Bilderberg tricks liberals w No HIV&Abortion tracking [Of course it is tracked!]

Author Topic: Bilderberg tricks liberals w No HIV&Abortion tracking [Of course it is tracked!]  (Read 8553 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Dig

  • All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63,090
    • Git Ureself Edumacated
Obama's Electronic Health Records Czar: HIV Status and Abortions Need Not be Included
Wednesday, July 21, 2010
By Matt Cover, Staff Writer

Dr. David Blumenthal, the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology, is the official at the Department of Health and Human Services responsible for the electronic health records program. (HHS photo)
( – Dr. David Blumenthal, the Obama administration's National Coordinator for Health Information Technology, said on Tuesday that patients can choose to omit procedures such as abortions and positive HIV tests from the electronic health records (EHR) that every American is supposed to have by 2014 under the terms of the economic stimulus law that President Barack Obama signed last year.

Blumenthal's office, a subdivision of the Department of Health and Human Services, was created by the stimulus law specifically to generate the standards and regulations that will govern the federally mandated use of EHRs.

Section 3001 of the stimulus law charges the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology with overseeing the "development of a nationwide health information technology infrastructure that allows for the electronic use and exchange of information" that, among other things, "reduces health care costs resulting from inefficiency, medical errors, inappropriate care, duplicative care, and incomplete information" and "provides appropriate information to help guide medical decisions at the time and place of care."

The law requires Blumenthal's office to set "specific objectives, milestones, and metrics with respect to the  following: (i) The electronic exchange and use of health information and the enterprise integration of such information. (ii) The utilization of an electronic health record for each person in the United States by 2014."

In order to get hospitals, doctors and other health care providers to comply with the creation of EHRs for "each person in the United States by 2014," the stimulus law provided for federal bonus payments to be made to providers who generate records complying with the federal standards by 2014. Health care providers that do not use EHRs that meet the federal standards by 2014 will have their Medicare and Medicaid payments progressively diminished as a penalty for failure to comply.

Last week, Blumenthal held a press conference with HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius and Dr. Donald Berwick, the recently recess-appointed head of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services(CMS), to announce the final regulation for the EHRs.

The regulations state that a user must be able "to create an electronic copy of a patient's clinical information, including, at a minimum, diagnostic test results, problem list, medication list, medication allergy list, and procedures" and that this electronic information must be in a "human readable format."
In an interview videotaped on Capitol Hill on Tuesday, asked Blumenthal whether abortions and HIV tests must be included in an EHR, as the new regulations, on their face, seem to suggest.

“The regulations that came out state that hospitals and doctors have to provide problems lists, medications [lists], diagnostic test results, copies of those things in the electronic health record," said "Does that mean that a test result like, say, an HIV test or a procedure like an abortion would have to go on an electronic health record”
Blumenthal said, “Any specific information recorded in the record is an issue between the doctor and the patient, not an issue that this regulation specifies.” followed up: "So, when it says a 'test result,' if they did an HIV test they wouldn't have to put it in the record?"

"It's between the doctor and the patient," said Blumenthal. asked: "So what does have to go in there?"

"The information that the patient and the physician agree needs to be in the record," said Blumenthal. asked: "So you can say, 'I don't want this in my health record, I don't want that in my health record, in my EHR'"?

Blumenthal responded: "Exactly the same thing in the paper world would pertain in the electronic world."

Before speaking with Blumenthal, asked the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) via email whether abortions and STDs must be included in the new EHRs, and if abortions and STDs need not be included what other surgical procedures and diseases could be excluded from the EHRs.  If in fact abortions and STDs could be excluded from the EHRs, also asked HHS to point out where specifically the law exempted abortions, STDs or any other procedures or diseases from being included in the records.

Peter Garrett, the spokesman for HHS's Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology, responded by email.

“Nothing in the HITECH electronic health record regulations or in our policies touches on or requires the recording of any particular type of health information in a particular patient's personal health record,” Garrett said in an e-mail. 
“That is between the doctor and patient,” Garrett wrote. “The EHR incentive program is a voluntary program. If a physician chooses to participate, they are not required to record any specific type of health information and the physician needs the patient's consent in order to record any of their personal health information. As with all medical records, protecting the privacy of patients' heatlh information is a top priority and informational privacy will continue to be protected as EHRs become more widely used.”
The “incentive program" Garrett refers to is the system of bonus payments the government will make to health care providers that implement EHRs by 2014.  Garrett did not mention the penalty system that diminishes a health-care provider's Medicare and Medicaid payments if it does not comply with the EHR mandate by 2014.  As the January 13, 2010 edition of the Federal Register noted: "Section 1848(a)(7) of the Act provides that beginning in CY 2015, EPs who are not meaningful users of certified EHR technology will receive less than 100 percent of the fee schedule for their professional services."

Electronic Health Record sample (Wikipedia Commons)
According to CMS’s own regulations issued on July 13, doctors and hospitals must demonstrate “meaningful use” of EHRs to qualify for federal subsidies before 2014.
Among the regulations that Dr. Blumenthal issued last week for health-care providers seeking to demonstrate that they are engaging in “meaningful use” of EHRs is that they: “Maintain an up-to-date problem list of current and active diagnoses."

The regulations also require the EHRs to include a patient's "problem list" as well as "procedures."

What a "problem list" must entail is defined in separate federal regulations – referenced in those issued by Dr. Blumenthal on July 13. These regulations say such a list will include: “(i) Diseases. (ii) Injuries. (iii) Impairments. (iv) Other health problems and their manifestations. (v) Causes of injury, disease, impairment, or other health problems.” 
"Procedures" are defined as actions taken with regard to: “(i) Prevention. (ii) Diagnosis. (iii) Treatment. (iv) Management,” of those things listed on the problems list.
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately

Offline citizenx

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9,086
Yeah, what relevance is HIV status to maintaining your health? ::)

Offline Dig

  • All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63,090
    • Git Ureself Edumacated
Bilderberg Corporate Elites and Incestuous Royalty wrote the bill and are implementing the takeover. Anyone who cannot see this by now is willfully ignorant of reality.

Here is just a taste of what type of systems are currently tracking everything about us. These corporate fascists even brag how they circumvent privacy laws to allow tracking of races, handicapped, nationality, the wealthy, etc.

They are exponentially expanding invasions of privacy on levels Orwell never dreamed of.

See the problem is that there is TOO MUCH INFORMATION

If only there was a private sector company that could be able to take all of this information and centralize/control it, then the war on terror can continue indefinitely. Also this company should have a good amount of experience in providing the right information at the right time to eradicate socially unacceptable persona non grata from the landscape of a renewable world order.

What a coincidence that a week before this "shocking" wapo article, a fellow Bilderberger created this public presentation:

IBM Center for the Business of Government
A Video Overview of Analytics and Risk Management
Tuesday, July 13th, 2010 - 12:34

At a time of shrinking budgets and increasing expectations to do more with less, making better decisions based on informed judgment has taken on even more significance for both private sector and government organizations.

Thomas H. Davenport
Sirkka L. Jarvenpaa
James A. Bailey
Karen Hardy
David H. Schanzer
Joe Eyerman

Decisions based on bad information can lead to poor results and be quite costly to organizations. This may culminate in the squandering of opportunities, taking on unnecessary risk, misallocating resources, and ultimately not achieving strategic goals or objectives. At a time of shrinking budgets and increasing expectations to do more with less, making better decisions based on informed judgment has taken on even more significance for both private sector and government organizations. In a world inundated with all kinds of information, timely, relevant, and more predictive data can drive better decision making. This forum explores the usefulness of two tools—analytics and risk management—that can, when employed at an enterprise level, assist government agencies in strengthening their decisionmaking capabilities and, in turn, improve their overall performance.

Does IBM ever stop finding ways to accurately locate large numbers of people for state sponsored genocide?

You tell me...

IBM Entity Analytic Solutions V4.1.0
Delivers powerful, anonymous identity recognition and relationship awareness

IBM United States Software Announcement 206-117
May 23, 2006

ENUS206-117.PDF (92KB)

Entity Analytic Solutions, the world's leading solution for identity and relationship resolution, is a suite of four enabling technologies:

IBM Identity Resolution answers the question, Who is who? In other words, it provides the ability to identify who people, organizations, or things are.

IBM Relationship Resolution answers the question, Who knows who? In other words, what relationships exist between people, organizations, or things.

IBM Anonymous Resolution provides the ability to share this information with third parties without disclosing the identity of the person (or organization) to whom the information relates, thereby avoiding contravention of data protection and other similar laws. [You see that? The goal is to segment the populatioin for extermination/enslavement. But, because they do not disclose the originating source or the original purpose for the data accumulation...IT IS LEGAL IN THE MINDS AT IBM'S GENOCIDE ASSISTANCE DIVISION!]

IBM Global Name Recognition answers the question, What's in a name? In other words, it recognizes customers, citizens, and criminals across multiple cultural variations of name data.

Entity Analytic Solutions (EAS) is unique identity disambiguation software that provides public sector organizations or commercial enterprises with the ability to recognize and mitigate the incidence of fraud, threat, and risk. This EAS offering provides insight on demand, and in context, on "who is who," "who knows who," and "anonymously."

This industry-leading, patented technology enables enterprise-wide identity insight, full attribution, and self-correction in real time, and scales to process hundreds of millions of entities — all while accumulating context about those identities. It is the only software in the market that provides in-context information regarding non-obvious and obvious relationships that may exist between identities, and can do it anonymously to enhance privacy of information. [No, it is to circumvent privacy laws. It has nothing to do with "enhancing" anything but genocide.]

For most businesses and government agencies, it is important to figure out when a person is using more than one identity package (that is, name, address, phone number, social insurance number, and other such personal attributes) intentionally or unintentionally. Identity resolution software can help determine when two or more different looking identity packages are describing the same person, even if the data is inconsistent. For example, by comparing names, addresses, phone numbers, social insurance numbers, and other personal information across different records, this software might reveal that three customers calling themselves Tom R., Thomas Rogers, and T. Rogers are really just the same person.

It may also be useful for organizations to know with whom such a person associates. Relationship resolution software can process resolved identity data to find out whether people have worked for some of the same companies, for example. This would be useful to an organization that tracks down terrorists, but it can also help businesses such as banks, for example, to see whether the Hope Smith who just applied for a loan is related to Rock Smith, the account holder with a sterling credit rating.

[here comes the fun....]

Sometimes organizations want to share information across nontraditional boundaries — such as between a business and a government agency [What is the definition of fascism again?]and that poses serious privacy challenges. IBM Anonymous Resolution allows you to "disguise" sensitive data before you share it with others for purposes of identity resolution and relationship detection.

This technology makes it easy for businesses and governments to gain a lot of insight from their records while reducing the risk that criminals will steal and misuse information about innocent people. Resolving identities and their relationships is serious business. It can help reduce fraud or prevent crimes ranging from unwarranted insurance claims, credit card fraud and identity theft, to terrorist activity.

Note: Because the EAS product family supports a complete range of databases, including IBM DB2, Oracle, and Microsoft™, IBM is changing our product names to reflect our support of multiple environments. Therefore, the IBM Entity Analytic Solutions family — including IBM Identity Resolution, IBM Relationship Resolution and IBM Anonymous Resolution product names — supersede the previous product names of IBM DB2 Entity Analytic Solutions, IBM DB2 Identity Resolution, IBM DB2 Relationship Resolution and IBM DB2 Anonymous Resolution.

[But do not worry, it is not like IBM is controlling these genocidal creating "analytics" systems for the US SS Officers like they did for Nazi Germany in the 1930's]

IBM Awarded Analytics Contract to Improve Programming and Planning for U.S. Special Operations Command

BETHESDA, Md. - 14 Oct 2009: The U.S. Special Operations Command (USSOCOM) has awarded IBM (NYSE: IBM) a technology and services contract to modernize the planning, programming, budgeting and execution functions within the command. USSOCOM and IBM will work together to design, develop and integrate the Special Operations Resource Business Information System (SORBIS) using advanced analytics and reporting capabilities to speed access to information to improve the command's business enterprise. The award has an estimated contract value not to exceed $20 million over the five-year indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contract.

USSOCOM is the combatant command responsible for providing fully functional Special Operations Forces to defend the U.S. and its interests, and planning and synchronizing operations against terrorist networks.

IBM will implement a commercial off-the-shelf (COTS), turnkey enterprise-wide resource data management application for USSOCOM's headquarters and component commands and integrate the command's legacy resource management systems with the new SORBIS system. This effort is being supported by IBM's subcontractors, CACI International, Inc. and National Interest Security Company, LLC (NISC), both specialists in IT solutions and services for defense, intelligence and homeland security.

"IBM is very pleased to support this important initiative," said Charles L. Prow, Managing Partner, IBM Global Business Services, Public Sector. "Through the SORBIS system, we believe USSOCOM will be able to leverage advanced analytics to gain better insights into data resources and improve decision making."

The use of analytics and optimization technologies is accelerating in the government market, as agencies and departments seek to deploy 'smarter' systems that can analyze data and enable faster, more accurate decision making. IBM has established a Business Analytics and Optimization Services practice for government and other public sector clients that includes experts with deep knowledge in such areas as defense, logistics, cyber-security, transportation, public safety, and customs and border management. These professionals also collaborate with IBM researchers and tap into mathematics and information management capabilities across IBM.
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately

Offline Dig

  • All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63,090
    • Git Ureself Edumacated


David J. Ives

MU Libraries
University of Missouri
Columbia, MO 65201
E-Mail: [email protected]

Keywords: Information Access, Access, Theory of Access, Realty of Access, Electronic Superway, Omni-Presence, Omni-Knowledge, Omni-Collaboration, Omni-Access, Universal Access, Restricted Access, Filtering, Comprehension, Synthesis, Access Control, Access Cost, Affordability, Repository, Censoring, NREN, National Research and Education Network., Information Superhighway.
Abstract: As we are entering the 21th century's digital information age, it is important to examine the "electronic superhighway " model of information access in terms of our daily encountered forces, variables, and factors. This paper does just that.


The long-awaited and oft-predicted "electronic information superhighway" is actually better described as an electronic wish list, compiled so as to promise at least something for any and all possible users. In fact, this particular model has about it many of the trappings of a ritualistic construct -- it provides "an occasion for reflection and rationalization in the fact that what ought to have been done was not done, and what ought to have taken place did not occur" (Smith, 1982, p. 63). For the past two decades or more, the world's information specialists, librarians, and the general public have been exposed, on many occasions and in many formats, to this particular model of what the future might, or "will," hold for the broad arena of information access and use (e.g., Hays, 1970; Dordick et al., 1981; Dowlin, 1984; Lewis, 1985; Brownrigg, 1990; Fisher, 1992; McClure et al., 1992; Rossman, 1992; Benhamou, 1993; Elmer-DeWitt, 1993; Reynolds, 1993).

The time has come, indeed is long past, when this "electronic superhighway" model must be examined in terms of those forces, variables, and factors that we all must deal with every day. This is a time for examining the reality that is integral to the concepts of information access and use, not the ideality; and it is against this reality that the following discussion is presented.


The goals of this model (also known as the NREN, National Research and Education Net-work model) -- which I will call the "universal-access" model -- have been succinctly put forth by Kenneth M. King (Brownrigg, 1990) as follows:

* "Connect every scholar in the world to every other scholar and thus reduce the barriers to scholarly interaction of space, time, and cultures.

* Connect to the network all important information sources, specialized instruments, and computing resources worth sharing.

* Build databases that are collaboratively and dynamically maintained that contain all that is known on a particular subject.

* Create a knowledge management system on the network that will enable scholars to navi-gate through these resources in a standard, intuitive, and consistent way."

For purposes of this analysis and discussion, it is assumed that most NREN "electronic superhighway" proponents and supporters would agree with the gist, if not the letter, of these summarizing statements. These statements would seem to forecast a future that encompasses an information and scholarly "nirvana;" a time when all people will be able to access effortlessly all known existing information. As such, these aforementioned four summarizing statements will be designated as the principles of:

* Omni-Presence,

* Omni-Information,

* Omni-Collaboration and,

* Omni-Access.

These principles are briefly discussed, seriatim and collectively, below.

* Omni-Presence

The principle of Omni-Presence states:

"Connect every scholar in the world to every other scholar and thus reduce the barriers to scholarly interaction of space, time, and cultures."

This statement is based on a simple "if...then" construct -- If 'A' occurs, then 'B' will occur as a direct result. Unfortunately, there is no basis for assuming that this relationship exists vis a vis scholarly communication. Space and time currently are bridged by various means of communi-cation:

face-to-face conversations, mail, telephone, facsimile, and nodal (i.e., common communication loci such as bulletin boards). While near-instantaneous communications might, in a few instances, provide some real advantage over these other means, no empirical evidence exists to prove that any inherent good can be derived directly or indirectly from a near-instantaneous bridging of time and space. Any such statements based on the existence of an "if..then" relationship must be grounded in scientific inquiry and testing, (Hempel 1965; Davies 1973, pp. 4-8, 65-70, 102; TenHouten and Kaplan, 1973, pp. 143-156) not on suppositions and unsupported and untested statements.

In fact, the opposite could just as easily be posited -- that instantaneous communications might be deleterious for those problems and those fields of study whose subject matter might require significant thought, internalization, or a synthesis of information, over a measurable period of time. It is proposed that many scholars would receive no substantive and verifiable benefits from being connected to every other scholar, in or outside of their field.

Even if the disappearance of existing space and time barriers were to be granted, there is no reason to believe that instantaneous communications would have any beneficial effects on differences that might be attributable to the "culture" of those participating in such communications. For example, would instantaneous communications among a Chinese sociologist, a Brazilian sociologist, and a Nigerian sociologist really reduce the "barriers to scholarly interaction" that are, or might be, based on the differing "cultures" and cultural backgrounds of these researchers?

* Omni-Knowledge

The principle of Omni-Knowledge states:

"Connect to the network all important information sources, specialized instruments, and computing resources worth sharing."

While this seems, on the surface, a straightforward statement, it is not. Who will decide what an "information source" is or what it is not? How will it be decided which are the "impor-tant" information sources and which are not "important" and for whom are they important; and who will make these decisions? What will be the criteria for ascertaining which resources are "worth sharing" and which are not; and who will make these decisions? Until such significata are addressed in an objective and substantive manner, this principle (and all statements derived from it) must be considered arbitrary, obscure, and misleading.

* Omni-Collaboration

The principle of Omni-Collaboration states:

"Build databases that are collaboratively and dynamically maintained that contain all that is known on a particular subject."

If it is assumed, and it is, that all fields of knowledge and subjects of endeavor are dynamic in nature, then it is impossible for any database ever to contain "all that is known" on any given subject. At any moment, some student or researcher is generating additional data or new know-ledge for any, and every, given subject -- data and knowledge that will not be incorporated into existing databases, no matter what their nature or how frequently they are updated. In fact, there is evidence from at least one study that indicates that the "up-to-dateness" of information is only a minor real consideration among information users (Chen and Hernon, 1982, pp. 66-81).

* Omni-Access

The principle of Omni-Access states:

"Create a knowledge management system on the network that will enable scholars to navigate through these resources in a standard, intuitive, and consistent way."

How readily this principle can be accepted; for it is crucial to the successful operationaliza-tion of the "universal access" information model. Unfortunately, such a proposed "knowledge management system" would have to be a "standard" for all current and yet-to-come hardware and software platforms and would have to be "intuitive" not only for scholars in every known area of study (and at every level; novice to expert), but it also would have to cross-connect all known rational intuition systems based on all known languages, cultures and scientific constructs (e.g., inductive, hypothetico- deductive, abductive). It is proposed that such a "knowledge management system" would be impossible to generate and maintain -- due both to the dynamic nature and multiplexity of the technology and to the multifaceted nature of ongoing scientific inquiry.


In fact, the "universal access" model glosses over or disregards a number of concrete require-ments, costs, and restrictions that are, and that will continue to be, associated with information access and use. These factors are inherent in the various stages of information use -- access, filtering, comprehension, and synthesis.

* Access

Information access is neither free nor universal. Certain essential levels of access technology (e.g., pen, telephone lines, fax machine or computer) must be made both affordable and readily available. The requisite information-access nodes or routes (e.g., telephone switches, Internet nodes, satellites, or anonymous FTP-access computers) also must be made affordable and easily available.

Censorship is a limiting factor that also must be considered; not all information may be accessible by all classes, groups, or organizational levels of users (My note: See that righ there?). Almost every organization today is practicing deliberate or de facto censorship with regard to limiting or restricting access of users to certain information.

Access also bespeaks the necessity of information archiving and storage -- which informa-tion will be stored and for how long, and who will make those decisions? In what format(s) will it be stored and where will it be archived; and, who will make these decisions? Who will pay the costs inherent in such long-term storage?

* Filtering

All information can be, or has been, filtered -- screened or refined either by the end-user or by any of the human and non-human nodes between the raw information itself and the end-user of that information (Norman 1969:23-31). These filtering entities can include the person who entered the data into an electronic format, the program that is used to search for the information, and the person or the program that indexed the information. As noted above, censorship of various kinds also can act as a filter, even to the point of making the existence of certain informa-tion known or not known to a particular end-user.

* Comprehension and Synthesis

Information comprehension and synthesis is subject to a factor commonly known as "infor-mation overload" -- the inability to understand, utilize or manipulate information due to the sheer quantity or complexity of it. This phenomenon already is obvious in many of today's organiza-tions (Woodman, 1985, p. 99; Connors, 1993). When faced with a corpus of paper or electronic data or information, the user must be able to distinguish the relevant information (signal) from the non-relevant information (noise) (Travers, 1970, p. 94-98).

Additionally, new information is constantly being generated by researchers or by the mani-pulation of previously existing data. With this consideration as a given, end-users may never be "current" in a field or subject area because they are attempting to assimilate and comprehend information while, simultaneously, new information is being generated or derived. As the end-user obtains access to more and more sources of information, the probability of such "information overload" increases.

Therefore, the "universal access" model of the future's information universe -- "all of the information all of the time for all of the people" -- founders on the shoals of the real costs, require-ments, and restrictions of information access and use. And, the "universal access" model fails to successfully account for one more factor, a factor that is becoming, and will increasingly become, the dominant force in information access. This factor can be labeled, "information as commodity." It is proposed that information and access to information will become a commodity that must be purchased by the end-user. This transformation into a commodity already can be seen in micro-computer hardware and software and in some areas of information access, where different vendors make available the same database(s) at varying costs. Thus, both the information and the access to it can be considered a commodity in an open and competitive marketplace.


Because the "universal access" model does not adequately consider numerous tangible factors and criteria, a competing model of future information access is proposed -- the "restricted access" model. Simply stated, this model predicts that future access to information will be based in large part on the end-users' budget for both information access and use; that technological expertise and capabilities will continue to be unevenly distributed; and, that the great bulk of available information will become a commodity -- the end result of these factors being both local and global information "haves" and "have nots." This viewpoint is not unique; others have published admonitions for a number of years (e.g., Boss, 1982; Kibirige, 1983, pp. 83-103; Coy, 1991a; Anthes, 1993; Botein, 1993; Macilwain, 1993; Schiller, 1993).

This "restricted access" information model is predicated on the following seven elements and


* Affordability

Only those who can afford to purchase, or obtain access to, the requisite hardware and soft- ware will be able to utilize electronic information.

The actual costs of Internet access and use are many. While often not obvious to the casual user, these costs are substantial and are not limited to financial units of measure. They may include:

- User account costs in dollars per connection unit time as well as per CPU use unit, (My note: Is this with the smart meters will be about? Advanced energy usage metering?)

- Pertinent telecommunication line installation cost and use charges,

- Purchase costs of all requisite hardware,

- The maintenance, repair and replacement costs for requisite hardware,

- Costs inherent in the purchase and upgrading of any requisite software,

- Costs of requisite printer paper, ribbons or output page charges,

- Costs of the requisite electricity, and climate control, needs and usage, (My note: Look at 'climate control' there)

- Any initial and on-going staff and user training costs and all training materials costs and, - Cost of the user's time while accessing and using the information source(s) -- for while they are doing so, their time does represent a real cost to their employing/sponsoring organization.

* Data Repositories and Their Costs

The major electronic information repositories, and the access to them, will be held by either major research universities or private corporations, who will pass on the storage, access and overhead costs to organizational or individual users.

As more and more data are generated and made available via the Internet (or its future per-mutations) and other means, the need for massive and permanent data-storage facilities will grow. The two types of organizations that currently are able to fund, staff, and maintain such facilities are private corporations and a few major research universities. Universities may do so to service their own users, a consortium of users, or any user who may access their facility. Private corpor-tions will do so for profit, rather than collegial, motives (e.g., DIALOG, OCLC, WestLaw, Lexis/ Nexis, Dow Jones). While major "data repository" universities may have to charge access or usage fees, it is proposed that such fees usually will be less than those charged by profit-oriented private corporations. However, it also may be the case that these private corporations may be more responsive, than universities, to the changing needs and demands of their clients -- for these are the users and organizations whose fees help support the corporation itself.

* Proprietary Access

Competing or similar databases or data repositories will be accessed by proprietary means.

The major point of difference or competition among organizations that offer competing or similar databases (e.g., MedLine) is the thoroughness, speed, and ease-of-use of their searching and data-compiling software. Because this may be the only significant difference among such organizations, it behooves them to ensure the uniqueness and the proprietary nature of this "front- end" software. To do otherwise would be to make that database available on an open market, controlled solely by cost, with the organization/corporation with the lowest prices eventually driving out all competitors.

* Access Control and Cost

The next transmutation of today's "Internet" will be controlled by private corporations.

Any transmutation of today's Internet into the heralded "electronic superhighway" will require substantial funding -- on the order of tens of billions of dollars. This transmutation will involve, minimally: increasing the number of access points; rewiring all major and/or minor nodes with optic fiber; increasing the available transmission bandwidth; and, developing uncomplicated, consistent, and "intelligent" front-end user software. While Congress may pass ENABLING legislation at some point for the generation of this "electronic superhighway," any passage of the necessary APPROPRIATING legislation will be a much longer and considerably more hard-fought Congressional process.

Therefore, the requisite funding for any such "electronic superhighway" (in part or in toto) will have to come from private corporations and organizations -- the only non-governmental sources capable of supporting such massive costs (Coy, 1991b; Anonymous, 1992; Anonymous, 1993a; Anonymous, 1993b; Carlson, 1993; Roberts and Carnevale, 1993). And, it is extremely likely that these private entities will wish to recoup their initial, and ongoing, financial investments and even to turn a profit from them. The only way such costs could be recouped is through some sort of charge or assessment for access to and use of this "electronic superhighway," said assess-ment to be levied either directly on the end-user or on their sponsoring organization (e.g., public library, university, company).

* Information Censoring

Certain databases or data repositories will be selectively censored by the organizations that maintain them or maintain access to them; such censoring may or may not be made known to the end users. (My note: Especially read that last part - SUCH CENSORING MAY OR MAY NOT BE MADE KNOWN TO THE END USERS)

Whether such censorship is based on access/storage costs, or on a "need to know" basis, or on the current software restrictions or capabilities, or on organizational internal politics, or on some manifestation of randomness is a moot point. The critical factor is the actual existence of the censorship process -- which results in the presenting, to end-users, of only a partial information universe rather than the user-assumed totality of that universe. Such censorship-like processes already exist, whether the individual user is aware of them or not (Appendices I & II). And, any existence, or manner, of censorship flies in the face of those envisioning an "electronic superhigh-way" -- accessible by all, with all information being accessible. (My note: Yeah - but as that previous article already showed, Nick Bostrom and Ray Kurzweil don't believe half the goddamn crap they're peddling to the public. In the same manner, all of the life-extension technologies that Kurzweil is hyping up - you will have a good chance in Hell of ever hoping to be able to get that. It's a panacea - it's a carrot being dangled in front of people's faces)

* Information Limitations

Software and hardware errors, incompatibilities, and malfunctions will limit an end-user's knowledge of, access to, and use of the entire information universe -- in an unknowable random or non-random pattern.

Such software and hardware factors are inherent in the complex electronic nature of the user-to-source information architecture. In such an architecture, it is a truism that "a chain is only as strong as its weakest link." The current, or future, electronic chain contains numerous links: The end-user hardware and software; the data source hardware and software; the hardware and soft-ware of all intermediary nodes (e.g., retransmission sites, Veronica sites, Internet-access main-frames or LAN servers, Archie sites, Gopher or WAIS software, satellites and ground stations); and the multiple copper, optic fiber, or wireless transmission linkages that connect these requisite nodes. Should any of the links fail or diminish the robustness of the electronic chain, the result will be a failure to locate certain, or all, desired data and information. Any such reduction of the totality of the information universe is, of course, in addition to those reductions due to censorship and access costs.

* The Fallacy of "All Data"

Access to all of the information and data available for any given subject is not knowingly possible, nor is it necessarily a desirable goal.

At the present time, and for the foreseeable future, there does not exist a means which would enable a user to ascertain the quantity, nature and location of ALL electronically-available information on any given subject. As previously noted, all information subject areas are dynamic in nature, constantly being enhanced by new or synthesized data and information. While it may be theoretically possible to define the totality of information in a particular subject area at a given instant of time, that totality is but a moving point on a continuum of unknown dimensions; it constantly changes. The inherent limitation of this totality of information also is dependent on previously mentioned factors as well: Information censorship and information accessibility.


While the "universal access" or "electronic superhighway" model may present a tempting theoretical vision of future information access and use, it presents neither the only vision of that future, nor does it necessarily present the most probable vision of that future. The "universal access" model fails to address adequately such factors as: funding and the inherent costs of information access and use; data storage, its ownership and costs; deliberate or non-deliberate censor-ship of information; and the effects and consequences of information overload on the user -- both at the individual user level and at the more generalized level of how much, and how, information will and should be accessed and used.

It is proposed that a "restricted access" model does incorporate most such limiting and controlling factors. While this latter model portrays neither an idealistic nor an egalitarian future for information access and retrieval, it does portray a realistic future of information "haves" and "have nots," a future based on the very real human, fiscal, technological, and political variables with which all of us are faced daily (My note: See - it is NOT egalitarian, but it reimposes class differences, 'information haves' and 'information have nots. See - they don't believe in this very utopia of 'all the world's information at your fingersteps' yourself - they believe in 'filtering' - in 'rationing' information - in 'paying' for information'[/b]). The future of local and global information access and use must be based on reality, not ideality. The "restricted access" model of information access and use proposed above cannot be replaced by any "universal access" model unless those external and internal limiting and restricting factors that have been presented are addressed and appropriately modified or eliminated.

Anonymous, "Venture with Motorola Set for Highway Technology," The Wall Street Journal, 25 August, 1992, p.A4.

Anonymous, "Bells Open With $100B Offer," Variety, 350 (12): 23 (1993). [1993a]

Anonymous, "BellSouth, GTE, Unit of Sprint Join to Build Information Highway," The Wall Street Journal, 11 May, 1993, p.A6. [1993b]

Anthes, Gary H., "Data Superhighway Plan Panned," Computerworld, 27,(28): 8 (1993).

Benhamou, Eric, "Let's Get Going on a Data Highway," The New York Times, 14 March, 142 (3): F11 (March 14, 1993).

Boss, Richard W., "The Impact of Technology on Libraries: The Myth of the Paperless Society," in: Information Technology: Critical Choices for Library Decision-Makers, edited by Allen Kent and Thomas J. Galvin. New York: Marcel Dekker, Inc., 1982.

Botein, Michael, "It is Coming, But Don't Rush It," The New York Times, 142 (3): F11 (14 March, 1993).

Brownrigg, Edwin, "Developing the Information Highway: Issues for Libraries," in Library Perspectives on NREN, edited by Carol A. Parkhurst. Chicago, IL: LITA, 1990.

Carlson, Bob, "Public and Private Interests Pursue National Information 'Superhighway'," Computer, 26 (3): 93 (1993).

Chen, Ching-chih and Peter Hernon. Information Seeking: Assessing and Anticipating User Needs. Applications in Information Management and Technology Series. NY: Neal-Schuman Publishers, Inc., 1982.

Connors, Tom, "The Highway to a Short Circuit?" Journal of Commerce, 396 (27971): 8A (May 6, 1993).

Coy, Peter, "How Do You Build An Information Highway?" Business Week, (3231): 108-110, (September 16, 1991). [1991a]

Coy, Peter, "Why the Highway Won't Reach the Home Just Yet" Business Week, (3231): 112, (September 16, 1991). [1991b]

Davies, J. T. The Scientific Approach. London: Academic Press, 1973.

Dordick, Herbert S., Helen G. Bradley and Burt Nanus. The Emerging Network Marketplace. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation, 1981.

Dowlin, Kenneth E. The Electronic Library: The Promise and the Process. New York: Neal-Schuman Publishers, Inc., 1984.

Elmer-DeWitt, Philip, "Electronic Superhighway," Time, 141 (15): 50-56 (1993).

Fisher, Mary Jane, "Health Care Electronic 'Highway' May Save Billions," National Underwriter Life & Health-Financial Services, 31: 28-29 (3 August, 1992).

Hays, David G., "The On-Line Society: With Liberty and Access for All," in The Social Impact of Information Retrieval: The Information Bazaar. edited by Alberta D. Berton. Philadelphia, PA: Medical Documentation Service, The College of Physicians of Philadelphia, 1970.

Hempel, Carl G., "Science and Human Values," in Aspects of Scientific Explanation. New York: The Free Press, 1965.

Kibirige, Harry M., "The Information Dilemma," in New Directions in Librarianship, No. 4. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1983.

Lewis, Dennis, "Expanding Horizons," in Information Management: From Strategies to Action, edited by Blaise Cronin. London: Aslib, 1985.

McClure, Charles R. et al. The National Research and Education Network (NREN): Research and Policy Perspectives. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation, 1992.

Macilwain, Colin, "US Electronic Highway Needs Consensus More Than Dollars," Nature, 362 (6421): 582 (1993).

Norman, Donald A. Memory and Attention. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1969.

Reynolds, Larry, "Speeding Toward the Information Superhighway," Management Review, 82 (7): 61-63 (1993).

Roberts, Johnnie L. and Carnevale, Mary Lu, "Time Warner Plans Electronic 'Superhighway'," The Wall Street Journal, 27 Jan. 1993, p. B1.

Rossman, Parker. The Emerging Worldwide Electronic University: Information Age Global Higher Education. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992.

Schiller, Herbert I., "Public Way or Private Road? The 'Information Highway'," The Nation, 257 (2): 64-66 (1993).

Smith, Jonathan Z., "The Bare Facts of Ritual," in Imagining Religion: From Babylon to Jonestown. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1982. pp. 53-65.

TenHouten, Warren D. and Kaplan, Charles D. Science and Its Mirror Image. NY: Harper & Row, 1973.

Travers, Robert M. W. Man's Information System. Scranton, PA: Chandler Publishing Company, 1970.

Woodman, Lynda, "Information Management in Large Organizations," in Information Management: From Strategies to Action, edited by Blaise Cronin. London: Aslib, 1985.


It is an easily provable fact that a search of the available information universe for any num-ber of topics will not generate consistent and reliable results. For example, a search of Internet gopher sites, using the Veronica search software, produced the indicated number of "hits" for each of the denoted keywords. The quality or redundancy of the data pointed to by each of these hits was not evaluated and is moot for the purposes of this example.

The cause(s) of the disparity among the number of hits per keyword per Veronica site is unknown, but could be due to some form of deliberate/non-deliberate censorship
(My note: Do you see this? Wow - they already psy-opped us all into thinking all of the search entries and stuff that you input into your search engines - well, all of that is all the algorithm's doing, and the algorithm is 'non-biased' and 'all-open'), or to in situ software/hardware problems or incompatibilities. It also must be noted, and emphasized, that the first search on a keyword on many occasions returned an error message or a message indicating that no information was available. Another search, initiated immediately afterwards on the same site, often would return a number of hits. Thus, the internal integrity and replicative abilities of any of these Veronica sites must be suspect. In any case, these data illustrate the varying results that can be obtained for any such broad-ranging search.
Keyword                                Veronica Search Site


Bondage                  23                            0                            0 [40]                                 [9]

Bosnia                     163                         61                           163 [147]                           [30]

Euthanasia                9                            3                              9 [18]                                 [63]

New York               656                        579                           700 [200]                         [200]

Overload                  0                            28                            31 [37]                             [49]

Terrorist                   2                             3                              0 [4]                                 [7]
NOTE: Unbracketed dates = a search conducted 12 June 1993;

[Bracketed] dates = a search conducted 1 September 1993.
Only the, and Veronica sites were available on 12 June 1993; only the and Veronica sites were available on 1 September 1993. This, of course, introduces yet another variable in any attempt to locate "all" of the information on a given topic.

The following listing of electronic newsgroups are but a small example that illustrates the extant censorship of data and information, or the censoring of access to it. These newsgroups represent a non-random sampling of those that can, or cannot, be subscribed to at the University of Missouri, Columbia, Missouri (all of them, however, are listed on the campus IBM mainframe computer) as of 1 September 1993.

alt.paranormal alt.alien.visitors

alt.folklore.urban alt.folklore.computers

alt.snowmobiles alt.surfing

alt.personals alt.romance

alt.society.revolution alt.skinheads

alt.religion.computers alt.cobol

alt.magick alt.child-support alt.usage.english

comp.society.folklore comp.multimedia comp.research.japan

soc.culture.vietnamese soc.culture.french

soc.culture.esperanto soc.culture.soviet

soc.religion.quaker soc.religion.bahai soc.penpals
The reason, or reasons, for this differentiation in data access and availability is neither known nor assumed; it merely exists, and no approbation of it should be assumed. Nor is it assumed that the University of Missouri is unique in this respect; in fact, quite the opposite is assumed. The point to be made is that many organizations undoubtedly censor the information (or access to it) that they make available to their users. The reason(s) for this censorship, and its very existence, may or may not be known to those users.

Yeah, you could say - this article is from 1993 - this is all outdated stuff - well, you can see many of the things it describes in here already trickling down into society (well, the Internet, really). So looks like they're going by a gameplan.
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately

Offline citizenx

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9,086
Oh, they want all of our information.  They just don't give a fig for our actual health.

I'm sure they will include HIV status at some future time (when they have overcome the PC resistance to that).

Offline Dig

  • All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63,090
    • Git Ureself Edumacated
Napolitano Bombshell:

"We track every single thing you do on the Internet"

Internet Monitoring Needed to Fight Fake Homegrown Terrorism
Published June 18, 2010 | Associated Press

WASHINGTON -- Fighting homegrown terrorism by monitoring Internet communications is a civil liberties trade-off the U.S. government must make to beef up national security, the nation's homeland security chief said Friday.

As terrorists increasingly recruit U.S. citizens [This is a lie, the CIA recruits American citizens. Terrorists do not recruit shit, anyone not an American who even sneazes "allah akbar" is tracked 24/7 (also illegally). And if they interact with any American citizen it is because the CIA wants that interaction to occur], the government needs to constantly balance Americans' civil rights and privacy with the need to keep people safe, said Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano. [THIS IS EXACTLY THE HITLER, BUSH, MAO, STALIN DOCTRINE!]

But finding that balance has become more complex as homegrown terrorists have used the Internet to reach out to extremists abroad for inspiration and training [This is a lie of the highest degree. The top 100 sites used for so called recruiting are run out of Langley, 10 Downing Street, or Tel Aviv. Everybody knows this, is she trying to completely discredit herself?]. Those contacts have spurred a recent rash of U.S.-based terror plots and incidents. [Another lie, just because they initiated Project Northwoods which is so obvious with the Chistmas Underwear Intelligence Op and the Times Square Drill does not mean they can use their own false flag black ops to force us into burning the constitution]

"The First Amendment protects radical opinions, but we need the legal tools to do things like monitor the recruitment of terrorists via the Internet," Napolitano told a gathering of the American Constitution Society for Law and Policy. [Has she completely lost her f**king mind? What? What the hell do they have to do with each other? And why has terrorism grown while we have spent over $5 Trillion on exterminating over 1 million so called terrorists while raping another million, maiming many millions, and causing massive exoduses. And all this time causing PTSD and radiation in over a million soldiers, causing over 20,000 dead soldiers through the battlefield or by damaging their minds so much that they end up committing suicide. After all the world gave to this massive undertaking we are supposed to believe that so calld terrorism by random nuts increased? How is this even possible? Do you think maybe there is some other hidden agenda going on?]

Napolitano's comments suggest an effort by the Obama administration to reach out to its more liberal, Democratic constituencies to assuage fears that terrorist worries will lead to the erosion of civil rights.

The administration has faced a number of civil liberties and privacy challenges in recent months as it has tried to increase airport security by adding full-body scanners, or track suspected terrorists traveling into the United States from other countries.

"Her speech is sign of the maturing of the administration on this issue," said Stewart Baker, former undersecretary for policy with the Department of Homeland Security. "They now appreciate the risks and the trade-offs much more clearly than when they first arrived, and to their credit, they've adjusted their preconceptions."

Underscoring her comments are a number of recent terror attacks over the past year where legal U.S. residents such as Times Square bombing suspect Faisal Shahzad and accused Fort Hood, Texas, shooter Maj. Nidal Hasan, are believed to have been inspired by the Internet postings of violent Islamic extremists. [So the slave Napolitano was not enough for the banksters, Rothschild ordered AP to add that cherry of a comment. Hey Rothschild, we know that both Fort Hood and Times Square were protected patsies by the Terrorist Industrial Complex and that it is funded by Bilderberg and acts on behalf of Bilderberg. Bilderberg had the largest motive for the Fort Hood massacre and then ran the 24/7 psyops about so called Homegrown Terrorism and the evil Internet. Thanks for confirming this "kill the Internet" motive.]

And the fact that these are U.S. citizens or legal residents raises many legal and constitutional questions.

Napolitano said it is wrong to believe that if security is embraced, liberty is sacrificed.

She added, "We can significantly advance security without having a deleterious impact on individual rights in most instances. At the same time, there are situations where trade-offs are inevitable."

As an example, she noted the struggle to use full-body scanners at airports caused worries that they would invade people's privacy.

The scanners are useful in identifying explosives or other nonmetal weapons that ordinary metal-detectors might miss -- such as the explosives that authorities said were successfully brought on board the Detroit-bound airliner on Christmas Day by Nigerian Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab.

He is accused of trying to detonate a bomb hidden in his underwear, but the explosives failed, and only burned Abdulmutallab.

U.S. officials, said Napolitano, have worked to institute a number of restrictions on the scanners' use in order to minimize that. The scans cannot be saved or stored on the machines by the operator, and Transportation Security Agency workers can't have phones or cameras that could capture the scan when near the machine. [These scanners are controlled by NRO, she has no power whatsoever on what they do. What a joke]

NSA Must Examine
All Internet Traffic
to Prevent Cyber Nine-Eleven, Top Spy Says
By Ryan Singel   January 15, 2008  |  9:55 am

Read More

The nation’s top spy, Michael McConnell, thinks the threat of cyberarmageddon! is so great that the U.S. government should have unfettered and warrantless access to U.S. citizens’ Google search histories, private e-mails and file transfers, in order to spot the cyberterrorists in our midst.

That’s according to a sprawling 18-page story on the Director of
National Intelligence by Lawrence Wright in the January 21 edition of the New Yorker. (The story is not online).

In the piece, McConnell returns, in flamboyant style, to his exaggerating ways, hyping threats and statistics to further his bureaucratic aims. For example, McConnell regurgitates the hoary myth that computer crime costs America $100 billion a year. THREAT LEVEL traced down the source of that fake-factoid in September to a former privacy officer for the state of Colorado.

Presumably using unsupported stats like that, in May 2007 McConnell convinced President Bush that a massive cyber-attack on a single U.S. bank would be worse for the economy than than the deadly terrorist attacks of September 11, the article reports. In response, the NSA developed a mind-boggling, but still incomplete, plan to eavesdrop on the internet in order to protect it.

In order for cyberspace to be policed, Internet activity will have to be closely monitored. Ed Giorgio, who is working with McConnell on the plan, said that would mean giving the government the authority to examine the content of any e-mail, file transfer, or Web search. "Google has records that could help in a cyber-investigation," he said. Giorgio warned me, "We have a saying in this business: ‘Privacy and security are a zero-sum game.’"

It says something ominous about McConnell’s priorities if he believes a DDOS attack on Bank of America, or even a computer intrusion that wiped out its database (and magically purged its backup tapes), would be worse than an attack that killed 3,000 Americans.

Still, it’s hardly a surprising plan — given that McConnell was one of the main backers of the Clipper Chip, the government’s failed, early 1990’s proposal to put a backdoor in every encryption product.

McConnell also makes an astounding assertion that the secretive Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court recently crippled the NSA’s overseas signals intelligence collection with a string of soft-on-terror rulings.

McConnell said that federal judges had recently decided, in a series of secret rulings, that any telephone transmission or e-mail that incidentally flowed into U.S. computer systems was potentially subject to judicial oversight. According to McConnell the capacity of the NSA to monitor foreign-based communications had consequently been reduced by seventy per cent.

In other words, McConnell claims the NSA couldn’t intercept a terrorist’s e-mail by tapping a fiber optic cable in Pakistan, if there was a chance the message would pass through a U.S. router or end up in a Hotmail account.

I’m no rich man, but I’ll bet any reader $1,000 that, when and if those rulings are ever released, we’ll see they say no such thing. Send me an e-mail to take me up this bet. U.S. government officials are welcome to participate.

The FISA law that created the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court only applies to intercepts that physically happen within the borders of the United States. The NSA has always been free to intercept foreign communications overseas — the mission for which they were created and funded — even if the call passes through a U.S. switch.

So in the case of the now debunked Iraqi kidnappers anecdote that leads off the New Yorker story, the NSA would only have needed to get a court order if its Iraqi targets initiated communications that flowed through U.S. servers or switches and the NSA decided to tap them physically at a United States internet or telecom facility, by burglarizing it, digging up its cables or getting the company to cooperate. (As for why that happens and how common it is, check my story: NSA’s Lucky Break: How the U.S. Became the Switchboard to the World.)

Simply put, the FISA law is intended to prevent the NSA from operating inside the United States.

In any event, that restriction collapsed this summer with the fear-induced, strong-armed passage of the so-called Protect America Act. That law radically re-architected the nation’s surveillance apparatus.
Now the NSA can turn Gmail’s servers and AT&T’s switches into de facto arms of the surveillance industrial complex without any court oversight.

And though the law ostensibly sunsets in February, any orders in effect at that time will have power for another 12 months. Moreover, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nevada) is reportedly planning to discard legislative attempts to rein in these new powers and will instead simply push to extend the current scheme another 12 months.

In short, McConnell’s politically convenient exaggerations have already worked well for him in winning domestic spying powers, despite their flimsiness under any real scrutiny.

That track record bodes ill for anyone concerned about his new plans to push for sweeping and unnecessary powers to put the NSA in the wires of the internet in order to prevent a computer attacks.

The Wall Street Journal’s intelligence guru Siobhan Gorman’s take is here. Gorman wrote a groundbreaking story on the cyberspace initiative last September while at The Baltimore Sun.

UPDATE: Ex-spook Michael Tanji guest-posting over at Danger Room writes:

It’s bad enough that the Director of National Intelligence is trotting out a bogus threat so the government can snoop on all Internet traffic.  What’s worse is that this kind of mass surveillance is a pretty lame way to catch the honest-to-God bad guys.

Of more interest to observers of intelligence activities is the issue of quality vs. quantity and the slow creep towards doom that these efforts foretell. The fact that we are essentially attempting to gill-net bad guys is a fairly strong indicator that the intelligence community has yet to come up with an effective strategy against information-age threats.

[...] Its not a question of listening in to you whispering sweet nothings into the ear to your significant other, it is simply a case of – as the late Sam Kinison joked – going where the food is. That our intelligence agencies can intercept adversary communications is largely a given, they just want to do it from the convenience of the homeland, not some remote switch in the darkest hinterlands.

(Photo: AP/ Cook)

Read More
Cyberwar Doomsayer Lands $34 Million in Government Cyberwar Contracts
By Ryan Singel   April 13, 2010  |  6:04 pm

Read More

Last month, the former Director of National Intelligence Michael McConnell boldly took to the Senate floor and the Washington Post’s editorial page to declare “The United States is fighting a cyber-war today, and we are losing.”

Thankfully for the American people, his company — the giant defense contractor Booz Allen Hamilton — has now landed the contract to build the Pentagon’s cyberwar control center. For a measly $14.4 million in taxpayer money, the outfit will help build a new cyberwar bunker for the U.S. Cyber Command.

Read More

Additionally, Booz Allen Hamilton won another contract for $20 million to “foster collaboration among telecommunications researchers, University of Maryland faculty members and other academic institutions to improve secure networking and telecommunications and boost information assurance,” Washington Technology reports. While that might sound like a lot of money to set up a mailing list and a wiki, please don’t be cynical. Undoubtedly, McConnell’s crack team of consultants are providing the researchers with around-the-clock bodyguards and state-of-the-art bullet-proof monitors.

Meanwhile, we urge U.S. netizens to refrain from un-patriotic musings that McConnell intentionally uses fear and exaggerated rhetoric to land these kinds of contracts for his company and instead, be vigilant and keep their eyes out for signs of Chinese hackers (one telltale sign is a “Made in China” label on the bottom of your laptop).

Otherwise you might soon find yourself facing a Red Screen of Death (RSOD), making you just one more casualty in this tragic cyberwar we Americans are all bravely enduring as one nation united.

Photo: USAF

Read More


We are living in a concentration camp!

All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately

Offline Dig

  • All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63,090
    • Git Ureself Edumacated
When the Unabomber and the National Security Advisor have been saying the same exact thing for decades, you know you are in trouble:

[Disclaimer: This site detests any provocation of violence in any way whatsoever. The insane actions taught to Kaczynski in the unconsented MK Ultra studies forced upon him without his knowledge at Harvard University are deplorable. But they also told him the Bilderberg takover plans and he wrote about it just as Zbigniev Brzezinski did years earlier. Here is the Forum's stand on activism as explained in the subheading of the activism room: This forum is to promote non-violent non-cooperation as MLK, Jr. and Gandhi did. Do not ever, even as innuendo, promote violence on this forum. Report others who do. Anyone promoting violence will be banned and posts removed (at the least). The promoting of violence is a CoIntelPro tactic to stop lawful discourse against corrupt government tyranny. Research the Church Commission report and you will find that 25% of the KKK during the 1960's were FBI and FBI assets. They were the ones in the cars and engaged in the conversations promoting the horrendous violence that occured throught this great land. They also were promoting violence within the constitutional black nationalist movements in order to shut that down (see CoIntelPro: War on Black America). Do not let the new CoIntelPro do the same thing with the truth movement. More here: Additionally, this site condemns the insane actions by elite chess players like Kissinger and others who exterminate millions via false flag terrorism and mockingbird psyops.]

“The technotronic era involves the gradual appearance of a more controlled society. Such a society would be dominated by an elite, unrestrained by traditional values. [...] The capacity to assert social and political control over the individual will vastly increase. It will soon be possible to assert almost continuous surveillance over every citizen and to maintain up-to-date, complete files, containing even most personal information about the health or personal behavior of the citizen in addition to more customary data. These files will be subject to instantaneous retrieval by the authorities.”
-Zbigniew Brzezinski


144. Thus human nature has in the past put certain limits on the development of societies. People could be pushed only so far and no farther. But today this may be changing, because modern technology is developing way of modifying human beings.

145. Imagine a society that subjects people to conditions that make them terribly unhappy, then gives them the drugs to take away their unhappiness. Science fiction? It is already happening to some extent in our own society. It is well known that the rate of clinical depression had been greatly increasing in recent decades. We believe that this is due to disruption fo the power process, as explained in paragraphs 59-76. But even if we are wrong, the increasing rate of depression is certainly the result of SOME conditions that exist in today's society. Instead of removing the conditions that make people depressed, modern society gives them antidepressant drugs. In effect, antidepressants area a means of modifying an individual's internal state in such a way as to enable him to tolelrate social conditions that he would otherwise find intolerable. (Yes, we know that depression is often of purely genetic origin. We are referring here to those cases in which environment plays the predominant role.)

146. Drugs that affect the mind are only one example of the methods of controlling human behavior that modern society is developing. Let us look at some of the other methods.

147. To start with, there are the techniques of surveillance. Hidden video cameras are now used in most stores and in many other places, computers are used to collect and process vast amounts of information about individuals. Information so obtained greatly increases the effectiveness of physical coercion (i.e., law enforcement).[26]

Then there are the methods of propaganda, for which the mass communication media provide effective vehicles. Efficient techniques have been developed for winning elections, selling products, influencing public opinion. The entertainment industry serves as an important psychological tool of the system, possibly even when it is dishing out large amounts of sex and violence. Entertainment provides modern man with an essential means of escape. While absorbed in television, videos, etc., he can forget stress, anxiety, frustration, dissatisfaction. Many primitive peoples, when they don't have work to do, are quite content to sit for hours at a time doing nothing at all, because they are at peace with themselves and their world. But most modern people must be constantly occupied or entertained, otherwise the get "bored," i.e., they get fidgety, uneasy, irritable.

148. Other techniques strike deeper that the foregoing. Education is no longer a simple affair of paddling a kid's behind when he doesn't know his lessons and patting him on the head when he does know them. It is becoming a scientific technique for controlling the child's development. Sylvan Learning Centers, for example, have had great success in motivating children to study, and psychological techniques are also used with more or less success in many conventional schools. "Parenting" techniques that are taught to parents are designed to make children accept fundamental values of the system and behave in ways that the system finds desirable....

149. Presumably, research will continue to increase the effectiveness of psychological techniques for controlling human behavior. But we think it is unlikely that psychological techniques alone will be sufficient to adjust human beings to the kind of society that technology is creating. Biological methods probably will have to be used. We have already mentioned the use of drugs in this connection. Neurology may provide other avenues of modifying the human mind. Genetic engineering of human beings is already beginning to occur in the form of "gene therapy," and there is no reason to assume the such methods will not eventually be used to modify those aspects of the body that affect mental functioning.

150. As we mentioned in paragraph 134, industrial society seems likely to be entering a period of severe stress, due in part to problems of human behavior and in part to economic and environmental problems. And a considerable proportion of the system's economic and environmental problems result from the way human beings behave. Alienation, low self-esteem, depression, hostility, rebellion; children who won't study, youth gangs, illegal drug use, rape, child abuse , other crimes, unsafe sex, teen pregnancy, population growth, political corruption, race hatred, ethnic rivalry, bitter ideological conflict (i.e., pro-choice vs. pro-life), political extremism, terrorism, sabotage, anti-government groups, hate groups. All these threaten the very survival of the system. The system will be FORCED to use every practical means of controlling human behavior.

151. The social disruption that we see today is certainly not the result of mere chance. It can only be a result of the conditions of life that the system imposes on people. (We have argued that the most important of these conditions is disruption of the power process.) If the systems succeeds in imposing sufficient control over human behavior to assure itw own survival, a new watershed in human history will have passed. Whereas formerly the limits of human endurance have imposed limits on the development of societies (as we explained in paragraphs 143, 144), industrial-technological society will be able to pass those limits by modifying human beings, whether by psychological methods or biological methods or both. In the future, social systems will not be adjusted to suit the needs of human beings. Instead, human being will be adjusted to suit the needs of the system.

[27] 152. Generally speaking, technological control over human behavior will probably not be introduced with a totalitarian intention or even through a conscious desire to restrict human freedom. [28] Each new step in the assertion of control over the human mind will be taken as a rational response to a problem that faces society, such as curing alcoholism, reducing the crime rate or inducing young people to study science and engineering.


153. Thus control over human behavior will be introduced not by a calculated decision of the authorities but through a process of social evolution (RAPID evolution, however).

The process will be impossible to resist, because each advance, considered by itself, will appear to be beneficial, or at least the evil involved in making the advance will appear to be beneficial, or at least the evil involved in making the advance will seem to be less than that which would result from not making it

(see paragraph 127). Propaganda for example is used for many good purposes, such as discouraging child abuse or race hatred. [14] Sex education is obviously useful, yet the effect of sex education (to the extent that it is successful) is to take the shaping of sexual attitudes away from the family and put it into the hands of the state as represented by the public school system.


157. Assuming that industrial society survives, it is likely that technology will eventually acquire something approaching complete control over human behavior. It has been established beyond any rational doubt that human thought and behavior have a largely biological basis. As experimenters have demonstrated, feelings such as hunger, pleasure, anger and fear can be turned on and off by electrical stimulation of appropriate parts of the brain. Memories can be destroyed by damaging parts of the brain or they can be brought to the surface by electrical stimulation. Hallucinations can be induced or moods changed by drugs. There may or may not be an immaterial human soul, but if there is one it clearly is less powerful that the biological mechanisms of human behavior. For if that were not the case then researchers would not be able so easily to manipulate human feelings and behavior with drugs and electrical currents.


159. Will public resistance prevent the introduction of technological control of human behavior? It certainly would if an attempt were made to introduce such control all at once.

But since technological control will be introduced through a long sequence of small advances, there will be no rational and effective public resistance.


The above is taken from the Manifesto written by [Documented MK Ultra Victim] Ted Kaczynski, (the unabomber), published in 1995.
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately

Offline citizenx

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9,086
They may not care about the number of abortions ,but one day the number of children you have will be linked to your chip, that is for sure (if you have one).