Multi-Billion Dollar Myth

"If you're thinking of colossal economic power, it doesn't exist. We have investments, but not control.''
-Nelson Rockefeller

At his Vice Presidential confirmation hearings, Nelson A. Rockefeller was as solemn and serious as P. T. Barnum swearing his freak show denizens were the real Mc Coy when he told the assembled solons:

"I hope that the myth or misconception about the extent of the family's control over the economy of this country will be totally brought out and exposed and dissipated ...There is not this network of control which is popularly conceived."

The Senators could not have been more polite. Nobody guffawed. The transcript does not indicate that they even tittered. After all, fools seldom get elected to the Senate these days. Nelson and David, as leaders of the Rockefeller Clan, are the nation's undisputed economic kings. No politician with enough savvy to be elected dog catcher laughs at a king. Guessing the magnitude of the Rockefeller financial empire has been a favorite indoor sport since the turn of the century. In a front-page story on September 29, 1916, the New York Times reported that family patriarch John D. Rockefeller's oil holdings alone were worth $500 million, and that he was America's first billionaire. Eight hours after the story appeared his oil shares had increased in value by a tidy $8 million. Not a bad return for a single day's labor, even for a Rockefeller.

The Brothers Rockefeller, inheritors of a colossal fortune, are using their massive wealth, power, and prestige to create what they call the "New World Order." Seen at right (from left to right) are David, Chairman of the Board of both the Council on Foreign Relations and the Chase Manhattan Bank; Winthrop [deceased 1973]; John D. III [deceased 1978] an advocate of people control; Nelson [deceased 1979], the "political" Rockefeller; and Laurance [deceased 2004]. After years of planning and campaigning, a brilliant coup d'etat has finally installed Nelson in the White House, without the risk of an election. About this period, however, the picture of the family's growing financial might becomes more murky. The Rockefellers began hiding their wealth from the public and the tax collector -in trusts and foundations. As reported in the Washington Post: For two generations, the great fortune passed down by John D. has been fractionated and made more complex by increasing layers of trusts and closely held companies, where no public reports are required, none volunteered, and all inquiries politely rebuffed.

The Rockefellers invented a scheme, used by the super rich today, whereby the more money you appear to give away, the richer and more powerful you become. Through the help of captive politicians, guided by some bright boys in the family law offices, legislation was written and passed which would protect the Rockefellers and other elite super-rich from the repressive taxation they have foisted on everyone else. The key to this system is giving up ownership but retaining control. For example, most people don't believe they really own something unless they retain title to it in their own name. The Rockefellers know this is a big mistake. Often it is better to have your assets owned by a trust or a foundation-which you control-than to have them in your own name.

For example, when Judge Kenesaw Mountain Landis ordered Standard Oil broken up back in 1911, sly old John D. simply created some new foundations and gave his stock to them. The net effect was the same as if you took your wallet out of your right-hand pocket and put it in the left. In this case, however, Rockefeller not only managed to avoid income taxes, but also escaped the probate, estate and inheritance taxes which have ravaged the wealth of those not in the know.

So three generations of Rockefellers have been - giving away millions of dollars - giving much of it to themselves. For example, if a Rockefeller gives a million dollars worth of stock in the Titanic Oil Corporation to the Dogood Foundation, which the family controls, he is not really out one million bucks. All he has done is transfer title of the securities to an alter ego. Of course, the foundation may then give away some of the money, or, more likely, donate some of the stock's future earnings to some allegedly worthwhile cause. But, as the few investigations by Congress into this devious field have shown, in the case of the Rockefellers such bequests somehow end up increasing the Rockefeller financial or political power.

The upshot is that, through the past six decades, the public has had no way 'even to estimate Rockefeller wealth, let alone accurately measure the family's power and influence. But we can make some logical extrapolations from the few facts that are available. We know that through the magic of compound interest (as they say down at your friendly savings and loan branch), one dollar invested at the modest rate of five % per annum will double in thirteen years. This means that if the Rockefellers were earning only five % per year (a return they would find laughable), that modest $1 billion fortune in 1916 would have grown to over billion today.

The late Stewart Alsop, a reporter who had excellent sources in the Eastern Liberal Establishment (a euphemism for the financial, political, academic and media Mafia controlled by the Rockefellers), used to scoff at the usually "accepted " Fortune magazine estimate of the family's fortune at between $1 and $2 billion.

"It would not be at all surprising " Alsop concluded in his book: Nixon and Rockefeller (published in 1960), "if all the Rockefeller family assets, all the Rockefeller controlled money, as well as the Rockefeller owned money came to something like 10 billion dollars." If Alsop is correct, the Rockefeller holdings would now be a rather comfortable nest egg of some $25 billion.

In view of the fact that the past fifteen years have produced much economic growth (as well, as much inflation), it could well be that $25 billion is a reasonable, even a conservative figure.

Of course the family has never admitted being worth even a sizable fraction of this amount. When originally queried by the Senate Committee, good old' Nelson estimated his personal fortune at a paltry $33 million. After some very mild prodding by the Committee, this modest estimate was increased by 660 %.

The Vice Presidential hopeful eventually admitted to being worth a more respectable $218 million-a sum, incidentally, that is greater than the  combined wealth of all 37 Presidents in this country's history.

So great was public suspicion of the Rockefeller wealth that the family's financial adviser, J. Richardson Dilworth, was invited to testify before the House judiciary Committee. Dilworth became the Rockefeller family's key money manipulator in 1958. Prior to joining the Rockefellers he had been a partner in Kuhn, Loeb & Co., perhaps the most politically powerful international banking firm in the world. Kuhn, Loeb was, and still may be, a satellite of the immensely rich and powerful Rothschild family of Europe. Historically, the Kuhn, Loeb name has been synonymous with financial success and political intrigue, dating back to participation through senior partner Jacob Schiff in bankrolling the Bolshevik revolution in Russia.* (see None Dare Call It Conspiracy)

In the past, the Rockefellers have both competed with and cooperated with the Rothschilds. Dilworth's leaving Kuhn, Loeb & Co. to take control of the Rockefeller family purse strings was considered significant by students of the international financial and political machinations of the super-rich.

Dilworth maintains an office designated as Rockefeller Family and Associates, occupying three entire floors at 30 Rockefeller Plaza. Rockefeller Family and Associates is not a legal entity or corporation; it is simply a name to describe the organization which coordinates and manages the investments of the 84 descendants of John D. Rockefeller, Jr.

With the well-oiled assurance of a successful mortician the urbane, sophisticated Dilworth laid to rest the committee's concern over the family's financial muscle. He used five charts, crammed with statistics, to dispel the notion that the family exercises inordinate power over the nation's economy. Rocky's critics found it difficult to dispute Dilworth's bewildering collection of figures; at times they could hardly keep up with them. The whole performance was as confusing as an Eisenhower press conference, and probably as deliberate.

As one observer commented: ....

"the talk of convertible stocks, coupons and fiduciary obligations and the fact the vast holdings of The Rockefeller Foundation and other family-collected funds were not included in Dilworth's presentation left most members little more enlightened than they had been."

According to Dilworth, the 84 living Rockefellers are worth a mere $1,033,988,000. (Presumably he rounded off the figures to the nearest thousand dollars.) The bulk of the assets disclosed by Dilworth were held in two trusts, one established by John D. Jr. in 1934 for his children and one set up in 1952 for his grandchildren.

But according to many sources, the Rockefellers have as many as 200 trusts and foundations, and it is possible they have hundreds, even thousands more. Why bother with so many? For one very simple reason: So that assets can be moved, merged, and manipulated so smoothly and so quickly that the public-and just as important, the tax experts from the Treasury Department-have no way of knowing just how much money is where.

Suppose you had three buckets, one empty, two filled with water. Is there any way you could pour water from one bucket to another so quickly an observer could not tell how much water you had?

But suppose, instead, you had five thousand buckets. And a hundred persons to help pour. And you were allowed to keep all but a few buckets and a few pourers hidden behind a high wall. Would your chances be better to keep your -liquid assets - secret? So it is with the Rockefellers. All trusts are not equal. Only a handful of attorneys in the country know how to establish the type of trusts the Rockefellers have. These specialized trusts are most emphatically not the sort your friendly local solicitor can create for you. They not only can eliminate probate, cut inheritance taxes, and reduce income taxes; unlike corporations, they can achieve almost total privacy. Theoretically, trustees can, within the privacy of their directors' meetings, create more and more trusts ad infinitum With a little effort, taxes disappear. With more effort, even the value of the holdings can be completely hidden.

This explains why the Rockefellers use so many trusts. The fact is that we really don't know how many trusts the family has established. It may be thousands, or tens of thousands. Remember Nelson's explanation for the embarrassing fact that he did not pay any income tax in 1970-his trust fund managers had done a lot of shifting of investments in 1969. You can bet they moved their assets to accomplish this!

In testifying before the Judiciary Committee, Dilworth did not discuss the family's holdings by individuals, but presented them as a single package. Dilworth said he had received "unanimous permission" from the Rockefeller family to make public the total figures of their holdings. "This in itself
has been a unique experience, since it runs so completely against the grain of what we in the office consider to be one of our major responsibilities- the preservation of the separate identity and highly personal treatment of each account," he said. "Like other Americans, they value highly their right of
personal privacy."

More importantly, the privacy within the trusts can conceal whatever assets the Rockefellers decided not to make public. If the family had chosen to open up the minutes of its trustees' meetings to Congressional investigators, we might have some idea of the true financial status of the family. No such suggestion was even whispered. We really have only the Rockefellers' word for the amount of wealth they control, and they obviously have a vested interest in minimizing its size.

How about assets hidden in foreign countries? Are there Swiss bank accounts? Rocky says no, but he could be telling the literal truth, yet have foreign accounts held by trusts or other nominees, or securities"in street name (that is, in the name of a brokerage firm such as Merrill Lynch). Or assets can be held in a custodial account of a bank, such as (for example) Chase Manhattan.

All that we know for sure is the first time Rocky was asked about his wealth he swore it was a paltry $33 million; later he admitted the figure was six (6) times higher. A slight miscalculation which anyone might make.

We are supposed to swallow the propaganda that the Rockefellers are merely middle-class millionaires, not even in the, same financial ball park as Howard Hughes or those Texas wheeler-dealers. But,"Hideout Howard" and the Dallas money crowd are relative Johnny-Come-Latelys to the world of high finance. The Rockefellers have been refining oil for over a century and running banks for 75 -years. Although it cannot be proven because the evidence is hidden, few sophisticates swallow Dilworth's $1 billion figure-which does not even include any personal residential property, jewelry or other personal belongings; nor does it include Nelson's art collection, which he has valued (conservatively, we must assume) at $35 million.

Nor are the Rockefeller homesteads your basic tract bungalows. The main homes of the clan are located at Pocantico Hills in New York. Established 45 years ago by old John D., the land alone was worth $50 million in 1930. Their value today defies estimate. When opened to the press for the first time in 1959, at the time of the marriage of Nelson's son Steven, the estate, with its 70 miles of private roads, was said to be 4,180 acres in size. Earlier reports claimed 7,500 acres. In 1929 there were 75 buildings occupied by the Rockefellers and their attendants; over 100 families lived on the estate. One addition has been a $4.5 million underground archives to store family records. One wag has described the palatial Pocantico Hills as the kind of place God would have built if he had had the money.

No expense was spared by the family to remove minor blemishes on their pastoral paradise.

The senior Rockefeller gave the New York Central Railroad $700,000 to move its tracks, and $1.5 million to a small college to shove off.

Among the other chateaux owned by Nelson is the enormous Monte Sacro Ranch in Venezuela, his coffee plantation in Ecuador (the one where Juan Valdez waits for the perfect day to pick the beans), his several farms in Brazil, his 32-room Fifth Avenue duplex in New York City, the mansion in
Washington, D. C., the little hideaway at Seal Harbor, Maine, etc., etc., etc.*

In addition, at last count the Rockefellers owned seven huge ranches. Earlier this year 1975, Nelson bought 18,000 empty Texas acres for -outdoor recreation.

It is doubtful if any of the Rockefeller women will ever have to spend the night at the YWCA. The four of them have about 100 residences to choose from, including John D. III's spacious Beekman Place apartment in Manhattan, Laurance's sumptuous resorts in Hawaii and Puerto Rico, Nelson's Venezuela Finca, (large enough to swallow the entire city of New York), and David's Caribbean home.

Needless to say, it takes an army of underlings to operate these elegant pads. There are 500 full-time domestics, gardeners, guards and chauffeurs at Pocantico Hills alone, 45 at the family's Seal Harbor, Maine, retreat, and 15 in Nelson's Fifth Avenue apartment. All told, it has been estimated the Rockefeller women have at their beck and call about 2,500 servants.

Because the Rockefellers are forever on the wing-in their private jet fleets-each residence is permanently staffed, and nightly the sheets are turned down. One never knows when the boss might pop in.

Of the corporate holdings described by Dilworth, the largest, of course, is Exxon, the new name for Standard Oil of New Jersey, one of the companies formed when John D. Rockefeller, Sr. was ordered to de-monopolize the Standard Oil Company. The stock directly owned by the family (not counting that held by such family controlled entities as banks and foundations ) amounts to $156,7 millions. Number two on Dilworth's list is Rockefeller mere $98 million. Anyone who accepts this estimate of the Center's worth is probably negotiating to swap his life time savings for sole proprietorship in the Brooklyn Bridge. The Los Angeles Times observed on September 30, 1974 :

* The Congressional hearings revealed that two houses in Washington "ostensibly owned by a Rockefeller attorney" actually belong to Nelson.

Nobody but the stockholders (the four surviving Rockefeller brothers-Nelson, John D.III, David and Laurance - their sister, Abby, and the heirs of their brother Winthrop, who died in 1973, and a handful of Wall Street bankers) know its true value, but the educated guess of New York's real estate crowd is that Rockefeller Center, land and buildings, is worth $1 billion.

Next in line in the family portfolio is $85-million worth of stock in Standard of California, followed by $72.6 million worth of IBM. Companies in which the family holds $10 million or more in stock include Chase Manhattan Bank, Mobil Oil Corp., Eastman Kodak, General Electric, Texas Instruments, and Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing. Altogether the Rockefellers own a significant portion of some 50 major American companies.

So extensive are the family's holdings in securities that the Dilworth operation spreads over three entire floors at Rockefeller Center, and requires 154 full-time employees to manage the security portfolios. Working under Dilworth's supervision are fifteen top financial experts, who also double and triple in brass by serving on the boards of directors of nearly 100 corporations with combined assets of some $70 billion.

When testifying before the judiciary Committee, Dilworth's main objective was to fortify Nelson's statement that his family's reputed financial power was a - myth - concocted by evildoers. "If you're thinking of colossal economic power, it doesn't exist. We have investments, but not control," claimed Rocky.

"It should be stressed that both the family members and their investment advisers are totally uninterested in controlling anything," parroted Dilworth. "The family members are simply investors. The aim and hope of the advisers is over time to achieve a reasonable total return for our clients."   So seriously was the whole performance taken that not even a wink could be, detected in the hearing room, much less a discreet nudge under the table.

Dilworth maintained that members of the family do not coordinate their investments. Their sharply differing views on investments, social and environmental policies, Dilworth claimed, have prevented them from ever voting their stock in unison."There is no grand design or overall pattern," the
Rockefeller hireling assured the committee. Dilworth went on to say that the last time the family interfered in the management of a company was in
1928 when John D. Sr. and Jr. forced Standard Oil Company (Indiana) to remove a chief executive.

Such intervention now, purred Dilworth, is "totally foreign to this family. In the 17 years I've been on this job, I've never seen this family try to push people around."

The Wall Street Journal sprang to the defense of the family on September 25, 1974:

... "while Mr. Rockefeller is a bit modest about his economic clout, it is true that there are no individuals left in this society who are wealthy enough to alone substantially influence economic events. The wealth accumulated by John D. and the other tycoons of his era is diffused through a vast economy, controlled by foundations, trusts and the managers of large broadly based corporations. Power is diffused along with it"

In April 1958, when it was reported that J. Richardson Dilworth, the man with the most snobbish sounding name since Junius Pierpont Morgan or Jackie Gleason's immortal Reginald van Gleason, was appointed to his present position, the New York Times explained that the organization "manages and supervises" the Rockefeller family investments. The phrase "manages and supervises" suggests a coordinated effort at directing family finances. If the Rockefellers were not interested in maximizing their economic leverage, it would seem logical that each would pursue his own interests separately and retain his or her own battery of experts.

Dilworth makes it sound as if the family has widely divergent views on social, economic and political questions. Yet we have not been able to find a single significant occasion when the four sons and daughter of John D. Rockefeller, Jr. differed.*

And is it not curious that no member of the Judiciary Committee chose to grill Mr. Dilworth about the alleged disagreements which prevent the family from acting in financial unison? The New Yorker of January 16, 1965,tells us that the brothers and sister Abby "get together two or three times a year to discuss matters of interest to all of them."The purpose of the conferences is to "collide and coalesce," as one of their senior advisers described it.

Charles B. Smith, a top Dilworth, lieutenant, was a bit more forthright than his boss: "Our goal, like everybody else's, is to make wads and wads of money for the Rockefeller family." The Rockefeller family likes money. But, once you have achieved the ultimate of opulence in your standard of living
(and the Rockefellers reached that plateau decades ago), making money for its own sake becomes a fairly academic exercise.

Most people relax after they have reached the point of economic comfort and security. But, for some individuals, the ultimate ego trip has been the pursuit of power. In bygone days the rare individual with a manic desire for power seized a throne, or led conquering armies. Now that is all passé. Today, more worlds are conquered in board rooms than on battle fields. And, as we shall see, what happens on battle fields is often the result of decisions made in board rooms.

All of us can name plenty of tyrants and despots from the past. Genghis Khan, Alexander the Great, Napoleon, Hitler, Stalin - these men brought misery and death to millions of people in the course of realizing their own perverted ambitions. But because the overwhelming majority of people do not possess such a psychotic thirst for power, they find it all but impossible to recognize its presence in others.

* One subject on which the family is unanimous is furthering Nelson's political ambitions; the Rockefellers have contributed a staggering $25 million to various campaigns promoting Nelson for the Presidency.

Most Americans just want to provide decent lives and comfortable futures for themselves and their families. They are willing to work hard to achieve the necessities of life and even many luxuries. But they could no more conceive of scheming, -plotting and conniving to become economic commissars or kings than they would be interested in abandoning civilization for life as headhunters along the Amazon.

It is Mr. Average American and his family, however, who pay the price for the megalomania of the empire builders. Especially since our domestic would-be tyrants learned long ago that a political economic conspiracy can become far more powerful than a criminal one-and is far, far safer for the participants.

Whether or not such megalomania is carried by genes we do not know. What can be shown is that it has existed for at least three generations in the Rockefeller family. Despite the protests of the Rockefellers and their hirelings that they are totally uninterested in controlling anything, a survey of the evidence will reveal an all-consuming passion for control over everything and everybody.

The House of Rockefeller is not just a wealthy and successful family. Instead, it is an Empire. No other family has deliberately sought control over so many institutions which affect every facet of American life. Whether it is government, business, energy, banking, the media, religion or education, at the apex of the power structure you will find Rockefeller money and Rockefeller front men and agents. Such total persuasiveness, influencing every important aspect of American life, cannot be happenstance.

Gary Allen

[Dig]

The Rockefeller Standard Oil monopoly octopus of total domination systematically infiltrating every sphere of human activity

The Rockefellers, Funding Fathers of the New World Order
http://aftermathnews.wordpress.com/2007/07/23/the-rockefellers-funding-fathers-of-the-new-world-order/
July 23, 2007 NewsWithViews.com by Deanna Spingola

Ordinary people are content with providing the basic necessities and perhaps a few luxuries for their families. But, for some individuals, the ultimate ego trip, always taken on another’s expense account, is the pursuit of pertinacious power. “In bygone days the rare individual with a manic desire for power seized a throne, or led conquering armies. Now that is all passé. Today, more worlds are conquered in board rooms than on battle fields. And what happens on bloody battle fields is often the result of decisions made in board rooms.”[1] The ultimate price is paid by those who are squandered in battle without a moments thought by the elite purveyors of war and bloodshed.

“All of us can name plenty of tyrants and despots from the past. Genghis Khan, Alexander the Great, Napoleon, Hitler, Stalin – these men brought misery and death to millions of people in the course of realizing their own perverted ambitions. But because the overwhelming majority of people do not possess such a psychotic thirst for power, they find it all but impossible to recognize its presence in others.”[2]

For lack of appropriate options, we vote for the lesser of two evils, totally unaware of who the real “deciders” are – members of regularly convened secret societies. Elite Bilderberg-CFR qualified candidates, often rewarded for services already rendered, are properly tutored, groomed and installed at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. Campaigns, well-scripted debates and elections are enacted to perpetuate the illusion of free elections. Abundant, biased media exposure dispensed by government-friendly talking heads enthusiastically tout disputable qualifications while ignoring legitimate, ethical candidates who are actually qualified.

Before the earliest days of the world’s first alleged billionaire, John D. Rockefeller, who viewed competition as a sin, super-rich bankers have promoted and financed world government in an attempt to not merely control a nation but to control the entire world and all of its resources. Wal-Mart, agri-business, the military industrial complex, and monopoly media eliminates competition and quashes an authentic free market. If it is under government policy and regulation, it is not free.

The original Ruthless Rockefeller – John D. managed, by bribery, coercion, violence, dynamite explosions and sabotage to crush or control any and all local oil refining competitors within a year. Imagine, people using life-endangering explosives to further their own agenda! What a concept! The ultimate and most effective way to destroy competition is to use politics, the biggest of all businesses. Rockefeller became the epitome of a corporate capitalist. Not to suggest that members of congress were on the take, but well-placed campaign contributions to character-challenged individuals benefited Rockefeller’s Standard Oil. Things have certainly not changed!

“John D. specialized in operating through others, just as the family does today. He hired agents everywhere; among competitors’, politicians and in the media.” He found plenty of people who could be bought. … Rockefeller’s industrial espionage system was by far the most elaborate, most sophisticated and most successful that had ever been established.” … “For a long time the public didn’t realize how powerful he was because he kept insisting he was battling firms that he secretly owned outright. This same tactic is applicable to countries – communistic arch enemies may simply be another purchased commodity. “His real rivals were forever discovering that their most trusted officers were in his pocket.” “By 1890, Standard was refining 90 % of all crude oil in the United States and its worldwide operations were expanding rapidly.”[3]

By 1974, the Standard Oil Trust and its subsidiaries, known by various names (Mobil, Standard of Indiana, Standard of California, Chevron, Sohio, Phillips 66, Marathon, et al), managed to defeat efforts to minimize their influence and power and were selling petroleum in more than 100 countries through 300 subsidiaries. Rockefeller shares were divided among their banks, foundations, universities and other entities. Benevolence towards one’s own philanthropic organizations, while maintaining power and control, is akin to taking money from one pocket and putting it in another.

In addition to oil, the Rockefellers are international bankers – so international that Standard Oil was of critical assistance to Nazi Germany’s, preparation for World War II. Germany, importers of petroleum, lacked the crude petroleum that was necessary to fight a modern war. The Bush family also subsidized Nazi efforts. Alternatively, they ultimately manufactured synthetic gasoline from their domestic coal supplies using a process developed and financed by the Standard Oil laboratories in partnership with I.G. Farben.[4]

Rockefeller also subsidized the Bolshevik revolution, built an oil refining factory, and lent them millions of dollars – all for access to Russia’s vast natural resources. Minus the revolutionaries, Russian leaders desired the American form of government which would have benefited all Russian citizens. Communism stifled that development. The installed Communist leaders were not in charge – they were merely agents! Economic power builds political power in any nation including our own!

Rockefeller, known for his stinginess, used a Public Relations firm to enhance his image and to sell or disguise the idea of pre-war military preparation and the collaboration between Wall Street and I. G. Farben to the American public. This tactic is used today to sell war. At Rockefeller’s request, the PR firm also created a glowing book, entitled USSR, to enhance the image of the Soviet Union even while Stalin was murdering millions of his own citizens. The potential of Soviet oil was apparently worth it.[5] To dispel his miserly reputation, and on the counsel of the PR group, Rockefeller donated more money to foundations, the first of which he established in 1901 – The Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research.

“Those who believe that Rockefeller even in the health field is phony, point out the fact that Rockefeller monies have been used to degrade natural prevention of sickness and disease through vitamins and health foods and promote the use of drugs. Drugs are manufactured mainly from coal tar derivatives and, besides being in the oil business, the family has for decades been heavily invested in the giant drug manufacturing concerns.”[6]

Rockefeller banks – First National City Bank and the Chase Manhattan Bank, which was created by the 1955 merger of the Rockefeller-owned Chase Bank with the Kuhn, Loeb controlled Manhattan Bank. From 1991 to 2004, multiple mergers occurred ultimately combining four of the largest and oldest banking institutions in New York City, in July 2004 with the merger of J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. and Bank One Corp. to form today’s J.P. Morgan Chase & Co.[7] They are the largest credit card issuer in the U.S. – which earns them lots of consumer interest from a debt-burdened middle class!

In addition to oil and banks, the Rockefeller family has or had stock in IBM (so helpful in keeping track of the Jews in Hitler’s Germany), Eastman Kodak, General Electric, Texas Instruments, and Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing. In 1976, the Rockefellers owned a significant portion of about 50 major American companies. In addition, their agents, as of 1976, sat on the Boards of Directors of nearly 100 corporations.[8] They also have vast real estate holdings in land and buildings. Additionally, they have interests in major insurance, airlines, media, food, chemical, pharmaceutical, automobile, distillery companies.

The calculating Rockefellers have deliberately endeavored, through their front men and agents, to influence innumerable institutions in order to control American society: government, business, energy, banking, the media, religion and education. By 1910 the mention of a graduated income tax was appealing. “The best way for the Rockefeller-Morgan insiders to eliminate growing competition was to impose a progressive income tax on their competitors while making sure the law contained built-in escape hatches for themselves. Actually, very few of the proponents of the graduated income tax realized they were playing into the hands of those they were seeking to control.”[9] Nelson Aldrich, the insider’s Senatorial agent and maternal grandfather of David Rockefeller, was instrumental in getting a Constitutional amendment (the 16th, never legally ratified) allowing Congress to impose an income tax, one of the planks of the Communist Manifesto.

The super-rich hide their profits and ownership of mega corporations in “tax-free piggybank” foundations where they can buy, sell, hold real estate and securities. They pay no capital gains tax, no income tax and the funds just multiply. In addition, foundations finance like-minded non government organizations (NGOs). Foundation money established the National Education Association (NEA), a licentious lobby. The Rockefeller Foundation backed the Marxist educator, John Dewey. It gave substantial funding to institutes of higher learning, especially schools of education, buying and promoting a Socialist-Fascist mentality. Progressive, non-traditional education and permissiveness, with substantiating textbooks, was enthusiastically advanced with hundreds of millions of dollars from the Rockefeller Foundation and the Ford Foundation, a mere tentacle of the monstrous Rockefeller enforcement mob. “Those who control education will over a period of several generations control a nation.”[10]

To influence religion and therefore morality, foundation money bankrolled the Union Theological Seminary and the Federal council of Churches. Rather than theology, churches veered towards a communal, socialistic approach to mankind’s challenges. A capitalist, pretending to uphold free enterprise, yet he financed and promoted socialism, a dastardly system that eradicates personal initiative, rejects property ownership, and dispels marketplace competition.

John D. Rockefeller, a Machiavellian monopoly capitalist, used the government to promote his interests and callously suppress or totally exclude healthy competition. The true role of a legitimate government is to protect the rights and property of all citizens. However, socialist-fascist public servants, complicit with big business for their own financial advancement, care little about their oaths to the Constitution or the citizens. “To control commerce, banking, transportation and natural resources on a national level, you must control the federal government.”[11]

To further implement his cutthroat agenda against the United States, Rockefeller created the Council on Foreign Relations, a by-invitation-only forum, for influential leaders in the fields of finance, numerous foundations, academics, law, commerce, the media, and politics. For decades, members of this Elite Establishment have permeated the State Department, the Defense Department, all three branches of government – presidents, vice presidents, Secretaries of State, Senators, Representatives and Justices of the Supreme Court. CFR-affiliated foundations include: The Carnegie Foundation, The Ford Foundation, The Heritage Foundation, and the Rockefeller Brothers Foundation, among others.[12] These foundations fund many of the U.N. programs while portraying themselves as constitution-friendly conservatives.

Environmental groups, intent on changing the world, have affected private property rights in America. These groups include the Nature Conservatory, National Wildlife Federation, the World Wildlife Federation, the Greenpeace Foundation, and the Sierra Club, once a very benign group. They have all received money from the Richard King Mellon Foundation, the Pew Charitable Trusts, the Rockefeller Foundation, the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and others.[13]

At the same time that the Rockefeller Foundation and others are funding environmentalist groups, they are also funding the advancement of genetically modified foods. Pesticides, rather than enhance growth, impacts the soil’s health which influences the ability to create healthy food which ultimately affects a nation’s health. The Green Revolution, funded by the Rockefeller Foundation, systemized agriculture which ultimately included the use of expensive chemicals, the demise of the independent farmer and our nation’s food supply under the control of a few multinational corporations. The monstrous Monsanto uses government connections to get patents on natural products, like apples. Patents should never be issued on natural products but only on invented items. Their connections also lead to the use of expensive, profit-producing dangerous pesticides.

We are obediently goose-stepping our way quickly into the New World Order and it doesn’t make any difference which party occupies the White House or which party has a majority in Congress. Left, right, conservative and liberal -all are equally culpable. Public servants (yes, they are servants) on both sides of the aisle, belong to the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) whose primary efforts are focused on creating a tyrannical New World Order. The majority of our public servants, obviously unaccountable to the constituents, function as wolves protecting the sheep. They are either incredibly inefficient or glory-seeking collaborators who long ago eradicated the Constitution, the rule of law, which makes them all guilty of perjury, perhaps even treason.

[Berminator]

"You Bastards"

[Dig]

Rockefeller Declares War on Free Internet
http://www.wariscrime.com/2009/03/24/video/rockefeller-declares-war-on-free-internet/
Paul Bondarovski March 24, 2009

When a Rockefeller says something publicly, you can bet he doesn’t just express his humble personal opinion but speaks on behalf of the Family. You can also be sure that his every word reflects a decision already made, corresponding measures defined, and detailed instructions on their implementation sent to the stooges at the lower levels of the pyramid.

So when on March 18, 2009, the US senator Jay Rockefeller claimed that the internet is the biggest threat to US national security and that “it should have never existed,” it was not just his point of view, it was an instruction: let the long prepared war on the free internet begin!

Nothing is and ever was a bigger threat to US national and the whole world security than the Rockefellers themselves. The alternative media, which have grown from strength to strength on the internet in recent years, make this fact more and more evident.

The free internet is a fast growing threat to the power of these very inventors and absolute world champions of organized crime. Not the internet in general, as Jay Rockefeller claims. It is the internet of free, independent and uncensored opinions that they would prefer to have “never invented.”

To simply switch the entire World Wide Web off is virtually impossible — the bankers and the military would be the first losers. This is why, to end up with the alternative online media, the world elite have long been financing the development of a highly restrictive and fully controlled by the New World Order “authorities” Internet 2. The project was founded in 1996 and is now ready for implementation. It’s the decision to launch it before the end of this year that Jay Rockefeller had the dubious honor and the obvious pleasure to announce.

The threat to the free internet is now real and should not be underestimated. This is why an international team of Truthers have recently started The Dot Connector — the first PRINTED magazine, which combines internet blogging experience with that of the “good old” traditional press. CLICK HERE to check it out, download the two free premier issues (zip-compressed PDF), and subscribe to the printed editions, which start from the next issue 3.

Do it before too late, that is, NOW! And attention, there will be no more online PDF editions!

[Dig]

Should Obama Control the Internet?
http://www.motherjones.com/print/22660
By Steve Aquino | Thu April 2, 2009 12:33 PM PST

Should President Obama have the power to shut down domestic Internet traffic during a state of emergency?

Senators John Rockefeller (D-W. Va.) and Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) think so. On Wednesday they introduced a bill to establish the Office of the National Cybersecurity Advisor—an arm of the executive branch that would have vast power to monitor and control Internet traffic to protect against threats to critical cyber infrastructure. That broad power is rattling some civil libertarians.

The Cybersecurity Act of 2009 (PDF) gives the president the ability to "declare a cybersecurity emergency" and shut down or limit Internet traffic in any "critical" information network "in the interest of national security." The bill does not define a critical information network or a cybersecurity emergency. That definition would be left to the president.

The bill does not only add to the power of the president. It also grants the Secretary of Commerce "access to all relevant data concerning [critical] networks without regard to any provision of law, regulation, rule, or policy restricting such access." This means he or she can monitor or access any data on private or public networks without regard to privacy laws.

Rockefeller made cybersecurity one of his key issues as a member of the Senate intelligence committee, which he chaired until last year. He now heads the Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, which will take up this bill.

"We must protect our critical infrastructure at all costs—from our water to our electricity, to banking, traffic lights and electronic health records—the list goes on," Rockefeller said in a statement. Snowe echoed her colleague, saying, "if we fail to take swift action, we, regrettably, risk a cyber-Katrina."

But the wide powers outlined in the Rockefeller-Snowe legislation has at least one Internet advocacy group worried. "The cybersecurity threat is real," says Leslie Harris, head of the Center for Democracy and Technology (CDT), "but such a drastic federal intervention in private communications technology and networks could harm both security and privacy."

The bill could undermine the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA), says CDT senior counsel Greg Nojeim. That law, enacted in the mid '80s, requires law enforcement seek a warrant before tapping in to data transmissions between computers.

"It's an incredibly broad authority," Nojeim says, pointing out that existing privacy laws "could fall to this authority."

Jennifer Granick, civil liberties director at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, says that granting such power to the Commerce secretary could actually cause networks to be less safe. When one person can access all information on a network, "it makes it more vulnerable to intruders," Granick says. "You've basically established a path for the bad guys to skip down."

The bill's scope, she says, is "contrary to what the Constitution promises us." That's because of the impact it could have on Internet users' privacy rights: If the Commerce Department uncovers evidence of illegal activity when accessing "critical" networks, that information could be used against a potential defendant, even if the department never had the intent to find incriminating evidence. And this might violate the Constitutional protection against searches without cause.

"Once information is accessed, it can be used for whatever purpose, no matter the original reason for accessing something," Granick says. "Who's interested in this [bill]? Law enforcement and people in the security industry who want to ensure more government dollars go to them."

Nojeim, though, thinks it's possible the bill's powers could be trimmed as it moves through Congress. "We will be working with them to clarify just what is needed and how to accomplish that," he says. "We're hopeful that some of the very broad powers that the bill would confer won't be included."

[Dig]

President to Get Emergency Powers to Take Control of Internet ?
http://yidwithlid.blogspot.com/2009/08/president-to-get-emergency-powers-to.html
Friday, August 28, 2009


Boys and Girls, Can you say "Brown Shirts?"  Senate Bill S.773 introduced by Sen. Jay Rockefeller, would allow the POTUS to seize temporary control of the internet in an emergency of his choosing. The bill 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.

This is the same President who has tried to stifle dissenting opinion from Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, Talk Radio, American Citizens in Town Hall meetings, American Citizens  at Tea Parties.  He even created a spy on  your neighbor program.  And we want this guy to have the power to turn off the internet?:

Bill would give president emergency control of Internet
by Declan McCullagh


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 of S.773 (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 security perspective."
Now put this news together with this from the Glen Beck Show:

THEN-PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE BARACK OBAMA: We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

I don't know how anyone will respond to the facts I am going to present, because they really haven't responded to any of our questions or challenged any of the facts in our last few shows other than "Hey, don't call him a 'czar!'"

But I can't make this piece of the puzzle fit, unless this piece is about building some kind of thug-ocracy.

All week we've been asking tough questions — here's one more, Mr. President: Why do we need a civilian national security force that is "just as strong, just as powerful" as the military?

Here's why I ask this question: Who are we fighting? Who internally is threatening our security?

It's clearly not because we feel there is a threat from illegal aliens crossing the border, because anyone who would say that has been deemed a racist. A civilian national security force on the border is called The Minuteman and the attitude from this administration — as well as the Bush administration — is that they were "vigilantes." So it's not for the border.

It can't be a civilian national security force against Islamic extremists, because according to this administration we aren't even at war against Islamic extremists anymore. Is this administration really going to ask the American people to profile and call-in tips on Muslim Americans who act suspiciously?

So, who's left? Is it possible we are seeing the beginnings of another enemy?

Mr. President, is your civilian national security force to protect us from things the Missouri State Police, your own Homeland Security and the liberal Southern Law Poverty Center have come out and said were a threat: militia groups; tea party goers; folks with "Don't Tread on Me" flags; me; Sarah Palin?

Think about this: Is it unreasonable to think this government would ask you to spy on your neighbors, in light of these recent stories:

— Flag.gov e-mail asking for tips on "fishy" behavior

— Cookies on your computer that track whenever you've been on a government Web site — this used to be illegal but that was changed

— The government is using outside companies to track and contact you. Are they gathering information on you? I know that on "cash for clunkers" they didn't trust the dealers.

To me, all of this sounds like a sci-fi movie, but again I have to ask the reasonable question, in these unreasonable times: Who will the civilian national security force protect us from?

Maybe a better question to ask is, Mr. President: Do you know of a coming event?
If you are not frightened yet, you should be.

[Dig]

Comment from another blog that I found interesting:

fnord
Aug 28 2009, 09:01 PM
http://www.proxywhore.com/invboard/lofiversion/index.php/t177839.html

Rather than taking Jay Rockefeller's suggestion to seize control of the internet

in a national emergency, the people of American must be sure to seize control of the Rockefeller family.

[Dig]

Concerning the "moral question" of porn/racism/hate speech, etc...

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Both Sides: Porn isn't only thing moral busybodies want to restrict
http://news.postbulletin.com/newsmanager/templates/localnews_story.asp?z=12&a=410955
8/7/2009 8:55:02 AM  By Jim Rongstad

The self righteous busybodies are back, once again trying to impose their utopian vision. This time their target is porn in hotels.

The Minnesota Department of Health, as part of its Sexual Violence Prevention Program "... has created a plan to prevent sexual violence."

This plan is called The Promise of Primary Prevention. Included in this plan is the "clean hotels initiative," seeking the elimination of pornography in hotels through public policy and laws.       
      
      


As with other campaigns to improve society, the initial goals are limited at first. With this campaign the initial goal is to have local governments only do business with "clean hotels." Without a doubt in the future the campaign will seek to force hotels to be "clean" through licensing requirements, county ordinances and state statutes.

This initiative is based on the belief by its promoters that there is a cause and effect relationship between pornography and sexual violence against women. This belief is questionable at best. As pointed out in a Reason Magazine article ("Is Pornography a Catalyst of Sexual Violence," Nov. 5, 2007), while access and exposure to pornography was growing by leaps and bounds due to the advent of the Internet, the incidence of rapes decreased by 72 percent.

If the campaigners believe pornography leads to sexual violence, then just banning it from hotels will not accomplish their objective. Won't it have to be banned from cable TV, satellite TV, DVDs and most importantly the Internet? Will we eventually have SWAT team raids on homes suspected of having pornographic materials?

Who will determine what qualifies as pornography? Is pornography limited to films, what about books such as Chaucer's Canterbury Tales or the Bible, which have many sexually charged passages, should we ban those also?

If pornography can be banned to prevent sexual violence, what about banning horror movies and other films that depict violence? What about war movies, should they be banned for glorifying war? Perhaps we need to ban all toy guns and knives so children won't mimic violent behavior.

There is a much more important issue here than the effects and availability of pornography; that issue is freedom. As we allow government to restrict or ban certain thoughts, activities or products, the threat increases that even more thoughts, activities or products will be banned because it is believed that by doing so, some harm will be prevented.

Instead of working to have people voluntarily change their behavior, people now turn to government to force others to do what they wish.

These groups will claim that they have the community's best interest at heart and that they possess the expert knowledge to know what is best. This is the same rationale used by the royal rulers of the past and every dictator of the modern age. By resorting to force these groups demonstrate what a low opinion they have of the public and what a high opinion they have of themselves.

Just like the busybodies of today who predict an improved society if they get their way, the busybodies who foisted alcohol prohibition upon this nation predicted that prohibition would cure many of the nation ills, including sexual violence. Instead we got increased drinking and crime, with organized crime mobs being the main beneficiary of prohibition.

"When Prohibition was introduced, I hoped that it would be widely supported by public opinion and the day would soon come when the evil effects of alcohol would be recognized. I have slowly and reluctantly come to believe that this has not been the result. Instead, drinking has generally increased; the speakeasy has replaced the saloon; a vast army of lawbreakers has appeared; many of our best citizens have openly ignored Prohibition; respect for the law has been greatly lessened; and crime has increased to a level never seen before." John D. Rockefeller, Jr., 1932

The alcohol prohibitionists and the busybodies of today, with their coercive utopianism, insist on elimination of choice, rather than punishment of wrongdoing. The busybodies look at society as their laboratory and the people as their lab rats to experiment on.

If the experiment fails, as most ultimately do, the cost is borne by society at large and the unfortunate individuals harmed in the process. The busybodies will not be deterred, they will move on to their next experiment content in the knowledge that they are working for good.

In the wise words of the great Christian author C.S Lewis:

"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."

[Dig]

Cybersecurity draft significantly altered
From the pro Web 2.0 site nextgov
By Andrew Noyes, CongressDaily 08/25/2009

Sweeping cybersecurity legislation introduced by Senate Commerce Chairman John (Jay) Rockefeller and Sen. Olympia Snowe, R-Maine, in April has undergone major changes during the August recess and now features a more prominent focus on ensuring that the U.S. government and private sector have a properly trained workforce to thwart high-tech threats.

A revised version of the bill sent to Commerce and Intelligence committee aides late last week "captures a lot of the input we've received since its introduction" but is still a draft and has not been approved at the member level, Rockefeller aide Chan Lieu said in an e-mail to colleagues obtained by CongressDaily.

A separate e-mail from Commerce Committee General Counsel Bruce Andrews said the panel is aiming for a hearing and a markup in September or October.

High up in the reworked document are provisions instructing the Commerce secretary to work with the White House Office of Personnel Management to train and certify government cyber professionals. Under the proposal, uncertified individuals could not represent themselves as such nor could uncertified service providers handle critical infrastructure information systems or networks.

A new section would require the head of each federal department to develop an annual workforce plan that includes hiring projections, short- and long-term planning to address skill deficiencies, recruitment strategies and an analysis of barriers to recruitment.

Agencies would also have to measure and collect information on cybersecurity hiring effectiveness.

The original bill's provision that called for the creation of a National Science Foundation scholarship program is preserved with a $50 million authorization for FY10 that increases incrementally to $70 million by FY14.

Also included is a $15 million annual authorization over the same period for the National Institute of Standards and Technology to conduct competitions and challenges to woo students into cybersecurity careers.

One of the bill's most contentious provisions, which high-tech policy watchers argued would give the White House the power to effectively turn off the Internet during a cyber crisis, has been substantially curtailed.

The section would have allowed the president in a cyber emergency to "order the limitation or shutdown of Internet traffic" to and from any compromised government or U.S. critical infrastructure information system or network.

The new proposal directs the president to work with industry during a cyber emergency on a national response as well as the timely restoration of affected networks.

Absent from the revised language is a requirement that an advisory panel ensure national security would not be compromised before approving the renewal or modification of a contract between the U.S. government and the entity that oversees global Internet addresses.

A section that directed the National Telecommunications and Information Administration to develop a strategy for secure domain name addresses was also removed.

The reworked draft changes what was a quadrennial cyber review into a biennial affair beginning in 2013 to review "the cyber posture of the United States, including an unclassified summary of roles, missions, accomplishments, plans, and programs." Consistent with the original measure, the draft would set up a cybersecurity advisory panel of representatives from industry; academia; nonprofit organizations; interest and advocacy groups, and state and local governments.

It would also create state and regional cybersecurity enhancement programs as well as a threat and vulnerability clearinghouse for the government and the private sector. The initial bill specified that the Commerce Department would serve as home to the clearinghouse but the latest version leaves its designation vague.

Other provisions would require a comprehensive analysis of the federal statutory and legal framework applicable to cyber-related activities in the United States and a joint intelligence threat assessment by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence and the Commerce and Homeland Security secretaries.

[Berminator]

"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."

[Dig]

They are even trying to create a Hegelian dialectic with this genocidal piece of legislation.  Richi Jennngs puts together a summary of various blogs about it [somehow "Computer World" has not yet mentioned our forum ]. Notice the last two...

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Obama's 'emergency' powers over Internet: Cybersecurity Bill S. 773
http://blogs.computerworld.com/14627/obamas_emergency_powers_over_internet_cybersecurity_bill_s_773

It's proposed that the White House should have emergency powers to control the Internet. A bill would give Barack Obama 'cybersecurity' authority to disconnect users and professionally certify IT people. In IT Blogwatch, bloggers get really spun up about it.

By Richi Jennings. August 29, 2009.

Your humble blogwatcher has selected these bloggy morsels for your enjoyment. Not to mention boycotting Scotland...

Declan McCullagh takes liberties:
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. ... CBSNews.com has obtained a copy.
...
The new version allows 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.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Paul Boutin adds:
Senator John Davidson “Jay” Rockefeller IV — the Democratic great-grandson of oil mogul John D. Rockefeller — has been said to be working for months on ... S. 773, a bill whose stated goal is “to ensure the continued free flow of commerce within the United States and with its global trading partners through secure cyber communications, to provide for the continued development and exploitation of the Internet and intranet communications for such purposes, to provide for the development of a cadre of information technology specialists to improve and maintain effective cybersecurity defenses against disruption.”
 
Translation: It means the White House can order companies to disclose information, and possibly take control of their networks and computers, if the President declares them “critical” to an emergency involving the Internet.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Michael Masnick scratches his head:
The bigger issue is why the government should be taking control over private networks. This is the same gov't that doesn't let people in the State Department use Firefox and which thinks that RealPlayer is the state of the art in online video streaming. Even if there were a "cybersecurity emergency," I would think the last people I'd want to take charge would be the federal government.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

David Risley ponders trust:
Some would argue that this is about protecting infrastructure. But, do you trust the government with authority over private networks? Remember, this is the same government who consistently gets failing grades on cybersecurity. Not only that, who defines what this “emergency” is? And what constitutes a “critical network”?
...
All it would take is some event that the administration declares an “emergency”, they could then stir up public fears, and begin quickly taking new authorities in the name of the public security.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

But Xeni Jardin mocks the alert:
Well, this little viral number didn't take long to become the stuff of screaming Drudge sirens. The analogy the bill's authors use is that of the president's power to order all aircraft to land in the event of a systemwide emergency. That power is -- powerful! -- but we're generally OK with it. The Internet, of course, is different, in kind and expanse.
...
Maybe the White House should have this power in extreme emergencies, but it had better be clear about what those emergencies entail, and it had better accept accountability if it oversteps its authority. There is, aside from the obvious definitional issues, an inherent trade-off in codifying this power, and it's going to be tough to find a balance that satisfies everyone.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

And Nicholas Deleon offers some balance:
If we can trust the president to declare federal states of emergency—think hurricanes and the like—why can’t we trust him with the ability to declare a “cyber” state of emergency? ... And then the government will make you eat fruits and vegetables! Tyranny!
...
Remember: it’s just a bill, and one that has already been revised in the past few months. Don’t be surprised if nothing at all comes from all of this. ... The point is, freaking out at the drop of a hat cannot be healthy.

[infowarrior_039]

Please everyone, dont forget that the end of the internet is not just Senator Rockefellers plan.

Watch the "Senator Rockefeller - I wish the internet never existed" video again.

He CLEARLY says that he was at a SECRET meeting at a SECRET location in VIRGINA in the Summer of 2008 where they discussed THIS TOPIC (cyber security etc with Obama) for a WHOLE DAY.

Meaning him and the Bilderbergers used the better part of a day for this exact subject.

We need to stop looking at just the people in front of us and continue to put pressure on those who are really pulling the strings from behind the curtain.

[Dig]

Please everyone, dont forget that the end of the internet is not just Senator Rockefellers plan.

Watch the "Senator Rockefeller - I wish the internet never existed" video again.

He CLEARLY says that he was at a SECRET meeting at a SECRET location in VIRGINA in the Summer of 2008 where they discussed THIS TOPIC (cyber security etc with Obama) for a WHOLE DAY.

Meaning him and the Bilderbergers used the better part of a day for this exact subject.

We need to stop looking at just the people in front of us and continue to put pressure on those who are really pulling the strings from behind the curtain.

Jay Rockefeller ain't no puppet. He acts on his own free will. Many will claim they were just following orders, Jay has no basis for that claim.

But yes there are others like Rothschild, Prince Philip, and Queen Beatrix.  Jay is the first to show his demonic obsessed vile spew in a congressional hearing though. Quite a significant event IMO.

[infowarrior_039]

Yes, I agree, Im just saying that Jay Rockefeller is a big public suporter of the internet shutdown/restructuring, but
Obviously the DoD, Obama Administration, GIG/Juniper/PTech/ etc crowd are put of the same plan, as Rockefeller clearly admits happened at the Bilderburg confrence in Virginia for an entire day (before Obama was President)

[Anti_Illuminati]

Please everyone, dont forget that the end of the internet is not just Senator Rockefellers plan.

Watch the "Senator Rockefeller - I wish the internet never existed" video again.

He CLEARLY says that he was at a SECRET meeting at a SECRET location in VIRGINA in the Summer of 2008 where they discussed THIS TOPIC (cyber security etc with Obama) for a WHOLE DAY.

Meaning him and the Bilderbergers used the better part of a day for this exact subject.

We need to stop looking at just the people in front of us and continue to put pressure on those who are really pulling the strings from behind the curtain.

Jay Rockefeller ain't no puppet. He acts on his own free will. Many will claim they were just following orders, Jay has no basis for that claim.

But yes there are others like Rothschild, Prince Philip, and Queen Beatrix.  Jay is the first to show his demonic obsessed vile spew in a congressional hearing though. Quite a significant event IMO.

Sane, Jay Rockefeller is hardly the main proponent behind this, there are hundreds of individuals of extremely high level involved globally, ONE OF THEM IS THE FORMER DIRECTOR OF THE NRO.  The SAME cabal, which includes the huge military industrial complex itself, the ones who directly were involved in 911, are the same people behind taking over the Internet.  I HAVE ALREADY STATED AND PROVEN THAT ONE OF THE REASONS THEY CARRIED OUT 911 WAS TO EVENTUALLY IMPLEMENT IPV6 FOR THEIR GLOBAL INFORMATION GRID.  THIS IS DIRECTLY ADMITTED BY JOHN OSTERHOLZ, FORMERLY THE HEAD OF ARCHITECTURE AND INTEROPERABILITY FOR THE DOD, WHO INDIRA SINGH HAD INTERRUPTED AT A MEETING AT THE PENTAGON ACCORDING TO ONE OF HER AUDIO INTERVIEWS WHEN SHE HANDED HIM THE INFO ABOUT PTECH HAVING DEMANDED AN INVESTIGATION.  HE IS THE MAN THAT MADE THE BELOW QUOTE ABOUT AL-QAEDA AND NET CENTRIC CAPABILITIES.  SHE IS LUCKY THAT HE DID NOT HAVE HER KILLED. THIS AGENDA GOES BACK TO OVER 10+ YEARS EASILY.

http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=101398.0
NCOIC, Privatized/Internationalized MIC/IIC - "Agility", & "Agile" Defined

Solid proof that Internet 2 is nothing more than one giant DoD weapon created to wage perfect false flag 2.0 warfare on us all.

http://www.internationalcybercenter.org/advisory-board



Advisory Board
Corporate Patrons

    * Lockheed Martin - Lee Holcomb, Vice President
    * Booz Allen - Andy Singer, Lead for Cyber Campaign

ICC Co-Directors

    * Arun Sood, Professor Computer Science
    * Andy Purdy, Affiliate Professor ICC

Individual Members

    * Bob Lentz, Dep Assist Sec, ASD/NII
    * Dr. Alexander Levis, University Professor, formerly Chief Scientist USAF
    * Gen. Mick Kicklighter (Ret.), Director Center for Infrastructure Protection
    * Adm. Jerry Tuttle (Ret.)
    * Larry Clinton, President Internet Security Alliance
    * Ron Plesco, CEO National Cyber Forensic & Training Alliance
    * Ference Suba, CERT - Hungary
    * Yurie Ito, JP-CERT
    * Dr.Stuart Malawer, Distinguished Sercive Processor, School of Public Policy

Senior Fellows

    * Allen Miller, former Executive Director, WITSA
    * Dan Wolf, former Director, Information Assurance Director, NSA
    * Dr. Ron Kurtz, former Associate Director, Carnegie Mellon Research Institute

http://www.internationalcybercenter.org/workshops/cs-ga-2009/penta-chart




List of real terrorists-proponents of unconstitutional National Security State
http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=109298.0

2009 Workshop on Cyber Security and Global Affairs

Joint Project of

International Cyber Center
George Mason University, Fairfax, VA, USA



and

St Peter’s College, Oxford University, Oxford, UK



Location: St Peter’s College, Oxford, UK

August 3 to August 6, 2009

Sponsored By Office of Naval Research



ICC Corporate Patrons: Booz Allen Hamilton; Lockheed Martin Corporation

INSERT: SEE LINK FOR EMBEDDED LINKS]
http://www.internationalcybercenter.org/workshops/cs-ga-2009

The International Cyber Center at GMU and St.Peter’s College at Oxford are jointly organizing a workshop on Cyber Security and Global Affairs.  This program will take an interdisciplinary view of cyber security and related global issues.  We will have two types of sessions – plenary sessions and break-out sessions.  The plenary presentations will involve a mix of invited speakers and active discussion among the attendees.  The program is structured to facilitate participant interaction.  Except for the break-out sessions there will be no parallel sessions.

 
Workshop Program and Agenda are now available - click here.

Who should attend

We invite participation of students, faculty, corporate executives, senior government officials, and executives from international organizations.  This is meant to be an interdisciplinary workshop.  Participants with technology, strategy, and law enforcement backgrounds are encouraged to attend.

Speakers

The following speakers have already accepted our invitation to speak at the workshop.

    * Jerry Archer, Chief Information Security Officer, Intuit
          o "Postcards from the Edge –Effective Security Risk Management  -- Defense In-depth strategy in an Escalating Threat Environment"

    * Roberto Baldoni, Professor, University of Rome, Rome, Italy
          o "Extracting cyber warnings from Internet background noise through federated distributed systems"

    * Andreas Baumhof, Trust Defender, Australia
          o "Are we losing the fight? - A practical overview how malware threatens the internet economy at the example of mebroot/torpig"

    * Ian Brown, Senior Fellow, Oxford Internet Institute, Oxford University
          o "Asking the right questions about cybersecurity"

    * Jacques Bus, Head of Trust & Security Unit, ICT Research, DG Information Society and Media, European Commission
          o "Trust and Privacy - EU research activities"

    * Sadie Creese,  Director of e-Security, International Digital Laboratory, The University of Warwick
          o "Global security challenges of cloud computing"  

    * Adrian Davis, Senior Research Consultant, Information Security Forum, London
          o "What does the future hold? Information security threats in 2011 and beyond"

    * Raoul D'Costa, Technical Manager, 3M Security Systems Division
          o "Cloud Security Alliance: Guidance for Best Practices to Secure Cloud Computing"

    * Erol Gelenbe, Professor in the Dennis Gabor Chair, Electrical and Electronic Engineering Department, Imperial College, London
          o "Smart Stable Networks in the Presence of Attacks"

    * Robert Ghanea-Hercock, Chief  Researcher, Centre for Information & Security Systems Research, BT Innovate
          o "Network Security: a Complex Adaptive System"
    *

      Edward P Gibson, Chief Security Advisor, Microsoft Ltd UK
          o "Today is the Beginning of . . ."

    * Henry Horton, Partner, CyberSecurity Initiative/PS NA Security, Accenture
          o "Enhancing Situational Awareness Through Cyberintelligence"

    * Mitchell Komaroff, Director, Globalization Task Force, Office of Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Cyber, Identity and Information Assurance (CIIA)
          o "Leverage the power of the Internet while achieving Dynamic Cyber Defense"

    * Stuart Malawer, Distinguished Service Professor, School of Public Policy, George Mason University
          o "Cyberwarfare Law and Policy Proposals for U.S. and Global Governance"

    * John Osterholz,  Vice President Cyber Warfare and Cybersecurity BAE Systems
          o "Integrating Cybersecurity and Network Enabled Operations: the role of the NOSC

    * Wayne Pacine, Senior Interagency Project Analyst, Board of Governors for the Federal Reserve System
          o "Cyber Security and Resiliency in the U.S. Financial Sector"

    * Robert  Pitkethly, St. Peter's College Oxford, Faculty Member Said Business School, Oxford University
          o "Intellectual Property and  Cyber Security"

    * Andy Purdy, Co-Director, International Cyber Center.  Formerly, Acting Director National Cyber Security Division, US Dept of Homeland Security
          o "Toward a strategic approach to national ICT risk-a Perspective from the US"

    * Katie Richards, Director Europe, Fairwinds Partners
          o "The Domain Name Space: Looking back - 16 years since .com. Key observations, problems and proactive solutions."

    * Ron Ross, Project Leader, FISMA Implrmentation Projec, Computer Security Division, National Institute of Standards and Technology
          o "Integrated Enterprise-wide Risk Management - Organization, Mission, and Information Systems View"

    * Alexandra Savelieva, Lecturer, Faculty of Business Informatics, Higher School of Economics, Moscow
          o "Cryptographic systems evaluation problem"

    * Arun Sood, Professor (Computer Science), Co-Director, International Cyber Center, George Mason University
          o "Beyond Prevention and Detection - Intrusion Tolerance"

    * Patricia Titus, Chief Information Security Officer, Unisys Corporation, Federal Systems
          o "Through the Cyber Looking Glass – The perspective from a US Federal CISO turned Private Sector CISO"

    * Ralph Wachter, Program Officer, Software and Systems Research Program, Office of Naval Research.

    * Bob West, Founder and CEO, Echelon One, LLC.
          o "Creating a Resilient Global Economy"


Workshop Program and Agenda

Steering Committee and Workshop Directors

Workshop steering committee includes:

1.      Kenneth Addison, St Peter’s College Oxford

2.      Stuart Malawer, Distinguished Service Professor, School of Public Policy, George Mason University

3.      Andy Purdy, Co-Director, International Cyber Center.  Formerly, Acting Director National Cyber Security Division, US Dept of Homeland Security

4.      Arun Sood, Professor (Computer Science), Co-Director, International Cyber Center, George Mason University – Committee Chair.

Workshop Topics

In general, the workshop will deal with strategic, policy, technology and global issues.  The cyber security threat is not constrained by national boundaries.  Thus, the international implications of the security and privacy issues is very important in this workshop.

Some of the topics to be covered in the workshop are:

   1. Cyber warfare and intelligence gathering
   2. Cyber defense and preparedness  
   3. International standards of privacy
   4. Cyber crime  
   5. Cyber crime and other malicious activity
   6. Intellectual Property Rights protection

Call for Papers

Participants in this workshop will have an opportunity to participate actively in the discussions.  In addition, participants can make 15-minute presentations during the plenary sessions.  Interested participants should submit a one page abstract for evaluation by the workshop steering committee.  The abstract submission and processing schedule is:

Abstract due                            June 15, 2009

Selection and notification          June 22, 2009

Full paper                                July 14, 2009
Registration

Room and board will be provided by St. Peter's College. Room and board costs and registration fee are included in the registration form. Please download the registration form by clicking here.  Return completed form by email to: alison.wiblin@spc.ox.ac.uk OR post to: St Peter’s College, Oxford OX1 2DL, UK.  For additional questions contact Dr Arun Sood: asood (at) gmu (dot) edu .  

Scholarships

The workshop organizers expect that they will be able to offer scholarships to a few attendees.  The scholarship will partially cover the costs in connection with the workshop. Please contact Dr. Arun Sood: asood (at) gmu (dot) edu.
________________________________________________________________________________________
http://www.internationalcybercenter.org/workshops/cs-ga-2009/jo

John Osterholz

Vice President, Cyber Warfare and Cybersecurity, BEA Systems Inc.
Biography

Vice President, Cyber Warfare and Cybersecurity, John is responsible for integrating the application of cyber warfare and cybersecurity capabilities across BAE Systems to successfully address the U.S. and allied cyberspace market. Prior to assuming his current responsibilities, he was the Vice President/General Manager for C4ISR Systems, BAE Systems Inc.

John was the Department of Defense senior executive responsible for development of the Global Information Grid architecture, cybersecurity and its key programs, before joining BAE Systems in 2004. Prior to that, he held other executive leadership positions including director, Military Satellite Office; director, C4ISR Integration Support Activity; deputy director, Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA); and assistant director, White House Military Office.

Preceding his Washington assignments, John served in special operations and intelligence as a U.S. Army officer. He received the Secretary of Defense Medal for Distinguished Service in the aftermath of September 11th; the Federal IT 100 award, Presidential Rank Meritorious Executive Awards, the Federal Interagency Council Leadership Award, the White House Military Office Distinguished Service Medal and a number of Joint Unit Citations.

John holds a bachelor’s degree in Physics from Rutgers University and a master’s degree in Information Systems from The George Washington University.

Abstract

Between the Sword and Shield: The Role of the Network Operations and Security Center

The sophistication of advanced and persistent threats drives an unprecedented need for the deployment of sophisticated cybersecurity capabilities by governments and private sector organizations. The widely reported multinational character of the threats has fundamentally rewritten our understanding of the opportunities, vulnerabilities and challenges of operating with network enabled capabilities and extended concerns to sophisticated criminal activities and conflicts involving nation states.

This presentation presents a model framework for understanding the substantive interrelationships of key functions and organizational relationships needed to address this dynamic and evolving threat environment. In particular, this presentation explores a major evolution in the Network Operations and Security Center (NOSC) architecture needed in order to enable an effective integration of intelligence analysis capabilities and cross domain collaborations. Advances in key technologies and greater integration of intelligence analysis and network operations are needed to rapidly evolve from a legacy forensic perspective to embrace the runtime environments associated with real world network enabled operations.
________________________________________________________________________________________
http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=102701.msg614218#msg614218

I have a personal message for Booz Allen Hamilton, Jay Rockefeller & the NCOIC


John Osterholz

Chair, Technical Council
Network Centric Operations Industry Consortium

Defense Department Will Require IPv6 Compliance, Says DoD's John Osterholz

Market Wire, June 2003

IPv6 SUMMIT -- John Osterholz, director of architecture and interoperability for the Department of Defense, told a gathering of technology elite that the DoD would phase out purchases of IPv4 network technologies by this fall and would instead begin trials of equipment and applications based on the new IPv6 protocol for the Internet within 30 days. He said the move was intended to build a "Global Information Grid" of Net-Centric operations that was fully distributed, available and secure. He noted that this would be an important part of fighting terrorism and ensuring homeland security.

[INSERT: NET-CENTRIC OPERATIONS, NET-CENTRIC WARFARE *IS* TERRORISM, THE UNITED STATES HAS ADMITTED THAT WE DO NOT FIGHT WARS TO WIN WARS ANYMORE.  THE NON-MILITARY FUNCTIONS OF WAR/SUBSTITUTES FOR THE MILITARY FUNCTIONS OF WAR AS DISCUSSED IN THE REPORT FROM IRON MOUNTAIN, HAVE NOW MATERIALIZED INTO REALITY AFTER THE COLD WAR PSY-OP AS EFFECTS BASED OPERATIONS, AND NET-CENTRIC, OR NETWORK CENTRIC WARFARE.  ETERNAL WAR TO BRING ALL NATIONS INTO SUBJUGATION AND TO THEIR KNEES TO FORCE THEM INTO WORLD GOVT. AWS THE ONLY SOLUTION TO THE NWO FROM STOPPING THE CARRYING OUT OF FALSE FLAGS AND THE MANUFACTURE OF FAKE WAR TO SUCH ENDS.  FOLKS THEY ARE FREAKING THE F*CK OUT BECAUSE THEY KNOW WE HAVE FIGURED THIS OUT.  THIS IS ***A MUST READ BECAUSE IT EXPOSES THIS ULTRA HARDCORE!!!

"Al-Qaeda maintains a low profile and is highly distributed," noted Osterholz. "Until recently, we had no capability to operate similarly, and we understand it is an important capability. They were Net-Centric, we were not. Their command and control capability requires us to have a similar capability."

In his keynote, Osterholz laid out his plans for moving the entire DoD information technology infrastructure -- the world's largest, with an annual IT budget exceeding $30 billion -- into full IPv6 compliance by 2008. This represents an unprecedented move by the Defense Department to approach the entire commercial Internet infrastructure, which includes IPv6 Summit sponsors Cisco (NASDAQ: CSCO), Hewlett-Packard (NYSE: HP), Nokia (NYSE: NOK) and the Verio division of NT&T (NYSE: NTT), with detailed instructions on the networking standards it plans to support.

Historically, the DoD has created or commissioned vendors to build proprietary infrastructure. But the DoD's need for global, immediate access to secure, real-time information has moved the department from an infrastructure of data links between proprietary systems to a secure global enterprise built on the next generation of open systems. Osterholz called this system the Global Information Grid (GIG) and said one of its primary DoD uses will be "predictive battlespace awareness" that combines intelligence and operations technologies in a connected, real-time environment.

"Our soldiers need better information in order to make better decisions -- who to help and who to kill," continued Osterholz. "The lack of security and flexibility in the current IPv4 protocol is a drag on our wing. This isn't about do you trust the Internet for your kid's homework, it's do you trust your kid's life. If we fail, people die."

[Dig]

Yes, I agree, Im just saying that Jay Rockefeller is a big public suporter of the internet shutdown/restructuring, but
Obviously the DoD, Obama Administration, GIG/Juniper/PTech/ etc crowd are put of the same plan, as Rockefeller clearly admits happened at the Bilderburg confrence in Virginia for an entire day (before Obama was President)

Hint...Obama is the puppet like Bush...they pushed for the same exact things. They come and go, Jay Rockefeller, Nick Rockefeller, and David Rockefeller are the puppet masters in this country. Their CFR is a sort of subsidiary of Bilderberg of which they are a primary member.

But yeah everyone should be exposed. I guarantee you though, exposing Jay has been instrumental in waking people up. I mean he just blatently says "I own you slave! Do as I say." to 305 million American citizens, WTF?

[Harconen]

"Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as 'internationalists' and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure - one world, if you will. If that's the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it."

David Rockefeller wrote in his book, Memoirs