Author Topic: Feds raid office of Obama's Chief Technology Officer and arrest aide (wow)  (Read 14594 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 Pick for Information Officer Raided by FBI
The investigation is related to allegations of corruption, one source said, but at this point is not targeting Vivek Kundra.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/03/12/obamas-pick-information-officer-raided-fbi/

FOXNews.com

Thursday, March 12, 2009

FBI agents have raided the D.C. office of the man tapped to be President Obama's chief information officer, sources told FOX News.

The agents on Thursday morning raided the office of Vivek Kundra, who is also the outgoing D.C. chief technology officer. The investigation is related to allegations of corruption, one source said, but at this point is not targeting Kundra.

FBI spokeswoman Lindsay Gotwin would not describe the nature of the probe.

"It's an ongoing law enforcement investigation," she said.

In a March 5 White House press release, the administration said it chose Kundra to be the federal chief information officer because of his "depth of experience in the technology arena and a commitment to lowering the cost of government operations to this position."

The chief information officer is responsible for overseeing federal technology spending.
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
Re: Feds raided Chief Technology Officer for Obama's Office (wow)
« Reply #1 on: March 12, 2009, 10:55:42 am »
UPDATED: Office Of Former Washington DC CTO, Now Obama Staffer, Raided By FBI
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/03/office_of_former_washington_dc_cto_now_obama_staff.php
By Zachary Roth - March 12, 2009, 11:35AM

The office of Washington DC's chief technology officer has been raided by FBI agents, reports the Politico.

But this isn't just a local story. Vivek Kundra, who served in the position until February 4, was last week appointed the first ever Federal Chief Information Officer by the Obama administration.

An FBI spokeswoman told Politico that the search was part of an "ongoing investigation." And a separate source told the site that the FBI had sent all staffers at the office, aside from senior executives, home for the day.

Another source familiar with the raid said the FBI had sent all staffers other than senior executives home for the day.

The White House declined to comment to Politico.

We'll keep you posted on this.

Late Update: It looks like Kundra may not be the focus of the probe after all. The Washington Post reports that an employee in the office, Yusuf Acar, who serves as the information systems security officer for the city, has been arrested as part of a federal bribery sting.

A spokesman for the US Attorneys office said the case is "is under seal."
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
Re: Feds raided Obama's Chief Technology Officer's Office (wow)
« Reply #2 on: March 12, 2009, 10:56:55 am »
2 arrested in FBI raid at Obama appointee's office
http://www.wtop.com/?nid=596&sid=1622618
March 12, 2009 - 11:39am

WASHINGTON - Two officials in the D.C.'s Office of the Chief Technology Officer have been arrested in a federal bribery sting, sources tell WTOP.

D.C. Office of the Chief Technology Officer employees Sushil Bansal and 40-year-old Yusuf Acar have been arrested, sources tell WTOP.

Acar was taken into custody Thursday morning by FBI agents at his home in Northwest D.C.

The FBI is now serving a search warrant at the office of D.C.'s Chief Technology Officer, WTOP has learned.

"We are there as part of a continuing ongoing criminal investigation," FBI Washington Field Office spokesperson Katherine Schweit tells WTOP.

Schweit would not comment on the details of the investigation.

More than a dozen FBI agents - including evidence technicians - at the office, located at 1 Judiciary Square on 4th Street in Northwest, WTOP's Mark Segraves reports.

Most of the employees have been told to go home. Other employees have been segregated into a waiting room.

Segraves reports the FBI's search has expanded from 9th floor offices to 10th floor offices.

A spokesman for D.C.'s U.S. Attorney tells WTOP he cannot discuss the investigation, as it is currently sealed.

On March 5, President Barack Obama named D.C. Chief Technology Officer Vivek Kundra as the federal government's chief information officer.

Kundra's last day was March 4.

Kundra, who was in charge of technology in the District since 2007, has been a consultant to Obama since he won the election.
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
Re: Feds raided Chief Technology Officer for Obama's Office (wow)
« Reply #3 on: March 12, 2009, 10:58:52 am »
Just look at how this guy was being positioned before today:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Obama Appoints a Cloud Computing Fancier
A Delhi-born ex-marketing guy, Vivek Kundra, has been named America's first CIO
http://au.sys-con.com/node/874284
By: Maureen O'Gara
Mar. 11, 2009 11:15 PM

Ahead of Barrack Obama's promised appointment of America's first CTO, the CTO of the District of Columbia, a Delhi-born ex-marketing guy, Vivek Kundra, has been named America's first CIO.

He's a self-professed cloud fancier who replaced Washington's Microsoft widgetry with Google's web-based applications.

Perhaps, if he has his way, the deficit-ridden post office will be forced to go digital and snail mail will become rare, if not history. Now that would be disruptive.         
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 xTruthSeekerx

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8,328
Re: Feds raided Chief Technology Officer for Obama's Office (wow)
« Reply #4 on: March 12, 2009, 11:00:09 am »
sounds like 24 in the making as you mentioned before

Offline Dig

  • All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63,090
    • Git Ureself Edumacated
Re: Feds raided Chief Technology Officer for Obama's Office (wow)
« Reply #5 on: March 12, 2009, 11:00:32 am »
Wow this guy was going to set a standard for the NAU (this is big news!)...


What Canada can learn from Obama’s new CIO
http://www.itworldcanada.com/a/News/3443a013-4d9f-4c12-958e-7498c319a87f.html
By: Rafael Ruffolo - ComputerWorld Canada  (12 Mar 2009)


With the U.S. government increasing its interest in technology as a driver for innovation, some industry observers hope Canada will prioritize these issues as well. Read commentary from notable tech blogger Michael Geist and ITAC chief Bernard Courtois


The Obama administration has been applauded by many in the technology sector for its strong commitment to changing the way the U.S. government thinks about IT. Now, many tech observers north of the border are wondering when Canada will follow suit and better prioritize technology issues at the cabinet level.

Last week, the U.S. introduced its first CIO, Vivek Kundra, who was given the mandate of changing the way the federal government uses technology. Shortly after being appointed, Kundra told reporters he planned to “revolutionize technology in the private sector” and create a Web site to “democratize” the federal government’s vast information database making it accessible in open formats.

The new CTO also stressed the importance of cloud computing and criticized the government’s dependence on large scale and expensive IT contracts. He also plans to examine the way the private sector adopts new technologies and bring those practices to the government.

“The public sector thought they were so special that they wouldn't adopt consumer technologies,” said Kundra, who also noted that when he would connect his laptop to a local Starbucks Wi-Fi network then he “had more computing power in my hands at local coffee shop than average teacher or police officer.”

While Canada does have a similar Chief Information Officer branch in the Treasury Board Secretariat, the head of the branch has been vacated for several months. The CIO of Canada position is rumoured to be filled sometime this April.

But according to Michael Geist, research chair of Internet and e-commerce law at the University of Ottawa and notable blogger on electronic law, the problem for Canada right now is at the cabinet level.

“Other countries have tried to identify a specific minister in charge of innovation or technology,” he said. “The fact that we haven’t done so is causing us some measure of harm. We would do better by allocating some specific responsibilities at the cabinet level.”

Geist added that while current Industry Minister Tony Clement has shown considerable interest in technology-related issues, his office has such a broad mandate that it can’t dedicate the time that is truly necessary. For example, the Competition Bureau, the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, foreign investment, and the automotive sector all currently fall under the Industry Minister’s mandate, he added.


“When former Industry Minister Jim Prentice introduced the copyright bill back in 2007, he was coming off the spectrum auction and new Investment Canada regulations,” Geist said. “Many people were very critical with where that legislation was headed, but it would be tough for anyone to engage on this issue coming off two other issues that would take up that much time.”

Courtois, like Geist, is hopeful that the Obama factor will influence the Canadian government to deal with these concerns.

“In Canada, we’re supposed to be strong in this stuff, so we would hope our government would look at an integrated strategy to use ICT to advance our society,” Bernard Courtois, president and CEO at the Information Technology Association of Canada (ITAC), said.

“We’ve all heard the Finance Minister and the Industry Minister advise businesses that they have to use more technology to be productive, competitive and grow,” Courtois said. But the most important thing right now, he argued is the government itself should be practicing what they preach.

“We’re digging ourselves into a very deep deficit and we’ll want to dig ourselves out. It will be extremely logical to invest now in things that will make the government more efficient in the future.”

He added that Canada’s technology strategy during the recession will make a significant difference in how the country will potentially rebound and compete in the future global landscape.

Unfortunately, Geist said, the current economic challenges will probably be used as a scapegoat for avoiding this issue, rather than a catalyst to actually developing a long-term strategy for IT in the public and private sectors.

If the country is going to develop a true Canadian digital agenda, it’s either going to be the Industry Minister or another cabinet colleague who works to push these issues to the forefront. he added.
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
Re: Feds raided Chief Technology Officer for Obama's Office (wow)
« Reply #6 on: March 12, 2009, 11:02:01 am »
Holy shit, they had a whole fricking communist/nazi agenda for this guy:


10 IT agenda items for the first U.S. CIO
Obama's appointment of Vivek Kundra marks an important first step for rectifying the nation's concerns about IT

http://www.infoworld.com/archives/emailPrint.jsp?R=printThis&A=/article/09/03/09/10FE-national-cio-agenda_1.html
By Paul Venezia

March 09, 2009



Last week, President Barack Obama made good on his promise to appoint a national tech leader for the United States. As the country's first-ever CIO, Vivek Kundra faces significant challenges modernizing the nation's IT infrastructure and will be charged to do so at a time when self-interests and a lack of industry oversight threaten not only our freedoms and privacy but also the long-term innovation potential of IT.
 

And though the former CTO of the District of Columbia's new job description errs on the side of IT management rather than U.S. tech policy, the move toward a national CIO -- and, likely, a national CTO -- lends hope that the government will provide much-needed oversight to an industry that has fast been infused into nearly every aspect of our lives.

[ For perspective on the nation's tech policy in the years ahead, see "A high-tech agenda for President Obama." For a look at Kundra's credentials, see "Meet the nation's first CIO" and his 2008 InfoWorld CTO 25 profile. ]

After all, governance has proved essential to safeguarding a variety of long-standing industries from corporate malfeasance. And creating a post designed to oversee government-wide technical initiatives may be the first step toward getting the United States back on track in a number of tech areas faltering due to corporate neglect.

Here are 10 agenda items many of us in IT would like to see the first-ever U.S. CIO address.

Agenda item No. 1: Mandatory restitution for customer data leaks
Companies that damage the public trust by dumping chemicals in streams or by illegally disposing waste pay fines. But those that breach the public trust due to data mishaps face little in the way of restitution. This must change.

The scenario is familiar: Banks cancel debit and credit cards abruptly, issuing new cards and account numbers with little explanation. Such is the fallout of data breaches and incidents wherein accounting records are "lost." Too often the card-issuing banks fail to divulge the name of the company responsible for that data leak; they simply cancel and reissue cards, leaving unwitting customers to clean up the mess.

Although IT has been saddled with a legal duty to secure sensitive data and to notify the public in the event of a data breach, this type of corporate negligence goes largely unpunished. If more stringent mandates were put in place to actually hold companies liable for their own security breaches, customers would see better care taken with their identities.

Offending companies at the very least should pay every bank and account holder for the cost of canceling and reissuing credit and debit cards due to negligent data practices. Restitution should also include payment for the time required to fix the fallout of their negligence. Add a fine of $10 per record, and you will certainly see a drop in breaches that expose millions of customers' account data at a time -- or at least more diligence in protecting those records.

It is well past time to get serious about citizens' sensitive data.

Agenda item No. 2: Mandate net neutrality in perpetuity
It’s a new age, and with it should come new rights, such as the right to unfettered Internet access. Much as our country was originally founded on beliefs such as the freedom of speech, congregation, and religion, we should be awarded the freedom of information in the form of open network access.

If the major ISPs had their way, access to the Internet would be tiered, exactly like cable television. That is, you’d have a “basic plan” that would let you access only a handful of sites, and a larger plan, with a larger price tag, that would allow you to access more sites. If put into place, it would necessarily destroy the original premise of the Internet as a completely open network of computers, where every system can connect to every other system, regardless of location.

No good can ever come from a tiered Internet, and the government should solidify that as a basic right. This isn’t to say that every citizen should be given free Internet access, but rather that such access should not be filtered, censored, or constrained in any way.

ISPs should be free to sell various packages based on access speed and acceptable-use policies, but federal law should mandate that these services have no filtering whatsoever, including the current practice of blocking certain inbound ports.

Agenda item No. 3: Place restrictions on EULAs
Suppose GM required truck buyers to sign a document stating that the company could claim ownership to any material carried in the truck or that the company was not liable for any claims should the truck spontaneously explode due to a manufacturing defect. That’s the situation we face with software, as companies' use of EULAs (end-user license agreements) to indemnify themselves for anything and everything has spun out of control.

Some EULAs go so far as to claim ownership of any work product created with their software. Couple that with the fact that EULAs have become so onerous that few bother to read them before clicking Agree, and you can fast see disaster in the making.

The fact that these agreements are often difficult to uphold in a court of law begs the question: What is the purpose of making EULAs so wide ranging to begin with? Perhaps a User’s Bill of Rights is in order.

By all means, companies should be allowed to protect themselves with something akin to a EULA. But federally mandated standards and restrictions governing the scope of EULAs will go far in fostering innovation and growth in the software industry, not to mention protecting users from undue provisions.

Under no circumstances should a company be able to claim ownership of end-users' work products, nor should they be able to indemnify themselves from any action due to their own malfeasance in such a document.

Agenda item No. 4: Mandate the rollout of DNSSEC and BGPSEC
The Internet has become a fundamental pathway for public, private, and government communication, as well as financial transactions. Unfortunately, core infrastructure components in the United States remain woefully lacking in security for both DNS and BGP, making them unacceptably open targets for hackers.

Securing BGP is an absolute necessity. Only recently, there was a relatively significant routing problem that took parts of the Internet offline for several hours. The cause was runaway BGP advertisements from a single BGP peer. BGPSEC might not have helped that particular instance, as it was caused by human error, but the same problem would have occurred if someone had purposefully injected bad routing advertisements via unsecured BGP peers.

DNS is the cornerstone of IP networking. Without the names, we only have numbers, and while the resources might be available, without the directory converting the name of those resources to IP addresses, we can’t see the forest for the trees. Also, by poisoning DNS server cache, malcontents can direct users to their own versions of known Web sites and swipe their log-ins or gain access to other sensitive information. Ensuring that DNS servers cannot be compromised at any level is a requirement for a secure Internet.

Implementing DNSSEC and BGPSEC throughout the country is not only the right thing to do, it’s not a terribly difficult task to accomplish. In fact, ISPs and hosting providers should have done so already. The hard part would be coordinating the effort. Given a clear time frame and guidelines set forth by the government, carriers could be coerced into stepping up to the plate and implementing this basic and extremely vital safeguarding methodology for the Internet.

Agenda item No. 5: Clean up the spam mess
According to Spamhaus, the United States is far and away the No. 1 source for all spam. In fact, most companies are experiencing spam levels as high as 99 percent of all incoming e-mail -- a ridiculous proportion made that much more unpalatable by the amount of phishing attempts hidden within. If these levels persist, they will eventually cause the demise of e-mail as a viable communications medium.

There is only so much that can be done within a single country to fix this problem, but steps need to be taken -- soon. One tactic would be to institute a mandatory $10-per-spam fine for anyone determined to be sending unsolicited bulk e-mail. By aggressively locating and prosecuting these cases, the United States could curtail a sizable chunk of spammers based within its borders. After all, the quickest way to end unsavory practices like this is to make them economically unviable. Meaningful fines pursued diligently are one method of achieving that goal.

Of course, this approach would not stop overseas spammers, and botnet spam operations would continue. But if written properly, the law could ensure grounds for prosecution of any botnet with even a single member existing under U.S. jurisdiction.

Agenda item No. 6: Tax breaks for rural broadband last-mile carriers
It’s no secret that broadband access to much of rural America is spotty at best. In fact, there are many not-so-rural areas that are grossly underserved. If we’re to hold ourselves up as leaders in the Digital Age, we need to make broadband more widely available to those who don’t live in metropolitan areas.

The U.S. government has tried rural broadband initiatives before. It even created a fund that ISPs could draw from to extend broadband access. Carriers such as Comcast and Verizon took their share and frittered the subsidies away without making significant strides toward connecting the unconnected.

While it’s not generally a good idea to throw good money after bad, a performance-based incentive program might be the place to start. Here, tax breaks could provide a spark. Under such a program, every previously unserved household brought into the broadband fold would result in a small tax break for the carrier responsible. In order to increase competition and reduce the de facto monopolies that exist in underserved areas, this incentive could be extended to any last-mile carrier that brings service into an area that currently offers only one other existing broadband option.

Agenda item No. 7: Codify national standards for electronic medical records
In this day and age, it shouldn’t be a challenge for one hospital or clinic to securely access a patient’s medical records, wherever they may be. In the paper era, this meant couriers, copiers, and lots of dead trees. These days, all it should require is sufficient authorization, encryption, and perhaps a proxy for auditing purposes.

Currently, many patients’ medical records are stored electronically in a database run by whatever EMR software your clinic or hospital is using. Access to those records from outside entities is all but impossible in most cases, requiring the records to be printed out and snail-mailed to another location. Since these records already exist in digital form, there should be a better way to safely and quickly transmit that information to another health care provider, especially in an emergency.

If the U.S. government set up a central proxy -- not a repository -- for EMR transactions, it could effectively keep accurate logs on the transmission of medical records from facility to facility, conform to HIPAA standards, and still enable medical records to easily move where they’re needed.

After this article was written, but before publication, Obama introduced a somewhat amorphous plan related to electronic medical records, but the particulars of this program aren’t readily available and are likely still in the development phase.

Such an agenda would require the cooperation of all EMR software developers, but that’s what standards are for. Come up with a central XML-based standard for the records with the help of those companies, and let them transition their products to work with the central proxy. It’ll take time, but the result will be worth it -- especially if you’ve just had a car accident in another state.

Agenda item No. 8: Mandate a single electronic voting standard
Companies that produce electronic voting systems have proved they can neither manage nor secure their own products. The result is widespread distrust in electronic voting across the country. With something as vital as the election of government officials, we cannot afford such problems, nor do we have to.

The government needs to appoint an independent contractor or bring in the expertise necessary to develop a rigorously tested open source system that can be used by electronic voting machine manufacturers free of charge. The onus of maintaining the code base could be placed on a consortium of key individuals from companies such as IBM, Microsoft, Cisco, and so forth.

By open-sourcing e-voting, rather than depending on proprietary vendors to ensure the integrity of our elections process, the very foundation of our democracy will be better secured. The closed source approach has too often proved to be a road to disenfranchisement.

Agenda item No. 9: Lighten the FCC’s load
The FCC celebrates its 75th birthday this year, and my, how times have changed. Originally created to regulate the airwaves as we understood them in the 1930s, the FCC now stretches well beyond its original footprint, rendering it seemingly powerless to do anything besides levy fines for wardrobe malfunctions. It’s time to split the data from the spectrum and create an ICC, or Internet Communications Commission, that explicitly deals with national internetworking issues.

The internetworking communications system in the United States is far too large and complex for a single five-person commission to handle, in addition to its original charter of policing the airwaves. The stakes are simply too high. Ideally, a new commission would be created and populated with experts in a variety of technical fields essential to the health and security of the Internet, in addition to the usual political appointees.

Agenda item No. 10: Clean its own house
Much ado has been made of President Obama’s staff running into technical roadblocks as they transitioned from campaigners to administrators. Having proved themselves technically savvy on the campaign trail, the team has since inherited a relatively ancient communications infrastructure within the halls of government itself. Modernization of this infrastructure should be among the chief goals of this administration.

And here we are talking about a lot more than just putting a foot down about a BlackBerry. After all, if the various clandestine services can engineer elaborate digital wiretapping and data collection practices across the United States, is it too much to ask that various staffers be able to use their Macs?

Security is certainly an issue for an endeavor such as this, but given that the previous administration “lost” thousands of e-mails by circumventing existing security practices, starting from scratch might not be a bad idea. In fact, it may be a fundamental requirement to maintain Obama’s pledge of a more open government.

The importance of oversight
This is an extremely technical time and an extremely technical country -- and it should have an extremely technical governing body.

Ideally, none of the above agenda items would be necessary if only the tech industry would police itself and make sound decisions that would not negatively impact the country as a whole. Unfortunately, utopian ideals such as these are far from reality, as has been proved by corporate malfeasance in just about every large industry within the United States. OSHA, the FDA, and other government agencies exist for this reason. The telecommunications, software, and hardware industries are not exempt.

It took a few decades from the inception of wireless communication for the government to see the need to create the FCC, and it’s been a few decades since the Internet became mainstream. It is not time for the creation of this post -- it’s well past time.
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
Re: Feds raided Chief Technology Officer for Obama's Office (wow)
« Reply #7 on: March 12, 2009, 11:06:02 am »
Even controlled opposition MoJo (Soros controls mother jones: http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080418111614AAD9Kca ) was pushing this insane position for an open society based on individual liberty:

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

Where Is Obama's Chief Technology Officer?
Obama has yet to appoint a CTO. Techies and open government activists are getting restless.
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2009/03/missing-member-obamas-administration
—By Jonathan Stein Mon March 2, 2009 3:54 PM PST


What happened to Barack Obama's CTO?

The position was central to the technology and transparency platforms the President outlined on the campaign trail, but Obama has yet to tap his administration's Chief Technology officer—and once-enthused open government advocates are getting restless.

A government-wide CTO would be the first of its kind, and Obama's proposal, though ill-defined, seemed promising. The fullest explanation of the position was contained in the campaign's technology platform:

The CTO will ensure the safety of our networks and will lead an interagency effort, working with chief technology and chief information officers of each of the federal agencies, to ensure that they use best-in-class technologies and share best practices.

The CTO will have a specific focus on transparency, by ensuring that each arm of the federal government makes its records open and accessible as the E-Government Act requires. The CTO will also focus on using new technologies to solicit and receive information back from citizens to improve the functioning of democratic government.

But while campaign documents suggested the CTO would ensure technological best practices in order to increase efficiency and facilitate transparency, technology advocates and open government activists envisioned an office that could do far more. Perhaps, some speculated, the CTO could push for increased broadband access in rural areas. Maybe he or she could use the work of the Sunlight Foundation and other open government groups as inspiration, making more government data available online and developing new tools to make it easier to access and interpret.
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 barndoor77

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,026
Re: Feds raid/arrest Obama's Chief Technology Officer (wow)
« Reply #8 on: March 12, 2009, 11:31:16 am »
This guy clearly knows what he is doing, and the ruling monitoring juanta (FBI / NSA / CIA) probably is not keen on having a sitting president that they cannot easily monitor.

I'm sure there will be some 'pressure' upon his replacement to put someone in who is probably working for the CIA - just in case Obama steps out of line.

Offline Dig

  • All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63,090
    • Git Ureself Edumacated
Re: Feds raid/arrest Obama's Chief Technology Officer (wow)
« Reply #9 on: March 12, 2009, 04:40:09 pm »
This guy clearly knows what he is doing, and the ruling monitoring juanta (FBI / NSA / CIA) probably is not keen on having a sitting president that they cannot easily monitor.

I'm sure there will be some 'pressure' upon his replacement to put someone in who is probably working for the CIA - just in case Obama steps out of line.

actually, I have no idea WTF happened (beyond really wild speculation).

All I know is that the media is not really delving into this like they usually do.

This was a major NWO f**k up.  There ain't no doubt about it.

The guy was being primed for the big league, he was already established (unlike the other Live Free or Die Hard patsy), the position was being touted as a major need for freedom and liberty.

Now the feds come in and blow the Bullshit wide open.

Sure, maybe the guy was in a power grab, but that just means that the NWO is committing major f**k ups and do not control everything like they want us to believe (hint hint nudge nudge).

They are bankrupt, exposed, trying all sorts of different false flag plans and all seem to be coming undone (hopefully).

This was not planned, I guarantee you that.
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 goulash

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 800
  • shine the light spread love practice peace
    • http://web.me.com/bikebox/bong_gong/Welcome.html
corruption 2.0 obama man
« Reply #10 on: March 12, 2009, 05:08:14 pm »
2 charged after search of DC tech office,310
The Associated Press - ‎1 hour ago‎
WASHINGTON (AP) - A District of Columbia employee and a technology consultant were charged with corruption Thursday after a raid on the former office of a city official who now works for President Barack Obama.


http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hMT9GSjeFeuiRWPCUKflpfkvfw3QD96SN9S00
peace  is war enjoy ..where's the  war  were  always at war ™ ' said harry i do like  it so'

the real cost of  war

AlphaM

  • Guest
Re: Feds raid/arrest Obama's Chief Technology Officer (wow)
« Reply #11 on: March 12, 2009, 06:06:12 pm »
Offending companies at the very least should pay every bank and account holder for the cost of canceling and reissuing credit and debit cards due to negligent data practices. Restitution should also include payment for the time required to fix the fallout of their negligence. Add a fine of $10 per record, and you will certainly see a drop in breaches that expose millions of customers' account data at a time -- or at least more diligence in protecting those records.

How exactly do they plan on enforcing this?  Are they going to pay visits to companies to inspect their network infrastructure?  Are they going to audit code?  We're talking trade secrets here especially if it concerns home-brewed solutions.  As a consumer I have a right to tell a company to shove it if they compromise my information (e.g. the recent Monster.com debacle).

Likewise, consumers themselves need to become more educated when it comes to practicing good security, especially when it comes to choosing good login credentials and never using the same ones across different places.

Quote
ISPs should be free to sell various packages based on access speed and acceptable-use policies, but federal law should mandate that these services have no filtering whatsoever, including the current practice of blocking certain inbound ports.

Consumers should be able to vote with their wallet.  Get rid of the artificial cable/telco monopolies for starters.  If an ISP saddles consumers with draconian policies and performs DPIs, another ISP will come along without such practices given that the consumer has a choice.

Quote
By all means, companies should be allowed to protect themselves with something akin to a EULA. But federally mandated standards and restrictions governing the scope of EULAs will go far in fostering innovation and growth in the software industry, not to mention protecting users from undue provisions.

Under no circumstances should a company be able to claim ownership of end-users' work products, nor should they be able to indemnify themselves from any action due to their own malfeasance in such a document.

Or just don't use the product.  And speaking of fostering innovation, if you want that to happen let's start dealing with the ridiculous software patents.

Quote
Implementing DNSSEC and BGPSEC throughout the country is not only the right thing to do, it’s not a terribly difficult task to accomplish. In fact, ISPs and hosting providers should have done so already. The hard part would be coordinating the effort. Given a clear time frame and guidelines set forth by the government, carriers could be coerced into stepping up to the plate and implementing this basic and extremely vital safeguarding methodology for the Internet.

OpenDNS, anyone?

Quote
Of course, this approach would not stop overseas spammers, and botnet spam operations would continue. But if written properly, the law could ensure grounds for prosecution of any botnet with even a single member existing under U.S. jurisdiction.

This would be about as effective as the war on drugs.   ::)  As long as there are idiots who believe in rainbow unicorns, there will be spam.  The market already has ways to combat spam without the need for more laws.  As long as there are security holes in Windows and unpatched clients, there will be botnets.  What, are we going to mandate that every user will patch their systems too?  And that there will be a czar to send out goons to ensure that your boxes are fully patched?

Quote
The U.S. government has tried rural broadband initiatives before. It even created a fund that ISPs could draw from to extend broadband access. Carriers such as Comcast and Verizon took their share and frittered the subsidies away without making significant strides toward connecting the unconnected.

First mistake.

Quote
If the U.S. government set up a central proxy -- not a repository -- for EMR transactions, it could effectively keep accurate logs on the transmission of medical records from facility to facility, conform to HIPAA standards, and still enable medical records to easily move where they’re needed.

In one way I agree that there needs to be a standard of some sort, preferably an open format so that no single company can pull off silly lock-in mechanisms in order to hold the data hostage.  To have the government itself hold the information?  That's beyond a slippery slope; that's jumping off Angel Falls without a parachute.

Quote
The government needs to appoint an independent contractor or bring in the expertise necessary to develop a rigorously tested open source system that can be used by electronic voting machine manufacturers free of charge. The onus of maintaining the code base could be placed on a consortium of key individuals from companies such as IBM, Microsoft, Cisco, and so forth.

By open-sourcing e-voting, rather than depending on proprietary vendors to ensure the integrity of our elections process, the very foundation of our democracy will be better secured. The closed source approach has too often proved to be a road to disenfranchisement.

This I agree with, but certainly without IBM, MS, or the like getting involved.

Quote
The internetworking communications system in the United States is far too large and complex for a single five-person commission to handle, in addition to its original charter of policing the airwaves. The stakes are simply too high. Ideally, a new commission would be created and populated with experts in a variety of technical fields essential to the health and security of the Internet, in addition to the usual political appointees.

Health and security of the Internet?  We could start by getting MS out of the picture...

Quote
Security is certainly an issue for an endeavor such as this, but given that the previous administration “lost” thousands of e-mails by circumventing existing security practices, starting from scratch might not be a bad idea. In fact, it may be a fundamental requirement to maintain Obama’s pledge of a more open government.

And pigs will fly.

Offline Dig

  • All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63,090
    • Git Ureself Edumacated
Re: Feds raid/arrest Obama's Chief Technology Officer (wow)
« Reply #12 on: March 12, 2009, 06:13:28 pm »
^ yup, yup, yup.

Something spoiled a major NWO power grab over individual liberty. Not sure what happened, but the plan above was their plan and it is being thwarted by the arrests/searches.
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 Gruntled Employee

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 118

Offline Dig

  • All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63,090
    • Git Ureself Edumacated
UPDATE:  It looked like all roads pointed to the actual CIO for Obama, but...

HE IS BEING PROTECTED!

They are only arresting his aide.  This means that they are going forward with the anti-constitutional plans by this egoist CIO even though there is obvious corruption going on.

This CIO needs to be vetted, I did not even know the position existed before this story. No one has vetted him.
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
New federal CIO Vivek Kundra wants a Web 2.0 government
The U.S. government's first CIO, Vivek Kundra, introduced himself Thursday as someone who will act aggressively to change the federal government's use of IT by adopting consumer technology and ensuring that government data is open and accessible.
http://www.infoworld.com/news/feeds/09/03/05/New-federal-CIO-Vivek-Kundra-wants-a-Web-20-government.html
By Patrick Thibodeau, Computerworld
March 05, 2009

The U.S. government's first CIO, Vivek Kundra, introduced himself Thursday as someone who will act aggressively to change the federal government's use of IT by adopting consumer technology and ensuring that government data is open and accessible.

Kundra also wants to use technology such as cloud computing to attack the government's culture of big-contract boondoggles and its hiring of contractors who end up "on the payroll indefinitely."

Kundra, in a conference call Thursday with reporters shortly after President Barack Obama named him as federal CIO said one of his first projects is to create a data.gov Web site to "democratize" the federal government's vast information treasures by making them accessible in open formats and in feeds that can be used by application developers.

"How can we leverage the power of technology to make sure the country is moving in the right direction?" asked Kundra, stressing that his ambition is to "revolutionize technology in the public sector."

Kundra was expansive about his tech goals and critical of the government's contracting record for IT projects that "frankly haven't performed well," saying there have been few consequences for failures.

While he outlined a tough approach with contractors, Kundra also wants to move the government away from its dependence on big IT contracts. He pointed to cloud-based services used by the private sector to quickly create and provision development platforms, as well as for information sharing, such as for photos and videos. "Yet, you look across the federal government, and we don't have a single platform that allows you do that," he said.

When it comes to information sharing and finding new ways of engaging the public, Kundra spoke highly of Facebook and sees it as a potential model. Facebook Inc.'s 140 million users have "been able to self-organize on issues, on policy, on problems and create a movement so people can be heard," said Kundra.

"We have the ability to run an open, transparent, participatory and collaborative government."

By making federal data accessible, Kundra wants to enable developers to build applications "in a context-rich model" that can help the government and private sector as well develop new products -- and even new kinds of applications that might be used on smartphones. To illustrate the potential, he cited the work of the National Institutes of Health Human Genome Project, which identified genes in human DNA. Its research, available online, helped spur the creation of new drugs, he said. However, Kundra also noted that achieving this vision will take considerable work.

Kundra, who before this appointment served as chief technology officer of the District of Columbia, previously held a technology post with the commonwealth of Virginia. He does not have a long résumé and will likely face daunting challenges trying to steer a technology direction for federal agencies that are now spending about US$71 billion per year on technology.

In his role as D.C.'s CTO, Kundra built a reputation as someone willing to push into new directions. The district has been aggressive in making data available to the public, and it now offers some 240 feeds providing a range of data from the local government, including crime reports and building permits. The data has been used by local bloggers to help provide neighborhood information, as well as by commercial developers.

To encourage the use of government information, Kundra created a contest called Apps for Democracy last year that invited developers to come up with innovative ways to use the feeds.

Peter Corbett, the CEO of iStrategyLabs, a Washington-based marketing and development firm, worked with Kundra to develop the Apps for Democracy contest. Corbett said Kundra told him that he wanted to move away from a model of hiring "an expensive government contractor" to build technologies based on the feeds and instead try to "engage the talented citizens of not only in the D.C. area but nationally and internationally."

The contest resulted in Web and mobile applications used to help people find parking and tourists explore the city, among others.
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
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vivek_Kundra


Vivek Kundra is the current Federal Chief Information Officer (CIO) of the United States of America.[1][2] He has indicated that he will also have the role of the Office of Management and Budget administrator for e-government and information technology.[3] He served in Washington, D.C. Mayor Adrian Fenty's cabinet as the Chief Technology Officer for the District and, before that, as Virginia's Assistant Secretary of Commerce and Technology in Governor Kaine's cabinet.Contents


[edit]
Early Life

Vivek Kundra was born in New Delhi, India. His parents immigrated to Tanzania, where he grew up. Kundra speaks Swahili as his first language. His family moved to the United States when he was 11 and he grew up in Gaithersburg, Maryland. [4] [5]

[edit]
Career

He has been recognized by InfoWorld among the top 25 CTO's in the country[6] and as the 2008 IT Executive of the Year[7] for his pioneering work to drive transparency, engage citizens and lower the cost of government operations. In 2007 he assembled the largest United States trade delegation ever to visit India, comprised of over one hundred business leaders, which resulted in a $99 million investment for the state of Virginia.

He has been recognized for his work in developing programs to spur open source and crowdsourced applications using publicly accessible Web services from the District of Columbia with an initiative called Apps for Democracy. His efforts to use cloud-based Web applications in the District government have been considered innovative within government.[8]

Mr. Kundra advised President Barack Obama's transition committee on technology issues.

He was reportedly considered as one of the possible candidates for the position of Federal Chief Technology Officer[9] as well as other positions.[10] However he was officially named by President Obama on March 5, 2009 to the newly-created post of Federal CIO.[2] (The Chief Technology Officer and the Chief Information Officer have different roles.)

On March 12, 2009, Kundra's CTO former[11] offices were raided by the FBI as part of an "ongoing investigation." [12] The office is being scrutinized for evidence into corruption charges involving the procurement process of software. Mr. Kundra was not a part of the investigation.[13] Kundra has taken a leave of absence pending results of the investigation.[14]

[edit]
Education

Kundra earned a degree in psychology and a masters degree in information technology from the University of Maryland. He is a graduate of the University of Virginia's Sorensen Institute for Political Leadership.

[edit]
See Also
Government 2.0

[edit]
References
^ http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/President-Obama-Names-Vivek-Kundra-Chief-Information-Officer/
^ a b Kim Hart (2009-03-05). D.C. Tech Chief Tapped for White House Slot. Washington Post. Retrieved on 2009-03-05.
^ http://radar.oreilly.com/2009/03/vivek-kundra-federal-cio-in-hi.html
^ http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/04/AR2009010401235_3.html
^ http://www.sorenseninstitute.org/newsroom/entry/political-leaders-2007-profile-vivek-kundra
^ Gruman, Galen (2008-06-08). The best CTOs of 2008. InfoWorld. Retrieved on 2009-03-05.
^ Michelle Ferrone (2008-11-07). [http://www.techcouncilmd.com/News/tcmnews_110708.html The Tech Council of Maryland Announces Award Winners of 2008 CIO&CTO LIVE! Awards]. Tech Council MD. Retrieved on 2009-03-05.
^ http://www.gcn.com/print/27_28/47565-1.html
^ http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/jan2009/tc20090115_815265.htm
^ http://www.federalnewsradio.com/index.php?nid=39&sid=1593841
^ http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10194925-38.html
^ http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0309/FBI_raids_office_of_DC_CTO_Obama_appointee.html
^ http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090312/pl_nm/us_obama_kundra_raid
^ http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2009/03/12/1834790.aspx

[edit]
External Links
An article from November 20, 2008, entitled 'Democratizing Data and Putting it in the Public Domain'
Live On Video: Federal CIO Vivek Kundra In His Own Words - InformationWeek Wolfe's Den blog - March 6, 2009
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
Ok, so our Chief Technology Officer was born in Delhi India and grew up in Tanzania.

Usually I ain't much of a xenophobe...BUT IS THIS FOR REAL?
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
D.C. Tech Official Is Accused of Bribery
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/12/AR2009031201426_pf.html
By Del Quentin Wilber and Nikita Stewart
Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, March 13, 2009; B01


A D.C. government official and a business executive were arrested yesterday on bribery charges involving city technology contracts that included "ghost" workers and kickbacks, federal authorities said.

Raiding offices in the hunt for documents, FBI agents carted away boxes and envelopes throughout the day from the Office of the Chief Technology Officer, the center of the alleged fraud.

In court documents released yesterday, FBI agent Andrew Sekela laid out the complicated and audacious schemes allegedly orchestrated by a mid-level manager who approved many contracts involving the city government's technology needs.

Authorities said the conspiracy was uncovered with the help of a D.C. government employee who recorded conversations with the executive and the city official.

The ultimate cost to the city is not known, but the disclosure comes as it is trying to recoup its losses from an embarrassing tax swindle that siphoned almost $50 million from its coffers over almost two decades.

Until recently, the technology office was headed by Vivek Kundra, who has taken a job as President Obama's chief information officer. A White House official confirmed last night that Kundra has taken a leave of absence.

Mayor Adrian M. Fenty (D) said he was unaware of the technology office investigation until yesterday's raid and arrests. He said the city will "cooperate fully" with the probe.

Yusuf Acar, 40, who has worked in the technology office since 2004, was charged with bribery, conspiracy, money laundering and conflict of interest. Assistant U.S. Attorney Thomas Hibarger told a federal judge that Acar is a flight risk because agents seized $70,000 in cash in his house and because in recorded conversations, he boasted that he could easily flee to his native Turkey. Acar also told the informant that he could use computers to create fake D.C. birth certificates, Hibarger said.

U.S. Magistrate Judge John M. Facciola ordered the Northwest Washington resident held without bond until a hearing Tuesday. At least three other D.C. employees who have not been charged were involved in varying degrees, Sekela alleged.

Sushil Bansal, 41, president and chief executive of the contracting firm Advanced Integrated Technologies Corp. (AITC), was charged with bribery and money laundering. He was released on personal recognizance. Federal agents said Bansal's company received more than $13 million in revenue from the D.C. government in the past five years.

Bansal's attorney, David Lamb, declined to comment. Dani Jahn, a public defender who represented Acar yesterday, also declined to comment.

The technology office is one of two city agencies that are given some leeway in purchase orders. It can dole out noncompetitive orders up to $500,000, compared with a $100,000 limit for other agencies. Acar was one of about 50 managers in the technology office, which has a $69 million budget, 300 employees and 300 contractors.

Federal authorities said the conspiracy, which operated for at least a year, worked like this:

Acar approved work with a vendor, such as Bansal's AITC, to arrange the purchase of goods such as software. The vendor ordered fewer items but billed the District for a larger amount. Bansal, Acar and others then split the proceeds, FBI officials said.

Acar also approved fraudulent time sheets for nonexistent employees, Sekela wrote. Acar and the others split the proceeds paid by the D.C. government, Sekela alleged.

Authorities traced more than $200,000 in payments last year from Bansal's firm to a private company, Circle Networks Inc. The firm is co-owned by Acar, even though he is prohibited from having an interest in any company doing business with the city, Sekela wrote. Circle Networks generated about $2.2 million in revenue through D.C. government contracts, the agent wrote.

Owner Daris Lewis said he had bought out his former partner in Circle Networks several years ago. "I'm a small, veteran-owned business," he said, adding that he did nothing inappropriate. "I don't have anything to do with it."

FBI agents also alleged that Bansal's firm issued $70,201 in checks to Acar's wife, Galen, in 2006 and 2007.

The scam began unraveling in March last year when Acar recruited an unidentified D.C. government employee, an Army veteran who has a master's degree in electrical engineering, FBI agents wrote.

Over drinks one Friday after work, Acar told the employee about the bribery and kickback operation and how it worked, Sekela wrote. The informant approached the FBI and began wearing a hidden recording device and secretly recording phone conversations involving Acar and Bansal.

During a December conversation, Sekela wrote, Acar and the informant discussed what could happen if they were caught. "No, nothing," Acar told the informant, according to a transcript of the call. "I will jump on the next plane, go to Turkey and disappear."

The pair also discussed how they should split money and haggled over their share. After a software deal went through, the FBI agent wrote, the informant received $8,247 from Bansal's company. In late January, Bansal showed up at the informant's office and gave him an envelope stuffed with $3,520 in cash because Bansal and Acar had decided to boost his share of the proceeds, Sekela wrote.

Last month, Sekela wrote, Acar intercepted an e-mail from the D.C. Office of Inspector General. He told the informant in a taped conversation that he had set up a computer system to intercept e-mails that mentioned his name and others, according to Sekela.

Sekela did not disclose what was in the e-mail, but something apparently was worrying Acar.

"Are we going to jail?" he asked the informant.
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 Monkeypox

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16,844
  • He Loved Big Brother
    • Monkeypox
Ok, so our Chief Technology Officer was born in Delhi India and grew up in Tanzania.

Usually I ain't much of a xenophobe...BUT IS THIS FOR REAL?

Why not?

Our freakin' PRESIDENT was born in Kenya!

 :D
War Is Peace - Freedom Is Slavery - Ignorance Is Strength


"Educate and inform the whole mass of the people... They are the only sure reliance for the preservation of our liberty."

—Thomas Jefferson

Offline Dig

  • All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63,090
    • Git Ureself Edumacated
Why not?

Our freakin' PRESIDENT was born in Kenya!

 :D

I am kind of pointing to the fact that over 5 million technology jobs have been outsourced to India and now we have a "natural born Indian" heading up the technology job for the United States of America.  It would be like a "Natural Born Chinese" heading up the Chief Manufacturing Office for the United States.

I mean it is just completely back asswards.
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 lordssyndicate

  • Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,141
  • Stop The New World Order
    • LinkedIn Profile
So, I have a few few comments here:
First off Thanks for bringing this to light  -Sane. This is vital info that must be vetted.

I am kind of pointing to the fact that over 5 million technology jobs have been outsourced to India and now we have a "natural born Indian" heading up the technology job for the United States of America.  It would be like a "Natural Born Chinese" heading up the Chief Manufacturing Office for the United States.

I mean it is just completely back asswards.

I whole heartily agree.



Quote
Kundra earned a degree in psychology and a masters degree in information technology from the University of Maryland. He is a graduate of the University of Virginia's Sorensen Institute for Political Leadership.


Obviously groomed ...... When you add up all of his schooling you realize this man is a highly adept social engineer.....


Which would explain why and how he manged to talk  / engineer his was out of being indited.....
However , in order for him to have even been remotely successful - there had to have been several hands in play that we will never hear about .

Which is why
UPDATE:  It looked like all roads pointed to the actual CIO for Obama, but...

HE IS BEING PROTECTED!

They are only arresting his aide.  This means that they are going forward with the anti-constitutional plans by this egoist CIO even though there is obvious corruption going on.

This CIO needs to be vetted, I did not even know the position existed before this story. No one has vetted him.

Let me second that , we definately need to know who this guy is.... even the Wikipedia article is rather vague....


Lastly let me comment on all of these very FRACKED policies and goals this man hopes to spearhead....

Holy shit, they had a whole fricking communist/nazi agenda for this guy:
So, it appears :(.....

Here are 10 agenda items many of us in IT would like to see the first-ever U.S. CIO address.
Let's begin to read between the lines.

Agenda item No. 1: Mandatory restitution for customer data leaks
Companies that damage the public trust by dumping chemicals in streams or by illegally disposing waste pay fines. But those that breach the public trust due to data mishaps face little in the way of restitution. This must change.

The scenario is familiar: Banks cancel debit and credit cards abruptly, issuing new cards and account numbers with little explanation. Such is the fallout of data breaches and incidents wherein accounting records are "lost." Too often the card-issuing banks fail to divulge the name of the company responsible for that data leak; they simply cancel and reissue cards, leaving unwitting customers to clean up the mess.

Although IT has been saddled with a legal duty to secure sensitive data and to notify the public in the event of a data breach, this type of corporate negligence goes largely unpunished. If more stringent mandates were put in place to actually hold companies liable for their own security breaches, customers would see better care taken with their identities.

There are actually many regulations in place here in the US, they are merely poorly enforced and designed to promote credit card fraud by merely compensating vicitms rather than improving security.
 
So, laws are not the solution  - voting with your wallets is the solution:
While admittedly outdated this work still contains relevant information and has links to more current information as well:
http://www.faughnan.com/ccfraud.html#Preface


Without credit card theft there would be no way to untraceable launder drug money...
http://www.usatoday.com/money/2007-06-11-tjx-data-theft_N.htm
http://www.internetretailer.com/article.asp?id=13727

Without identity theft the CIA would have no alibis for the peoples' identities they steal.
http://www.usnews.com/blogs/alpha-consumer/2008/12/4/why-the-mumbai-terrorists-used-credit-cards.html
http://counterterrorismblog.org/2008/01/credit_cards_and_terrorists.php

So, sadly this is a wolf in sheep's clothing. furthered by practices adhered to by  AOL / Tim Warner Telecommunications - for the benefit of  the CIA.
I say this because TWC/AOL are the purveyors of people's identities on the internet.
Having at one point worked for one of the largest Data Acquisition and Warehousing companies that was later aquired by AOL/TWC in 2002 I say this from personal experience.  AOL/TWC have made billions of dollars trading what are commonly known as data blocks.
There are several grades of data blocks each carrying it's own pricetag.
These grades range from mostly anon to full profile.
Mostly anon are merely an E-mail address and a name.
There are various grades in between but these are all called partials.
Partials can consist of anything from a name, authoritative(ISP. eg. bellsouth.net, verizon.net, etc) email, and telephone number all the way to name, Social secutiy number, e-mail, and mailing address.

Full profile data blocks are everything  they have on file about a particular person and will always include a social security number and all of that person's current credit reports.

This is extremely dangerous because, it can be used and will be used as an excuse to tie everything to a nationalized biometric / RFID system that in truth will be no more secure than the current system.

They already have an RFID /PIN number combination security mechanism and banks in the UK are using it as an excuse not to refund fraudulent purchases!  You can bet they'd love that kind of plausible dependability here in the US.
In fact this article concurs with my first link in stating ONLY MASTER CARD AND VISA CAN SOLVE THIS PROBLEM.......

http://blogs.money.sky.com/money-matters/banks-refuse-to-refund-credit-card-fraud-victims.html
Banks Refuse to Refund Credit Card Fraud Victims

By Annie Shaw
Jan 29, 03:21 PM

Banks behaving badly: you wouldn’t think the banks could get themselves a worse reputation than they already have, but now the news has come out that banks are increasingly finding excuses not to pay compensation to victims of card fraud.

A horrifying one in four UK citizens – or more than 12 million people – have fallen victim to credit card scamsters, with the average loss standing at £650. As many as one in 20 have been conned out of an eye-watering £2,000.

The fact is the banks have been pushing us to use credit and debit cards more and more. Tellers are disappearing from bank branches – that is if you can find a bank branch – cheques belong with the dinosaurs, and Post Offices no longer hand out Child Benefit and pensions like they used to.

We are being encouraged to pay our fares by card, and we can even wave a plastic card over a reader these days to get a cup of coffee or a newspaper. We are moving towards a cashless plastic-paying society.

This move is, of course, saving the banks and (in the case of pension payments etc) the Government millions of pounds in administrative costs. But there is a downside. If someone pinches your purse they get away with, at most, a handful of notes and your library card.

If they get hold of your credit card details, they can plunder your bank account of thousands.

The industry has tried to stem the tide of fraud with Chip & PIN, but, as usual there is a downside – Chip & PIN is NOT 100% safe. There are myriad ways to get round the system, ranging from interfering with the wireless systems that operate between the card readers and verification systems, disabling the chip so the card relies on the magnetic strip on the back, and cloning cards for use overseas.

Added to that is “card not present” fraud, which is growing by leaps and bounds as thieves use card details on the internet and phone.

The banks say that, if someone has used a Chip & PIN card fraudulently and entered the PIN correctly, it must be because you told them the PIN. That is total nonsense.

The banks tried this pathetic excuse when magnetic strip cards first became widespread, causing all manner of distress to families who were falsely led to believe that relatives were stealing from them, rather than the banks’ security systems being totally inadequate, which we now know to be the case.

The common ways Chip & PIN cards can be used by fraudsters include

- Using counterfeit cards offline in terminals that are not connected to the bank’s network or have been temporarily disconnected.

- Using payment machines to steal authorisation codes from cards. The machines can be tampered with using nothing more sophisticated than a paperclip

- Doctoring payment machines at the factory where they are made, usually in the third world. The machines are tracked to retailers in the UK, where they can be remotely controlled by scammers.

The latest figures show that card fraud jumped by 14% in the first half of last year, with a record £301.7million stolen, according to banking industry figures. In 40% of cases cards had been cloned and used in cash machines abroad.

Ross Anderson, professor of security engineering at Cambridge University, who has exposed many of the security loopholes in Chip & PIN, says: “The banks have been lying about the security of their systems and the industry regulators have been completely gullible.”

The fact is that becoming a victim of fraud can ruin your life. It can take many months to sort your financial affairs out after becoming the victim of credit card fraud. It can damage your credit record, which can take many phone calls and letters to correct, and it can be truly traumatising to realise that some malicious but anonymous person is using your bank details to steal from others – but that the suspicion is falling on you.

The problem is that the banks have treated fraud as a “cost of doing business” rather than something that should be totally eliminated. They have used the argument that as long as the cost of reimbursing customers is less than the cost of tightening up systems, then that’s a price they are willing to pay. Or they were.

Now that the cost of fraud is rising, and the banks are even more hard pressed to find the cash to tighten up their systems, they are cracking down on victims who can’t prove that the plundering of their accounts was not due to their own negligence. This is in itself a disgrace.

Not only should the banks be paying out for their inadequate measures to protect customers, it’s time the banks took action to help cardholders to help themselves.

One good start would be to allow cards to be issued without a magnetic strip.

Cardholders should also be able to hold a card that they designate will NEVER be used abroad

To take matters further, the banks should also consider issuing cards that can be barred from certain types of shop – for instance mobile phone and electrical goods retailers.

Of course, this might cause great inconvenience on occasion, when a cardholder finds his card is refused by a particular retailer because he had signed up for the ban and forgotten about it. But that is a chance you should have the option to take if you want to do so.

Why can’t little old ladies stipulate that their card may not be used for internet purchases, or a young family say they don’t want their card used in the Far East, where fraud is rife?

The stipulation that cards must be able to be used everywhere – in every outlet and in every country of the world – comes from the card clearing houses VISA and MasterCard, who make the acceptance rules.

It is time those rules were changed.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Split into seperate posts due to post lengh size constrains that will become apparent in a moment......
"Biotechnology it's not so bad. It's just like all technologies it's in the wrong HANDS!"- Sepultura

Offline lordssyndicate

  • Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,141
  • Stop The New World Order
    • LinkedIn Profile

Agenda item No. 2: Mandate net neutrality in perpetuity
It’s a new age, and with it should come new rights, such as the right to unfettered Internet access. Much as our country was originally founded on beliefs such as the freedom of speech, congregation, and religion, we should be awarded the freedom of information in the form of open network access.

If the major ISPs had their way, access to the Internet would be tiered, exactly like cable television. That is, you’d have a “basic plan” that would let you access only a handful of sites, and a larger plan, with a larger price tag, that would allow you to access more sites. If put into place, it would necessarily destroy the original premise of the Internet as a completely open network of computers, where every system can connect to every other system, regardless of location.

No good can ever come from a tiered Internet, and the government should solidify that as a basic right. This isn’t to say that every citizen should be given free Internet access, but rather that such access should not be filtered, censored, or constrained in any way.

ISPs should be free to sell various packages based on access speed and acceptable-use policies, but federal law should mandate that these services have no filtering whatsoever, including the current practice of blocking certain inbound ports.
This is a bait and switch. In actuality they will use this to implement a fairness doctrine as well as other current limitations on physical free speech. BEWARE OF NET NEUTRALITY LAWS! THE NET SHOULD BE SELF GOVERNING IN THE SAME FASHION AS REAL FREE TRADE AND TRUE  UN-CORRUPTED CAPITALISM  -WOULD BE WITHOUT WORLD BANKERS OF THE NWO TRYING TO F*CK US ALL.

Other key points that they faill to mention. that local and federal tax dollars are paid to these telecom companies to establish and pay for these networks. These networks are then allocated even more tax dollars as part of federal projects that have to pay these same telecom monthly access fees and Bandwidth charges. (Talk about on f*cked paradox)
Then you as a consumer along with every other business pay even more money in monthly access charges and bandwidth fees on top of that equating to nothing but profits for companies like Verizon, Comcast and MA BELL ( AKA SBC/ATT  see: http://www.dvorak.org/blog/2007/01/06/will-ma-bells-reassembly-result-in-the-bride-of-frankinstein/ and  http://techdirt.com/articles/20060306/0122246_F.shtml

Agenda item No. 3: Place restrictions on EULAs
Suppose GM required truck buyers to sign a document stating that the company could claim ownership to any material carried in the truck or that the company was not liable for any claims should the truck spontaneously explode due to a manufacturing defect. That’s the situation we face with software, as companies' use of EULAs (end-user license agreements) to indemnify themselves for anything and everything has spun out of control.

Some EULAs go so far as to claim ownership of any work product created with their software. Couple that with the fact that EULAs have become so onerous that few bother to read them before clicking Agree, and you can fast see disaster in the making.

The fact that these agreements are often difficult to uphold in a court of law begs the question: What is the purpose of making EULAs so wide ranging to begin with? Perhaps a User’s Bill of Rights is in order.

By all means, companies should be allowed to protect themselves with something akin to a EULA. But federally mandated standards and restrictions governing the scope of EULAs will go far in fostering innovation and growth in the software industry, not to mention protecting users from undue provisions.

Under no circumstances should a company be able to claim ownership of end-users' work products, nor should they be able to indemnify themselves from any action due to their own malfeasance in such a document.
This just keeps getting more evil by the LINE even!
This is an all out ploy to destroy the GPL and eliminate free software forever.
Let's read the GPL, PLEASE FOR THE LOVE OF OPEN SOURCE DO NOT SUPPORT THIS! THE GPL IS A EULA and the primary one along with the BSD license that pioneered the very basis of the aforementioned statement that reads
" Some EULAs go so far as to claim ownership of any work product created with their software." for the very reason that it is the ONLY way to insure that GPL code remain GPL , OPEN SOURCE AND FREE TO THE PUBLIC! In fact the GPL goes as far as to say that all one has to do is change 51% of the EXISTING CODE TO BE CONSIDERED A NEW PIECE OF SOFTWARE AND THEREFORE BELONGING TO THE AUTHOR! So, it is self regulating even!As are most freeware and open sources licenses...


http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html
GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE

Version 3, 29 June 2007

Copyright © 2007 Free Software Foundation, Inc. <http://fsf.org/>


Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies of this license document, but changing it is not allowed.
Preamble

The GNU General Public License is a free, copyleft license for software and other kinds of works.

The licenses for most software and other practical works are designed to take away your freedom to share and change the works. By contrast, the GNU General Public License is intended to guarantee your freedom to share and change all versions of a program--to make sure it remains free software for all its users. We, the Free Software Foundation, use the GNU General Public License for most of our software; it applies also to any other work released this way by its authors. You can apply it to your programs, too.

When we speak of free software, we are referring to freedom, not price. Our General Public Licenses are designed to make sure that you have the freedom to distribute copies of free software (and charge for them if you wish), that you receive source code or can get it if you want it, that you can change the software or use pieces of it in new free programs, and that you know you can do these things.

To protect your rights, we need to prevent others from denying you these rights or asking you to surrender the rights. Therefore, you have certain responsibilities if you distribute copies of the software, or if you modify it: responsibilities to respect the freedom of others.

For example, if you distribute copies of such a program, whether gratis or for a fee, you must pass on to the recipients the same freedoms that you received. You must make sure that they, too, receive or can get the source code. And you must show them these terms so they know their rights.

Developers that use the GNU GPL protect your rights with two steps: (1) assert copyright on the software, and (2) offer you this License giving you legal permission to copy, distribute and/or modify it.

For the developers' and authors' protection, the GPL clearly explains that there is no warranty for this free software. For both users' and authors' sake, the GPL requires that modified versions be marked as changed, so that their problems will not be attributed erroneously to authors of previous versions.

Some devices are designed to deny users access to install or run modified versions of the software inside them, although the manufacturer can do so. This is fundamentally incompatible with the aim of protecting users' freedom to change the software. The systematic pattern of such abuse occurs in the area of products for individuals to use, which is precisely where it is most unacceptable. Therefore, we have designed this version of the GPL to prohibit the practice for those products. If such problems arise substantially in other domains, we stand ready to extend this provision to those domains in future versions of the GPL, as needed to protect the freedom of users.

Finally, every program is threatened constantly by software patents. States should not allow patents to restrict development and use of software on general-purpose computers, but in those that do, we wish to avoid the special danger that patents applied to a free program could make it effectively proprietary. To prevent this, the GPL assures that patents cannot be used to render the program non-free.

The precise terms and conditions for copying, distribution and modification follow.
TERMS AND CONDITIONS
0. Definitions.

“This License” refers to version 3 of the GNU General Public License.

“Copyright” also means copyright-like laws that apply to other kinds of works, such as semiconductor masks.

“The Program” refers to any copyrightable work licensed under this License. Each licensee is addressed as “you”. “Licensees” and “recipients” may be individuals or organizations.

To “modify” a work means to copy from or adapt all or part of the work in a fashion requiring copyright permission, other than the making of an exact copy. The resulting work is called a “modified version” of the earlier work or a work “based on” the earlier work.

A “covered work” means either the unmodified Program or a work based on the Program.

To “propagate” a work means to do anything with it that, without permission, would make you directly or secondarily liable for infringement under applicable copyright law, except executing it on a computer or modifying a private copy. Propagation includes copying, distribution (with or without modification), making available to the public, and in some countries other activities as well.

To “convey” a work means any kind of propagation that enables other parties to make or receive copies. Mere interaction with a user through a computer network, with no transfer of a copy, is not conveying.

An interactive user interface displays “Appropriate Legal Notices” to the extent that it includes a convenient and prominently visible feature that (1) displays an appropriate copyright notice, and (2) tells the user that there is no warranty for the work (except to the extent that warranties are provided), that licensees may convey the work under this License, and how to view a copy of this License. If the interface presents a list of user commands or options, such as a menu, a prominent item in the list meets this criterion.
1. Source Code.

The “source code” for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it. “Object code” means any non-source form of a work.

A “Standard Interface” means an interface that either is an official standard defined by a recognized standards body, or, in the case of interfaces specified for a particular programming language, one that is widely used among developers working in that language.

The “System Libraries” of an executable work include anything, other than the work as a whole, that (a) is included in the normal form of packaging a Major Component, but which is not part of that Major Component, and (b) serves only to enable use of the work with that Major Component, or to implement a Standard Interface for which an implementation is available to the public in source code form. A “Major Component”, in this context, means a major essential component (kernel, window system, and so on) of the specific operating system (if any) on which the executable work runs, or a compiler used to produce the work, or an object code interpreter used to run it.

The “Corresponding Source” for a work in object code form means all the source code needed to generate, install, and (for an executable work) run the object code and to modify the work, including scripts to control those activities. However, it does not include the work's System Libraries, or general-purpose tools or generally available free programs which are used unmodified in performing those activities but which are not part of the work. For example, Corresponding Source includes interface definition files associated with source files for the work, and the source code for shared libraries and dynamically linked subprograms that the work is specifically designed to require, such as by intimate data communication or control flow between those subprograms and other parts of the work.

The Corresponding Source need not include anything that users can regenerate automatically from other parts of the Corresponding Source.

The Corresponding Source for a work in source code form is that same work.
2. Basic Permissions.

All rights granted under this License are granted for the term of copyright on the Program, and are irrevocable provided the stated conditions are met. This License explicitly affirms your unlimited permission to run the unmodified Program. The output from running a covered work is covered by this License only if the output, given its content, constitutes a covered work. This License acknowledges your rights of fair use or other equivalent, as provided by copyright law.

You may make, run and propagate covered works that you do not convey, without conditions so long as your license otherwise remains in force. You may convey covered works to others for the sole purpose of having them make modifications exclusively for you, or provide you with facilities for running those works, provided that you comply with the terms of this License in conveying all material for which you do not control copyright. Those thus making or running the covered works for you must do so exclusively on your behalf, under your direction and control, on terms that prohibit them from making any copies of your copyrighted material outside their relationship with you.

Conveying under any other circumstances is permitted solely under the conditions stated below. Sublicensing is not allowed; section 10 makes it unnecessary.
3. Protecting Users' Legal Rights From Anti-Circumvention Law.

No covered work shall be deemed part of an effective technological measure under any applicable law fulfilling obligations under article 11 of the WIPO copyright treaty adopted on 20 December 1996, or similar laws prohibiting or restricting circumvention of such measures.

When you convey a covered work, you waive any legal power to forbid circumvention of technological measures to the extent such circumvention is effected by exercising rights under this License with respect to the covered work, and you disclaim any intention to limit operation or modification of the work as a means of enforcing, against the work's users, your or third parties' legal rights to forbid circumvention of technological measures.
4. Conveying Verbatim Copies.

You may convey verbatim copies of the Program's source code as you receive it, in any medium, provided that you conspicuously and appropriately publish on each copy an appropriate copyright notice; keep intact all notices stating that this License and any non-permissive terms added in accord with section 7 apply to the code; keep intact all notices of the absence of any warranty; and give all recipients a copy of this License along with the Program.

You may charge any price or no price for each copy that you convey, and you may offer support or warranty protection for a fee.
5. Conveying Modified Source Versions.

You may convey a work based on the Program, or the modifications to produce it from the Program, in the form of source code under the terms of section 4, provided that you also meet all of these conditions:

    * a) The work must carry prominent notices stating that you modified it, and giving a relevant date.
    * b) The work must carry prominent notices stating that it is released under this License and any conditions added under section 7. This requirement modifies the requirement in section 4 to “keep intact all notices”.
    * c) You must license the entire work, as a whole, under this License to anyone who comes into possession of a copy. This License will therefore apply, along with any applicable section 7 additional terms, to the whole of the work, and all its parts, regardless of how they are packaged. This License gives no permission to license the work in any other way, but it does not invalidate such permission if you have separately received it.
    * d) If the work has interactive user interfaces, each must display Appropriate Legal Notices; however, if the Program has interactive interfaces that do not display Appropriate Legal Notices, your work need not make them do so.

A compilation of a covered work with other separate and independent works, which are not by their nature extensions of the covered work, and which are not combined with it such as to form a larger program, in or on a volume of a storage or distribution medium, is called an “aggregate” if the compilation and its resulting copyright are not used to limit the access or legal rights of the compilation's users beyond what the individual works permit. Inclusion of a covered work in an aggregate does not cause this License to apply to the other parts of the aggregate.
6. Conveying Non-Source Forms.

You may convey a covered work in object code form under the terms of sections 4 and 5, provided that you also convey the machine-readable Corresponding Source under the terms of this License, in one of these ways:

    * a) Convey the object code in, or embodied in, a physical product (including a physical distribution medium), accompanied by the Corresponding Source fixed on a durable physical medium customarily used for software interchange.
    * b) Convey the object code in, or embodied in, a physical product (including a physical distribution medium), accompanied by a written offer, valid for at least three years and valid for as long as you offer spare parts or customer support for that product model, to give anyone who possesses the object code either (1) a copy of the Corresponding Source for all the software in the product that is covered by this License, on a durable physical medium customarily used for software interchange, for a price no more than your reasonable cost of physically performing this conveying of source, or (2) access to copy the Corresponding Source from a network server at no charge.
    * c) Convey individual copies of the object code with a copy of the written offer to provide the Corresponding Source. This alternative is allowed only occasionally and noncommercially, and only if you received the object code with such an offer, in accord with subsection 6b.
    * d) Convey the object code by offering access from a designated place (gratis or for a charge), and offer equivalent access to the Corresponding Source in the same way through the same place at no further charge. You need not require recipients to copy the Corresponding Source along with the object code. If the place to copy the object code is a network server, the Corresponding Source may be on a different server (operated by you or a third party) that supports equivalent copying facilities, provided you maintain clear directions next to the object code saying where to find the Corresponding Source. Regardless of what server hosts the Corresponding Source, you remain obligated to ensure that it is available for as long as needed to satisfy these requirements.
    * e) Convey the object code using peer-to-peer transmission, provided you inform other peers where the object code and Corresponding Source of the work are being offered to the general public at no charge under subsection 6d.

A separable portion of the object code, whose source code is excluded from the Corresponding Source as a System Library, need not be included in conveying the object code work.

A “User Product” is either (1) a “consumer product”, which means any tangible personal property which is normally used for personal, family, or household purposes, or (2) anything designed or sold for incorporation into a dwelling. In determining whether a product is a consumer product, doubtful cases shall be resolved in favor of coverage. For a particular product received by a particular user, “normally used” refers to a typical or common use of that class of product, regardless of the status of the particular user or of the way in which the particular user actually uses, or expects or is expected to use, the product. A product is a consumer product regardless of whether the product has substantial commercial, industrial or non-consumer uses, unless such uses represent the only significant mode of use of the product.

“Installation Information” for a User Product means any methods, procedures, authorization keys, or other information required to install and execute modified versions of a covered work in that User Product from a modified version of its Corresponding Source. The information must suffice to ensure that the continued functioning of the modified object code is in no case prevented or interfered with solely because modification has been made.

If you convey an object code work under this section in, or with, or specifically for use in, a User Product, and the conveying occurs as part of a transaction in which the right of possession and use of the User Product is transferred to the recipient in perpetuity or for a fixed term (regardless of how the transaction is characterized), the Corresponding Source conveyed under this section must be accompanied by the Installation Information. But this requirement does not apply if neither you nor any third party retains the ability to install modified object code on the User Product (for example, the work has been installed in ROM).

The requirement to provide Installation Information does not include a requirement to continue to provide support service, warranty, or updates for a work that has been modified or installed by the recipient, or for the User Product in which it has been modified or installed. Access to a network may be denied when the modification itself materially and adversely affects the operation of the network or violates the rules and protocols for communication across the network.

Corresponding Source conveyed, and Installation Information provided, in accord with this section must be in a format that is publicly documented (and with an implementation available to the public in source code form), and must require no special password or key for unpacking, reading or copying.
7. Additional Terms.

“Additional permissions” are terms that supplement the terms of this License by making exceptions from one or more of its conditions. Additional permissions that are applicable to the entire Program shall be treated as though they were included in this License, to the extent that they are valid under applicable law. If additional permissions apply only to part of the Program, that part may be used separately under those permissions, but the entire Program remains governed by this License without regard to the additional permissions.

When you convey a copy of a covered work, you may at your option remove any additional permissions from that copy, or from any part of it. (Additional permissions may be written to require their own removal in certain cases when you modify the work.) You may place additional permissions on material, added by you to a covered work, for which you have or can give appropriate copyright permission.

Notwithstanding any other provision of this License, for material you add to a covered work, you may (if authorized by the copyright holders of that material) supplement the terms of this License with terms:

    * a) Disclaiming warranty or limiting liability differently from the terms of sections 15 and 16 of this License; or
    * b) Requiring preservation of specified reasonable legal notices or author attributions in that material or in the Appropriate Legal Notices displayed by works containing it; or
    * c) Prohibiting misrepresentation of the origin of that material, or requiring that modified versions of such material be marked in reasonable ways as different from the original version; or
    * d) Limiting the use for publicity purposes of names of licensors or authors of the material; or
    * e) Declining to grant rights under trademark law for use of some trade names, trademarks, or service marks; or
    * f) Requiring indemnification of licensors and authors of that material by anyone who conveys the material (or modified versions of it) with contractual assumptions of liability to the recipient, for any liability that these contractual assumptions directly impose on those licensors and authors.

All other non-permissive additional terms are considered “further restrictions” within the meaning of section 10. If the Program as you received it, or any part of it, contains a notice stating that it is governed by this License along with a term that is a further restriction, you may remove that term. If a license document contains a further restriction but permits relicensing or conveying under this License, you may add to a covered work material governed by the terms of that license document, provided that the further restriction does not survive such relicensing or conveying.

If you add terms to a covered work in accord with this section, you must place, in the relevant source files, a statement of the additional terms that apply to those files, or a notice indicating where to find the applicable terms.

Additional terms, permissive or non-permissive, may be stated in the form of a separately written license, or stated as exceptions; the above requirements apply either way.
8. Termination.

You may not propagate or modify a covered work except as expressly provided under this License. Any attempt otherwise to propagate or modify it is void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License (including any patent licenses granted under the third paragraph of section 11).

However, if you cease all violation of this License, then your license from a particular copyright holder is reinstated (a) provisionally, unless and until the copyright holder explicitly and finally terminates your license, and (b) permanently, if the copyright holder fails to notify you of the violation by some reasonable means prior to 60 days after the cessation.

Moreover, your license from a particular copyright holder is reinstated permanently if the copyright holder notifies you of the violation by some reasonable means, this is the first time you have received notice of violation of this License (for any work) from that copyright holder, and you cure the violation prior to 30 days after your receipt of the notice.

Termination of your rights under this section does not terminate the licenses of parties who have received copies or rights from you under this License. If your rights have been terminated and not permanently reinstated, you do not qualify to receive new licenses for the same material under section 10.
9. Acceptance Not Required for Having Copies.

You are not required to accept this License in order to receive or run a copy of the Program. Ancillary propagation of a covered work occurring solely as a consequence of using peer-to-peer transmission to receive a copy likewise does not require acceptance. However, nothing other than this License grants you permission to propagate or modify any covered work. These actions infringe copyright if you do not accept this License. Therefore, by modifying or propagating a covered work, you indicate your acceptance of this License to do so.
10. Automatic Licensing of Downstream Recipients.

Each time you convey a covered work, the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensors, to run, modify and propagate that work, subject to this License. You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties with this License.

An “entity transaction” is a transaction transferring control of an organization, or substantially all assets of one, or subdividing an organization, or merging organizations. If propagation of a covered work results from an entity transaction, each party to that transaction who receives a copy of the work also receives whatever licenses to the work the party's predecessor in interest had or could give under the previous paragraph, plus a right to possession of the Corresponding Source of the work from the predecessor in interest, if the predecessor has it or can get it with reasonable efforts.

You may not impose any further restrictions on the exercise of the rights granted or affirmed under this License. For example, you may not impose a license fee, royalty, or other charge for exercise of rights granted under this License, and you may not initiate litigation (including a cross-claim or counterclaim in a lawsuit) alleging that any patent claim is infringed by making, using, selling, offering for sale, or importing the Program or any portion of it.
11. Patents.

A “contributor” is a copyright holder who authorizes use under this License of the Program or a work on which the Program is based. The work thus licensed is called the contributor's “contributor version”.

A contributor's “essential patent claims” are all patent claims owned or controlled by the contributor, whether already acquired or hereafter acquired, that would be infringed by some manner, permitted by this License, of making, using, or selling its contributor version, but do not include claims that would be infringed only as a consequence of further modification of the contributor version. For purposes of this definition, “control” includes the right to grant patent sublicenses in a manner consistent with the requirements of this License.

Each contributor grants you a non-exclusive, worldwide, royalty-free patent license under the contributor's essential patent claims, to make, use, sell, offer for sale, import and otherwise run, modify and propagate the contents of its contributor version.

In the following three paragraphs, a “patent license” is any express agreement or commitment, however denominated, not to enforce a patent (such as an express permission to practice a patent or covenant not to sue for patent infringement). To “grant” such a patent license to a party means to make such an agreement or commitment not to enforce a patent against the party.

If you convey a covered work, knowingly relying on a patent license, and the Corresponding Source of the work is not available for anyone to copy, free of charge and under the terms of this License, through a publicly available network server or other readily accessible means, then you must either (1) cause the Corresponding Source to be so available, or (2) arrange to deprive yourself of the benefit of the patent license for this particular work, or (3) arrange, in a manner consistent with the requirements of this License, to extend the patent license to downstream recipients. “Knowingly relying” means you have actual knowledge that, but for the patent license, your conveying the covered work in a country, or your recipient's use of the covered work in a country, would infringe one or more identifiable patents in that country that you have reason to believe are valid.

If, pursuant to or in connection with a single transaction or arrangement, you convey, or propagate by procuring conveyance of, a covered work, and grant a patent license to some of the parties receiving the covered work authorizing them to use, propagate, modify or convey a specific copy of the covered work, then the patent license you grant is automatically extended to all recipients of the covered work and works based on it.

A patent license is “discriminatory” if it does not include within the scope of its coverage, prohibits the exercise of, or is conditioned on the non-exercise of one or more of the rights that are specifically granted under this License. You may not convey a covered work if you are a party to an arrangement with a third party that is in the business of distributing software, under which you make payment to the third party based on the extent of your activity of conveying the work, and under which the third party grants, to any of the parties who would receive the covered work from you, a discriminatory patent license (a) in connection with copies of the covered work conveyed by you (or copies made from those copies), or (b) primarily for and in connection with specific products or compilations that contain the covered work, unless you entered into that arrangement, or that patent license was granted, prior to 28 March 2007.

Nothing in this License shall be construed as excluding or limiting any implied license or other defenses to infringement that may otherwise be available to you under applicable patent law.
12. No Surrender of Others' Freedom.

If conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or otherwise) that contradict the conditions of this License, they do not excuse you from the conditions of this License. If you cannot convey a covered work so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you may not convey it at all. For example, if you agree to terms that obligate you to collect a royalty for further conveying from those to whom you convey the Program, the only way you could satisfy both those terms and this License would be to refrain entirely from conveying the Program.
13. Use with the GNU Affero General Public License.

Notwithstanding any other provision of this License, you have permission to link or combine any covered work with a work licensed under version 3 of the GNU Affero General Public License into a single combined work, and to convey the resulting work. The terms of this License will continue to apply to the part which is the covered work, but the special requirements of the GNU Affero General Public License, section 13, concerning interaction through a network will apply to the combination as such.
14. Revised Versions of this License.

The Free Software Foundation may publish revised and/or new versions of the GNU General Public License from time to time. Such new versions will be similar in spirit to the present version, but may differ in detail to address new problems or concerns.

Each version is given a distinguishing version number. If the Program specifies that a certain numbered version of the GNU General Public License “or any later version” applies to it, you have the option of following the terms and conditions either of that numbered version or of any later version published by the Free Software Foundation. If the Program does not specify a version number of the GNU General Public License, you may choose any version ever published by the Free Software Foundation.

If the Program specifies that a proxy can decide which future versions of the GNU General Public License can be used, that proxy's public statement of acceptance of a version permanently authorizes you to choose that version for the Program.

Later license versions may give you additional or different permissions. However, no additional obligations are imposed on any author or copyright holder as a result of your choosing to follow a later version.
15. Disclaimer of Warranty.

THERE IS NO WARRANTY FOR THE PROGRAM, TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW. EXCEPT WHEN OTHERWISE STATED IN WRITING THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND/OR OTHER PARTIES PROVIDE THE PROGRAM “AS IS” WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EITHER EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. THE ENTIRE RISK AS TO THE QUALITY AND PERFORMANCE OF THE PROGRAM IS WITH YOU. SHOULD THE PROGRAM PROVE DEFECTIVE, YOU ASSUME THE COST OF ALL NECESSARY SERVICING, REPAIR OR CORRECTION.
16. Limitation of Liability.

IN NO EVENT UNLESS REQUIRED BY APPLICABLE LAW OR AGREED TO IN WRITING WILL ANY COPYRIGHT HOLDER, OR ANY OTHER PARTY WHO MODIFIES AND/OR CONVEYS THE PROGRAM AS PERMITTED ABOVE, BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR DAMAGES, INCLUDING ANY GENERAL, SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES ARISING OUT OF THE USE OR INABILITY TO USE THE PROGRAM (INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO LOSS OF DATA OR DATA BEING RENDERED INACCURATE OR LOSSES SUSTAINED BY YOU OR THIRD PARTIES OR A FAILURE OF THE PROGRAM TO OPERATE WITH ANY OTHER PROGRAMS), EVEN IF SUCH HOLDER OR OTHER PARTY HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES.
17. Interpretation of Sections 15 and 16.

If the disclaimer of warranty and limitation of liability provided above cannot be given local legal effect according to their terms, reviewing courts shall apply local law that most closely approximates an absolute waiver of all civil liability in connection with the Program, unless a warranty or assumption of liability accompanies a copy of the Program in return for a fee.

END OF TERMS AND CONDITIONS
How to Apply These Terms to Your New Programs

If you develop a new program, and you want it to be of the greatest possible use to the public, the best way to achieve this is to make it free software which everyone can redistribute and change under these terms.

To do so, attach the following notices to the program. It is safest to attach them to the start of each source file to most effectively state the exclusion of warranty; and each file should have at least the “copyright” line and a pointer to where the full notice is found.

    <one line to give the program's name and a brief idea of what it does.>
    Copyright (C) <year>  <name of author>

    This program is free software: you can redistribute it and/or modify
    it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
    the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or
    (at your option) any later version.

    This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
    but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
    MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.  See the
    GNU General Public License for more details.

    You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License
    along with this program.  If not, see <http://www.gnu.org/licenses/>.

Also add information on how to contact you by electronic and paper mail.

If the program does terminal interaction, make it output a short notice like this when it starts in an interactive mode:

    <program>  Copyright (C) <year>  <name of author>
    This program comes with ABSOLUTELY NO WARRANTY; for details type `show w'.
    This is free software, and you are welcome to redistribute it
    under certain conditions; type `show c' for details.

The hypothetical commands `show w' and `show c' should show the appropriate parts of the General Public License. Of course, your program's commands might be different; for a GUI interface, you would use an “about box”.

You should also get your employer (if you work as a programmer) or school, if any, to sign a “copyright disclaimer” for the program, if necessary. For more information on this, and how to apply and follow the GNU GPL, see <http://www.gnu.org/licenses/>.

The GNU General Public License does not permit incorporating your program into proprietary programs. If your program is a subroutine library, you may consider it more useful to permit linking proprietary applications with the library. If this is what you want to do, use the GNU Lesser General Public License instead of this License. But first, please read <http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/why-not-lgpl.html>.
"Biotechnology it's not so bad. It's just like all technologies it's in the wrong HANDS!"- Sepultura

Offline lordssyndicate

  • Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,141
  • Stop The New World Order
    • LinkedIn Profile

Agenda item No. 4: Mandate the rollout of DNSSEC and BGPSEC
The Internet has become a fundamental pathway for public, private, and government communication, as well as financial transactions. Unfortunately, core infrastructure components in the United States remain woefully lacking in security for both DNS and BGP, making them unacceptably open targets for hackers.

Securing BGP is an absolute necessity. Only recently, there was a relatively significant routing problem that took parts of the Internet offline for several hours. The cause was runaway BGP advertisements from a single BGP peer. BGPSEC might not have helped that particular instance, as it was caused by human error, but the same problem would have occurred if someone had purposefully injected bad routing advertisements via unsecured BGP peers.

DNS is the cornerstone of IP networking. Without the names, we only have numbers, and while the resources might be available, without the directory converting the name of those resources to IP addresses, we can’t see the forest for the trees. Also, by poisoning DNS server cache, malcontents can direct users to their own versions of known Web sites and swipe their log-ins or gain access to other sensitive information. Ensuring that DNS servers cannot be compromised at any level is a requirement for a secure Internet.

Implementing DNSSEC and BGPSEC throughout the country is not only the right thing to do, it’s not a terribly difficult task to accomplish. In fact, ISPs and hosting providers should have done so already. The hard part would be coordinating the effort. Given a clear time frame and guidelines set forth by the government, carriers could be coerced into stepping up to the plate and implementing this basic and extremely vital safeguarding methodology for the Internet.

BGPSEC IS Already done at all of the US's physical border routers. Meaning any router that connects to another country is already filtered.

This is more of a primer for the next cyber false flag discussed by  Anti Illuminati and codified by all of his research that can be found on the PHD Forum. They will not impliment BGPSEC (Which is already available on all carrier class routers..) till after their cyber false flag.... Otherwise they will have closed a large section of their backdoors availability to be tapped by their backdooring systems.

BIND9and MS DNS already provides secure DNS ALREADY USED BY ALL GOVERMENT DARPANET MAINTAINED DNS ROOT SERVERS as well as the root servers at all major ISPs.
If, major ISPs and IT Companies like Microsoft pushed people to use existing secure DNS protocols and standards then this would not be an issue .


Agenda item No. 5: Clean up the spam mess
According to Spamhaus, the United States is far and away the No. 1 source for all spam (THIS IS A FLAT OUT LIE - RUSSIA, CHINA, AND INDIA ARE THE TOP 3 followed by the US) . In fact, most companies are experiencing spam levels as high as 99 percent of all incoming e-mail - (ANOTHER BOLD FACED LIE)- a ridiculous proportion made that much more unpalatable by the amount of phishing attempts hidden within. If these levels persist, they will eventually cause the demise of e-mail as a viable communications medium.

There is only so much that can be done within a single country to fix this problem, but steps need to be taken -- soon. One tactic would be to institute a mandatory $10-per-spam fine for anyone determined to be sending unsolicited bulk e-mail. By aggressively locating and prosecuting these cases, the United States could curtail a sizable chunk of spammers based within its borders. After all, the quickest way to end unsavory practices like this is to make them economically unviable. Meaningful fines pursued diligently are one method of achieving that goal.

Of course, this approach would not stop overseas spammers, and botnet spam operations would continue. But if written properly, the law could ensure grounds for prosecution of any botnet with even a single member existing under U.S. jurisdiction.

There is already enough highly stringent illegal anti-spam legislation in the US.
http://www.cdt.org/publications/pp_9.23.shtml

The largest purveyors and enablers of spam are all of the major ISPs and retail companies. Seriously if companies like SBC, Comcast, Macy's, Ebay, and AOL/ TWC did not sell people your data blocks then the only victims of spam would be  people dumb enough to give spamers their e-mail addresses.  Companies like earthlink , yahoo , and google have already done enough to filter spam properly. I only give out my e-mail address on several gmail accounts hosted that are related to my consulting business - to clients and business contacts and these  accounts never have a single piece of spam in the inbox. The main e-mail I use for public things I know will generate spam (ie signing up to live.com, forums, and other places that are easily mineable for such data -  [email protected] their filters catch 99% of ALL SPAM.

Now I know this is the least popular view on this subject but it is the same view as we have on freedom and free market and should therefore be  carriered over to the internet.

I KNOW that those of you who have a mailbox in US that is not a PO box get a rain forest (not to be taken literally because they  merely slash and burn rain forests  ... and paper comes from tree farms ...) of junk mail every day even! I know I do and have always seen tons of junk mail on a daily basis in my mail box. I never gave these people permission. But, since they PAY the post OFFICE THEY ARE ALLOWED TO SEND PHYSICAL JUNKMAIL - BY THE RAINFOREST EVEN - TO ANY ONE THEY CHOOSE!

THE SPAMERS PAY MILLIONS SOME OF THEM BILLIONS OF DOLLARS IN BANDWIDTH FEES ON YTOP OF THE BILLIONS THEY SPEND TO GET THOSE ADRESSES. IT THIS NOT EXACTLY THE SAME AS AOL EARTHLINK AND MSN PAYING TO SEND YOU JUNKMAIL?

WHY THEN SHOULD SPAM BE ILLEGAL?

Oh I forgot AOL, Verizon,  SBC, Comcast, Qwest, and other ISPs  don't want to have to pay for storage of your e-mail because that would cut into profits. They would have to do more than give you a POP account on a crap server with a few megs of storage. Also , they would have no excuses for attachment size limits further increasing storage needs and forcing them to improve their e-mail infrastructures.

IF YOU DON'T LIKE SPAM USE GMAIL or YAHOO MAIL or JUST DON'T GIVE OUT YOUR EMAIL ADDRESS TO EVERY FRIGIN SITE THAT ASKS FOR IT... STOP INCLUDING EVERY ONE YOU KNOW IN THE CC FIELD OR TO FIELDS OF AN EMAIL - THATS WHY THEY HAVE A BCC BUTTON ..... TELL EVERY ONE YOU KNOW TO DO THE SAME...... IF YOU MUST  give out your e-mail to people you know will sell it to spamers  - THEN CREATE A SPECIFIC SPAM BOX ON A FREE EMAIL SERVICE.

IF PEOPLE PAY FOR IT THEN THEY SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO DO IT SINCE IT SAVES TREES EVEN - FOR THOSE OF YOU  WHO DON'T BELIEVER TREE FARMS EXIST .....
IT DOES NOT HURT YOU.
IT WILL ONLY FORCE ISPS TO GIVE YOU DECENT EMAIL SERVICES!

CHANCES ARE IF YOU GET PORN SPAM OR YOUR KID GETS PORN SPAM SOME ONE IN YOUR HOUSE (or some one you know) IS USING THAT E-MAIL TO LOOK AT FREE PORN SITES! Yet another reason not to give out you e-mail or let kids have unfettered internet access without parental supervision.

My oldest daughter uses the web (she is 4). Her computer sits next to mine and I watch her while she is using it. She is only allowed to go to PBS kids and Wikipedia and of course Alex Jone's websites.  She is not allowed to have an e-mail address because she is still to young to know how to protect it......

 
Agenda item No. 6: Tax breaks for rural broadband last-mile carriers
It’s no secret that broadband access to much of rural America is spotty at best. In fact, there are many not-so-rural areas that are grossly underserved. If we’re to hold ourselves up as leaders in the Digital Age, we need to make broadband more widely available to those who don’t live in metropolitan areas.

The U.S. government has tried rural broadband initiatives before. It even created a fund that ISPs could draw from to extend broadband access. Carriers such as Comcast and Verizon took their share and frittered the subsidies away without making significant strides toward connecting the unconnected.

While it’s not generally a good idea to throw good money after bad, a performance-based incentive program might be the place to start. Here, tax breaks could provide a spark. Under such a program, every previously unserved household brought into the broadband fold would result in a small tax break for the carrier responsible. In order to increase competition and reduce the de facto monopolies that exist in underserved areas, this incentive could be extended to any last-mile carrier that brings service into an area that currently offers only one other existing broadband option.
NO NO NOOOOOOOOOO they say it  themselves this is "... A BAD IDEA....". This is merely a reward for those  who have squandered monies awaiting the NWO's designated time to deploy inet2 to put the general masses on the internet. They don't want joe shmoe having internet in middle america. They could watch Prison Planet TV EVEN and they could never allow that ......


Agenda item No. 7: Codify national standards for electronic medical records
In this day and age, it shouldn’t be a challenge for one hospital or clinic to securely access a patient’s medical records, wherever they may be. In the paper era, this meant couriers, copiers, and lots of dead trees. These days, all it should require is sufficient authorization, encryption, and perhaps a proxy for auditing purposes.

Currently, many patients’ medical records are stored electronically in a database run by whatever EMR software your clinic or hospital is using. Access to those records from outside entities is all but impossible in most cases, requiring the records to be printed out and snail-mailed to another location. Since these records already exist in digital form, there should be a better way to safely and quickly transmit that information to another health care provider, especially in an emergency.

If the U.S. government set up a central proxy -- not a repository -- for EMR transactions, it could effectively keep accurate logs on the transmission of medical records from facility to facility, conform to HIPAA standards, and still enable medical records to easily move where they’re needed.

After this article was written, but before publication, Obama introduced a somewhat amorphous plan related to electronic medical records, but the particulars of this program aren’t readily available and are likely still in the development phase.

Such an agenda would require the cooperation of all EMR software developers, but that’s what standards are for. Come up with a central XML-based standard for the records with the help of those companies, and let them transition their products to work with the central proxy. It’ll take time, but the result will be worth it -- especially if you’ve just had a car accident in another state.

What they really mean is HIPPA LAW needs to be more flexible in allowing them get away with showing every one but you and your family your medical records. While requiring you to believe the illusion that  your medical data is protected because these pieces of paper that gives them full ownership of your data also says that they must keep it secret from any one, but one of the people directly treating you as a patient and yourself.

Who decides who is involved in your treatment?  When you go to a clinic and one doctor and he  sends you to another only to have your test work done by another group of people. Did you actually choose to let all of those people archive and record all of your medical history and data as required by HIPPA LAW?  (I'm sure most of you don't even know or believe it's being done)

Go read HIPPA LAWS...   

Can you say, streamlined eugenics policies.

As I said before this sh*t gets more and more evil by the line....

Agenda item No. 8: Mandate a single electronic voting standard
Companies that produce electronic voting systems have proved they can neither manage nor secure their own products. The result is widespread distrust in electronic voting across the country. With something as vital as the election of government officials, we cannot afford such problems, nor do we have to.

The government needs to appoint an independent contractor or bring in the expertise necessary to develop a rigorously tested open source system that can be used by electronic voting machine manufacturers free of charge. The onus of maintaining the code base could be placed on a consortium of key individuals from companies such as IBM, Microsoft, Cisco, and so forth.

By open-sourcing e-voting, rather than depending on proprietary vendors to ensure the integrity of our elections process, the very foundation of our democracy will be better secured. The closed source approach has too often proved to be a road to disenfranchisement.

Propaganda double speak.

What they really mean is they need to insure that DIebold stays in business and they can contiue to rig elections with plausible deniability because the voting machine software is BASED  and LET ME EMPHASIES THE FACT IT IS MERELY GOING TO HAVE TO BE BASED ON (by their own words above) on OPEN Source software. THEY DO NOT ACTUALLY SAY THAT THE VOTING MACHINE SOFTWARE ITSELF MUST BE OPEN SOURCE MERELY THAT IT MUST BE BASED ON IT!

GIVING THEM NOTHING BUT PLAUSIBLE DENIABILITY.

Agenda item No. 9: Lighten the FCC’s load
The FCC celebrates its 75th birthday this year, and my, how times have changed. Originally created to regulate the airwaves as we understood them in the 1930s, the FCC now stretches well beyond its original footprint, rendering it seemingly powerless to do anything besides levy fines for wardrobe malfunctions. It’s time to split the data from the spectrum and create an ICC, or Internet Communications Commission, that explicitly deals with national internetworking issues.

The internetworking communications system in the United States is far too large and complex for a single five-person commission to handle, in addition to its original charter of policing the airwaves. The stakes are simply too high. Ideally, a new commission would be created and populated with experts in a variety of technical fields essential to the health and security of the Internet, in addition to the usual political appointees.

More lies and  double speak.
 They know more and more people are waking up to the fact the FCC IS AN ILLEGAL INSTITUTION THAT CREATES ILLEGAL LAWS WITHOUT CONGRESSIONAL APPROVAL! IT IS FAR WORSE THAN EVEN THE IRS!
Therefore they need a new agency that will have more far reaching enforcement capabilities and  the ability to invoke the patriot act in all of it's "Laws"  violations.

Agenda item No. 10: Clean its own house
Much ado has been made of President Obama’s staff running into technical roadblocks as they transitioned from campaigners to administrators. Having proved themselves technically savvy on the campaign trail, the team has since inherited a relatively ancient communications infrastructure within the halls of government itself. Modernization of this infrastructure should be among the chief goals of this administration.

And here we are talking about a lot more than just putting a foot down about a BlackBerry. After all, if the various clandestine services can engineer elaborate digital wiretapping and data collection practices across the United States, is it too much to ask that various staffers be able to use their Macs?

Security is certainly an issue for an endeavor such as this, but given that the previous administration “lost” thousands of e-mails by circumventing existing security practices, starting from scratch might not be a bad idea. In fact, it may be a fundamental requirement to maintain Obama’s pledge of a more open government.

The importance of oversight
This is an extremely technical time and an extremely technical country -- and it should have an extremely technical governing body.

Ideally, none of the above agenda items would be necessary if only the tech industry would police itself and make sound decisions that would not negatively impact the country as a whole. Unfortunately, utopian ideals such as these are far from reality, as has been proved by corporate malfeasance in just about every large industry within the United States. OSHA, the FDA, and other government agencies exist for this reason. The telecommunications, software, and hardware industries are not exempt.

It took a few decades from the inception of wireless communication for the government to see the need to create the FCC, and it’s been a few decades since the Internet became mainstream. It is not time for the creation of this post -- it’s well past time.

Translation: WE NEED MORE MONEY TO MOVE EVERYTHING TO INTERNET2 FASTER

Go read Anti Illuminati's research on the PHd Forum where he provides articles that document the fact they need to accelerate preparations for their upcoming cyber terror false flag




Notice that these are the NWO's TEN Commandments OF IT that they will now go forth and enforce.....


Everything put forth in this statement will destroy the internet and crush even more of our freedom - in addition to providing more money and plausible deniability for their upcoming cyber false flag.

We must stop this and contiue to expose their real agenda here. Thanks again Sane for bringing this to every one's attention. This is vital info .
"Biotechnology it's not so bad. It's just like all technologies it's in the wrong HANDS!"- Sepultura

TheGoodFight1984

  • Guest
Who did his guy work for in the private sector? having problems finding that info.. (I'm putting together a comprehensive exposé report on the ties between govt / intel agency insiders, capital venture funds and large web2.0 / data mining / security firms and wondering if mr. Kundra or his aide fit in anywhere)