Skip navigation

Monthly Archives: April 2013

It’s Not About Guns: Gun Control Is People Control

Anthony Gucciardi
Infowars.com
April 29, 2013

Gun free zones don’t lower crime rates or even prevent mass shootings, so what do they do? Gun control allows megalomaniacal politicians to exercise control over law-abiding citizens through unconstitutional legislation that paves the way towards eroding the Bill of Rights at large.

The simple fact of the matter is that the attacks on the Second Amendment should concern you, even if you don’t own a gun. In fact, I am definitely not someone you would consider a ‘gun nut’. Far from it, I actually grew up with the impression that guns were killing weapons that the average person would never truly need. After all, you could simply call a gun-wielding police officer if anything went wrong. So what drove me to become passionate on protecting the Second Amendment, even to the point of producing the new documentary Disarmed: A History of Gun Control?

It comes down to the fact that gun control and the attacks on the Second Amendment amount to much more than guns themselves. In fact, the Second Amendment’s fall will signify the fall of the Constitution at large — the very fabric of the United States. You see if the government can override the Second Amendment, why can’t they override the First Amendment? Or how about the Constitution as a whole? If we can confiscate all modern firearms and override the Constitution through federal or state law, then the Constitution now becomes a secondary piece of paper.

THE POLITICAL DOMINO EFFECT

Now gun control advocates would never want to give up the First Amendment. In fact, virtually everyone who hates the Second Amendment (which is actually an extreme minority blown up by the media) loves the First Amendment. They would tell you that giving up the First Amendment would ruin the country, no one would be granted free speech — our freedom would collapse overnight.

The error here is assuming that we can permit the government, a government full of power-hungry sociopaths, to eradicate one Amendment while assuming we will preserve the others. How could anyone think this? The answer is that they aren’t thinking, they’re responding to events that the media broadcasts to them in a certain light. Mass shootings in schools and movie theaters have pushed the mantra that it’s the guns that are to blame and nothing else.

You’re not supposed to ponder on why Batman shooter James Holmes traveled out of his way to the one movie theater that did not allow attendees to bring in their legal concealed carry weapons. You’re not supposed to ask about the fact that the Sandy Hook shooting occurred in one of the most extreme ‘gun free’ zones in the nation. You’re especially not supposed to investigate into why Columbine shooter Dylan Klebold was so afraid of the looming concealed carry law in the area. Instead, you’re supposed to emotionally react to the issue of guns. And from that reaction, your response is not supposed to be logical but emotional.

It’s not logically to think that destroying the Second Amendment and eroding our rights to own a weapon will not cause a political domino effect that leads to the dismantling of our Bill of Rights. No, it’s an emotional response that says ‘ban the guns’ without logical thought. Even examining the statistics reveals this to be the case as well.

FORMER OBAMA SECRET SERVICE: IT’S PEOPLE CONTROL, NOT GUN CONTROL

Former Obama Administration Secret Service member Dan Bongino stated it correctly when he explained in a passionate speech that gun control is not about controlling guns. Instead, it’s about ‘people control’. After withdrawing from the Secret Service without retirement pay to inform the public regarding gun control, Dan Bongino reveals that he is also not a ‘gun nut’ as some might think. It simply comes down to protecting our rights.

Has Watertown Made Warrantless Searches The ‘New Normal’?

The whole notion of the police “manhunt” is not a new American phenomenon. Cops chase bad guys, cops corner bad guys. Sometimes the bad guys give up quietly, sometimes they go down in a blaze of glory. But we’ve always had rules of engagement when it came to law enforcement interaction with the general public.
It appears all that got thrown out the window in the aftermath of the Boston Marathon terror bombing and the subsequent police chase in Cambridge, Massachusetts that came to a screeching halt in Watertown.
Seemingly, for the first time in the United States, we witnessed paramilitary-garbed law enforcement personnel forcing residents out of their homes at gunpoint. In some cases, the language used by law enforcement was menacing.

Because of the hysteria that comes after any terror event, the American people wanted the perpetrators caught and, in doing so, appeared to have allowed their rights against unlawful search and seizure to not be suspended, but removed.

How many times have we watched cop dramas on television where the police had a pretty good idea of where the bad guys were, but as they weren’t sure, came to the door and asked permission to come inside to “have a look around”? The only time they ever bashed a door in is when they absolutely knew the bad guys were there. If there was ever any doubt, they’d have to wait… for a court order from a judge.

That did not happen here.

The police came to people’s homes, ordered them to leave immediately at the point of a gun in some cases, and then entered their place of residence. It’s never “consensual” when the person asking you for something has a gun in his hand. “Probable cause” is convenient, but in this case, very arbitrary.

Again, I understand this was the culmination of a horrific event, but let’s say instead of the Thursday evening car chase racing through the streets and winding up in Watertown, it went up Route 9 and ended in very upscale Newton?

Do you think armed police would, under the authority of the governor of Massachusetts and the federal government, put an assault rifle nozzle in the face of a potential wealthy political donor? Would those policemen force the family of the elite into the streets while they entered a home that is worth 20 of their salaries combined?

If it weren’t a middle class area like Watertown, would you really see a politician ordering law enforcement to forcibly enter and search homes on the upper west side of Manhattan or Georgetown or Beverly Hills? Would this happen to a celebrity in his home or, heaven forbid, a congressman?

When citizens are searched by pat-down, rousted out of their homes, and we end up thanking the police with blind understanding, the government has essentially found an acceptable means to take more of our rights away without even one politician having to cast a vote.

These past events in Watertown have set a precedent.

The police can now enter our homes anytime they want. It just requires a verbal massaging of the circumstance. After all, who ever heard of “shelter-in-place” before Friday, April 19, 2013?

If the government can order us to stay in our homes, it looks like it can throw us out of them any time it wants… at the point of a gun.

A Brief History of False Flag Attacks: Or Why Government Loves State Sponsored Terror

Kurt Nimmo
Infowars.com
August 14, 2012

False flag attacks occur when government engages in covert operations designed to deceive the public in such a way that the operations seem as if they are being carried out by other entities.

False flag terrorism is a favorite political tactic used by governments worldwide. They influence elections, guide national and international policy, and are cynically used to formulate propaganda and shape public opinion as nations go to war.

Nero and the Great Fire of Rome

The Roman consul and historian Cassius Dio, his contemporary Suetonius and others say the Emperor Nero was responsible for the Great Fire of Rome in 64 AD.

Legend claims Nero had one-third of the city torched as an excuse to build Domus Aurea, a 300 acre palatial complex that included a towering statue of himself, the Colossus of Nero.

Prior to the fire, the Roman Senate had rejected the emperor’s bid to level a third of the city to make way for a “Neropolis,” an urban renewal project.

The Roman historian Tacitus wrote that when the population of Rome held Nero responsible for the fire, he shifted blame on the Christians for “hating the human race” and starting the fire.

The Spanish American War: Remember the Maine

By the late 1800s, the United States was looking for an excuse to kick Spain out of Cuba. U.S. business was heavily invested in sugar, tobacco and iron on the Caribbean island.

The U.S.S. Maine was sent to Havana in January of 1898 to protect these business interests after a local insurrection broke out. Three weeks later, early on the morning of February 15, an explosion destroyed the forward third of the ship anchored in Havana’s harbor, killing more than 270 American sailors.

President McKinley blamed Spain after the U.S. Naval Court of Inquiry declared that a naval mine caused the explosion.

American newspapers blamed the Spanish despite a lack of evidence. “You furnish the pictures and I’ll furnish the war,” newspaper tycoon William Randolph Hearst told Frederic Remington after the illustrator reported that the situation in Cuba did not warrant invasion.

A number of historians and researchers later argued that the ship was blown up by the United States to provide a false flag pretext to invade Cuba and expel Spain.

The United States occupied Cuba from 1898 until 1902, although an amendment to a joint resolution of Congress forbid the U.S. to annex the country.

Wilson’s Pretext for War: The Sinking of the Lusitania

Nearly two thousand travelers, including one hundred Americans, were killed on May 7, 1915, when a German U-boat torpedoed the RMS Lusitania, a luxury Cunard Line British ocean liner.

Prior to the sinking, the German embassy in Washington issued a warning. Newspapers in the United States refused to print the warning or acknowledge the German claim that the ship carried munitions.

Wilson’s government issued a flurry of diplomatic protests after the sinking and exploited the tragedy two years later as a pretext for America to enter the First World War.

Nearly a hundred years later, in 2008, divers discovered the Lusitania carried more than four million rounds of rifle ammunition.

“There were literally tons and tons of stuff stored in unrefrigerated cargo holds that were dubiously marked cheese, butter and oysters,” Gregg Bemis, an American businessman who owns the rights to the wreck and is funding its exploration, told The Daily Mail.

Hitler’s Fascist Dictatorship: The Reichstag Fire

In February of 1933, a month after convincing Germany’s president that parliament must be eliminated, Hitler and the Nazis instigated the Reichstag fire.

Hitler then urged president Hindenburg to issue an emergency decree restricting personal liberty, including the right to free expression and a free press, limitations on the rights of association and assembly, warrantless searches of homes, property confiscation, and violations of postal, telegraphic and telephonic communications “permissible beyond the legal limits otherwise prescribed.”

The Nazis used the decree and cracked down on their political opponents . They worked behind the scenes to force through the Enabling Act, which legally allowed Hitler to obtain plenary powers and establish a dictatorship.

Gestapo Reichsmarschall Hermann Göring would admit that “the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country.”

Prelude to World War: The Gleiwitz Incident

Six years after the Reichstag Fire, the Nazis staged the Gleiwitz incident. Nazi commandos raided a German radio station in Gleiwitz, Upper Silesia, Germany. The raid was part of Operation Himmler, a series of operations undertaken by the SS as Hitler set the stage for the invasion of Poland and the start of the Second World War.

SS operatives dressed in Polish uniforms attacked the radio station, broadcast an anti-German message in Polish, and left behind the body of a German Silesian known for sympathizing with the Poles. The corpse was then offered to the press as evidence that the Poles had attacked the radio station.

Israeli False Flag Terror: The Lavon Affair

In 1954, the Israelis activated a terrorist cell in response to the United States making friends with the Egyptian government and its pan-Arab leader, Gamal Abdel Nasser. The Israelis were worried Nasser would nationalize the Suez Canal and continue Egypt’s blockade of Israeli shipping through the canal.

Israeli Prime Minister David Ben Gurion decided a false flag terrorist attack on American interests in Egypt would sour the new relationship. He recruited and dispatched a terror cell that pretended to be Egyptian terrorists.

The plan, however, contained a fatal flaw. Israel’s top secret cell, Unit 131, was infiltrated by Egyptian intelligence. After a member of the cell was arrested and interrogated, he revealed the plot and this led to more arrests. Israeli agents were subjected to a public trial revealing details of the plan to firebomb the U.S. Information Agency’s libraries, a British-owned Metro-Goldwyn Mayer theatre, a railway terminal, the central post office, and other targets.

In order to deflect blame, the Israeli government tried to frame its own Defense Minister, Pinhas Lavon, but the true nature of the plot was eventually made public.

Operation Northwoods: Targeting American Citizens

In the covert war against the communist regime in Cuba under the CIA’s Operation Mongoose, the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff unanimously proposed state-sponsored acts of terrorism in side the United States.

The plan included shooting down hijacked American airplanes, the sinking of U.S. ships, and the shooting of Americans on the streets of Washington, D.C. The outrageous plan even included a staged NASA disaster that would claim the life of astronaut John Glenn.

Reeling under the embarrassing failure of the CIA’s botched Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba, president Kennedy rejected the plan in March of 1962. A few months later, Kennedy denied the plan’s author, General Lyman Lemnitzer, a second term as the nation’s highest ranking military officer.

In November of 1963, Kennedy was assassinated in Dallas, Texas.

Gulf of Tonkin: Phantom Attack on the U.S, Military

On August 4, 1964, President Lyndon Johnson went on national television and told the nation that North Vietnam had attacked U.S. ships.

“Repeated acts of violence against the armed forces of the United States must be met not only with alert defense, but with a positive reply. That reply is being given as I speak tonight,” Johnson declared.

Congress soon passed the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, which provided Johnson with pre-approved authority to conduct military operations against North Vietnam. By 1969, over 500,000 troops were fighting in Southeast Asia.

Johnson and his Secretary of Defense, Robert McNamara, had bamboozled Congress and the American people. In fact, North Vietnam had not attacked the USS Maddox, as the Pentagon claimed, and the “unequivocal proof” of an “unprovoked” second attack against the U.S. warship was a ruse.

Operation Gladio: State Sponsored Terror Blamed on the Left

Following the Second World War, the CIA and Britain’s MI6 collaborated through NATO on Operation Gladio, an effort to create a “stay behind army” to fight communism in the event of a Soviet invasion of Western Europe.

Gladio quickly transcended its original mission and became a covert terror network consisting of rightwing militias, organized crime elements, agents provocateurs and secret military units. The so-called stay behind armies were active in France, Belgium, Denmark, The Netherlands, Norway, Germany, and Switzerland.

Gladio’s “Strategy of Tension” was designed to portray leftist political groups in Europe as terrorists and frighten the populace into voting for authoritarian governments. In order to carry out this goal, Gladio operatives conducted a number of deadly terrorists attacks that were blamed on leftists and Marxists.

In August of 1980, Gladio operatives bombed a train station in Bologna, killing 85 people. Initially blamed on the Red Brigades, it was later discovered that fascist elements within the Italian secret police and Licio Gelli, the head of the P2 Masonic Lodge, were responsible for the terror attack. Other fascist groups, including Avanguardia Nazionale and Ordine Nuovo, were mobilized and engaged in terror.

Operation Gladio ultimately claimed the lives of hundreds of people across Europe.

According to Vincenzo Vinciguerra, a Gladio terrorist serving a life-sentence for murdering policemen, the reason for Gladio was simple. It was designed “to force these people, the Italian public, to turn to the state to ask for greater security. This is the political logic that lies behind all the massacres and the bombings which remain unpunished, because the state cannot convict itself or declare itself responsible for what happened.”

This article was posted: Tuesday, August 14, 2012 at 10:31 am

What’s wrong with CISPA?

What’s wrong with CISPA? (in as few words as possible)

As it’s written, CISPA won’t protect us from cyber threats, but it will violate our 4th Amendment right to privacy.

  • It lets the government spy on you without a warrant. (read more)
  • It makes it so you can’t even find out about it after the fact. (read more)
  • It makes it so companies can’t be sued when they do illegal things with your data. (read more)
  • It allows corporations to cyber-attack each other and individuals outside of the law. (read more)
  • It makes every privacy policy on the web a moot point, and violates the 4th amendment. (read more)

U.S. employees set to be forced to give bosses their Facebook PASSWORDS

  • A last minute alteration to CISPA was defeated in a Congress vote
  • It would have protected user’s social media passwords from employers
  • The late amendment was put forward by Democrat Ed Perlmutter

An attempt to ban US bosses from asking employees to hand over their Facebook login details has been blocked by Congress.

A last minute alteration to the controversial Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (CISPA) that would have prevented employers demanding that prospective employees disclose social media passwords as a condition of employment was voted down in the house of representatives.

The proposal, put forward by Democrat Ed Perlmutter was defeated by a 224-189 majority, according to the Huffington Post.

Invasion of privacy? An amendment to a new US bill on cyber attacks aimed at preventing employers asking prospective employees for their Facebook login has been rejected

Checking up: CISPA does nothing to address concerns that US employers can legitimately ask employees for social media login details as a condition of employment (file picture)

Handing over passwords could legally be a condition of acquiring or keeping a job, said WebProNews.

Perlmutter said of his amendment before it was defeated: ‘It helps the individual protect his right to privacy and it doesn’t allow the employer to impersonate that particular employee when other people are interacting with that person across social media platforms.

He warned of an invasion of privacy and the potential of employers to ‘impersonate’ employees online.

The Democrat initially proposed the password privacy measure as part of the Federal Communications Commission Process Reform Act of 2012 and warned that social media users have a reasonable expectation of privacy.

Blocked: The amendment to CISPA was put forward by Democrat Ed Permutter who says that social media users have an expectation of privacy

In a statement he added: ‘They have an expectation that their right to free speech and religion will be respected when they use social media outlets.

‘No American should have to provide their confidential personal passwords as a condition of employment.’

Perlmutter faced criticism from bill sponsor Mike Rogers who claimed that he was trying to kill the act.

He said that the issue should be addressed in separate legislation.

But previous attempts to counteract the increasing trend of employers asking for prospective employees social networking login details have failed.

The Password Protection Act 2012 was introduced to Senators and Congressman but was not passed.

The overall act would allow the US Government and private companies such as Facebook to share information with one another should they come under cyber attack.

But critics of the contentious bill, which initially failed when it was rejected by Senators last year, say that it would bypass privacy laws and allow companies to hand over users’ information to the Government.

They claim that it would prevent companies who hand over people’s personal details from facing legal action and effectively justify social media spying.

But CISPA recieved support from both Democrats and Republicans in the House of Representatives.

Reassurance: Facebook told its US users earlier this month that it has no intention of sharing sensitive personal information

Although the Act was ratified by the House of Representatives, there is a good chance that it could yet fall through.

CISPA was also approved by Congress in April 2012, but was rejected by the Senate. The White House even threatened to veto the act at the time.

Republicans Mike Rogers and Dutch Ruppersberger have once again put CISPA forward as they say that it is vital that companies have the ability to stop threats materialising in light of an increase in the number of foreign cyber attacks from countries like China.

Facebook initially came out in support of CISPA, but its name has since disappeared from a list of firms fully supporting the bill this time around.

Under threat: CISPA is aimed at allowing companies to share information to thwart potential cyber attacks

And the social networking site vice president of US Public Policy Joel Kaplan reassured users that Facebook has no intention of sharing sensitive personal information with the Government.

He said: ‘The overriding goal of any cybersecurity bill should be to protect the security of networks and private data, and we take any concerns about how legislation might negatively impact Internet users’ privacy seriously.’

But other big name companies including IBM, Intel, McAfee and Time Warner Cable are in favour of CISPA.

 CISPA:  While You Were Sleeping…

While the American People were watching Washington’s grand Production of MARTIAL LAW: BOSTON, The U.S. House of Representatives passed CISPA. CISPA negates the privacy agreements made by Internet Providers and Internet Services and encourages the sharing of your private information to Uncle Sam. In addition due process is removed allowing the Feds to shut down sites without a warrant, as well as violate the privacy of your inbox, Facebook, twitter, other social media, and cloud storage accounts.

None of this will make the Internet Safer…it only empowers the US government to persecute dissenters and censor opinions it does not agree with.

The EFF on CISPA
https://www.eff.org/cybersecurity

CISPA purports to allow companies and the federal government to “share” threat information for a “cybersecurity” purpose—to protect and defend against attacks against computer systems and networks. But the bill is written broadly enough to permit your communications service providers to identify, obtain, and share your emails and text messages with the government. While business leaders have conceded that they do not need to share personally identifying information to combat computer threats, the bill provides an exception to existing law designed to protect your personal information.

The newly granted powers are intended to thwart computer security threats against a company’s rights and property. But the definitions are broad and vague. The terms allow purposes such as guarding against “improper” information modification and ensuring “timely” access to information, functions that are not necessarily tied to attacks.

Once handed over, the government is able to use this information for investigating crimes that are unrelated to the underlying security threat and, more broadly, for “national security” purposes, which is a poorly defined term that includes “threats to the United States, its people, property, or interests” and “any other matter bearing on United States national or homeland security.”

The bill’s vague definitions like “cybersecurity purpose” and “cybersecurity system” also raise the frightening possibility of a company using aggressive countermeasures. If a company wants to combat a threat, it is empowered to use “cybersecurity systems” to identify and obtain “cyber threat information.” But the bill does not define exactly how far a company can go, leaving it open to the possibility of abuse.

Companies would also be immune from both civil and criminal liability for any action, including but not limited to violating a user’s privacy, as long as the company used the powers granted by CISPA in “good faith.” The immunity even extends to “decisions made based on” any information “directly pertaining” to a security threat. The consequences of such a clause are far-reaching.

While our Government declared Martial Law, locking down an entire 90 Mile Square radius of a Metropolitan Area, CISPA was quietly passed. CISPA, a bill so unpopular that its previous incarnations failed EVERY TIME they came up for debate, was passed in total while we watched our government drag Home owners out of their own homes at gunpoint, while looking for ONE MAN. CISPA is the Patriot Act of the Internet, it is no different than the Martial Law in Boston, they are one and the same.

CISPA Questions

Under CISPA, what can a private company do?

Under CISPA, any company can “use cybersecurity systems to identify and obtain cyber threat information to protect the rights and property” of the company, and then share that information with third parties, including the government, so long as it is for “cybersecurity purposes.” Whenever these prerequisites are met, CISPA is written broadly enough to permit your communications service providers to share your emails and text messages with the government, or your cloud storage company could share your stored files.

Right now, well-established laws like the Cable Communications Policy Act, the Wiretap Act, the Video Privacy Protection Act, and the Electronic Communications Privacy Act provide judicial oversight and other privacy protections that prevent companies from unnecessarily sharing your private information, including the content of your emails.

And these laws expressly allow lawsuits against companies that go too far in divulging your private information. CISPA threatens these protections by declaring that key provisions in CISPA are effective “notwithstanding any other law,” a phrase that essentially means CISPA would override the relevant provisions in all other laws—including privacy laws. CISPA also creates a broad immunity for companies against both civil and criminal liability. CISPA provides more legal cover for companies to share large swaths of potentially personal and private information with the government.

Does CISPA do enough to prevent abuse of the law for copyright enforcement?

No. Early versions of CISPA included language that specifically mentioned intellectual property, but that was taken out after significant outcry from the Internet community that the language could be used as a copyright enforcement bill similar to SOPA. (Great job, Internet community!)

CISPA’s definition of “cyber threat information” includes information directly pertaining to a threat to “confidentiality.” But what does confidentiality mean? The definition encompasses measures designed for preserving “authorized restrictions on access,” including means for protecting “proprietary information.” “Proprietary information” is not defined, and could be read to include copyrighted information. For example, one type of restriction on access that is designed to protect proprietary information is digital rights management (DRM).

Legitimate security researchers have routinely bypassed restrictions on proprietary information in order to research and publish information pertaining to vulnerabilities. Vulnerability research should not be considered a cyber threat, and the movie and music industry should not be given immunity for “decisions based on” this information, good faith or not.

What triggers these new corporate powers?

CISPA allows a company to obtain and share “cyber threat information” if it has both a “cybersecurity purpose” and believes it is protecting its rights and property.

A “cybersecurity purpose” only means that a company has to think that a user is trying to harm its network. What does that mean, exactly? The definition is broad and vague. The definition allows purposes such as guarding against “improper” information modification, ensuring “timely” access to information or “preserving authorized restrictions on access…protecting…proprietary information” (i.e. DRM).

Under CISPA, what can I do if a company improperly hands over private information to the government?

Almost nothing. Even if the company violates your privacy beyond what CISPA would permit, the government does not have to notify the user whose information was improperly handed over—the government only notifies the company.

CISPA provides legal immunity to a company for many actions done to or with your private information, as long as the company acted in “good faith.” This is an extremely powerful immunity, because it is quite hard to show that a company did not act in good faith. These liability protections can cover actions the company uses to identify and obtain threat information and the subsequent sharing of that information with others—including the government. The immunity also covers “decisions made based on cyber threat information,” a dangerously vague provision that has never been defined.

Do companies need to share users’ personally identifying information (PII) to enhance information security?

No. At a recent hearing on CISPA, Governor John Engler, President of the Business Roundtable, and Paul Smocer, President of BITS, the technology policy division of the financial industry group called the Financial Services Roundtable, testified in support of the bill. Smocer admitted that “there is very little private data, PII, being exchanged today in the threat information world,” and that it would “not be an issue” to remove personally identifiable information before sharing. CISPA, however, authorizes sharing PII, and leaves redaction to the companies’ discretion.

The most useful threat information that should be shared includes previously unknown software and network vulnerabilities, malware signatures, and other technical characteristics that identify an attack or its methodology—all of which can be shared without PII. If companies need to share an email, such as a phishing email message, existing exceptions allow the recipient to divulge the information; there is no need for the blanket authority in CISPA. Mandiant’s recent report on Chinese hacking is just one of many instances where companies have shared a great deal of useful threat information without authority beyond what is granted to them by current law.

Can a company hack a perceived threat under CISPA (“hack back”)?

CISPA provides companies with immunity “for decisions made based on cyber threat information” as long as they are acting in good faith.  But CISPA doesn’t define “decisions made.” Aggressive companies could interpret this immunity to cover “defensive”—and what some would consider offensive—countermeasures like DDOSing suspected intruders, third parties, or even innocent users. Private defense contractors have already advocated for this power. These actions should not be allowed by such expansive wording. It leaves the bill ripe for abuse.

What is a “cybersecurity system”?

The bill’s definition of “cybersecurity system” is circular. It defines a “cybersecurity system” as “a system designed or employed” to protect against, among others, vulnerabilities or threats. The language is not limited to network security software or intrusion detection systems, and is so poorly written that any “system” involving a tangible item could be considered a “cybersecurity system.”

In practical terms, it’s unclear what is exactly covered by such a “system.” Does it include port-scanning or other basic defensive software tools or could it mean more aggressive offensive countermeasures? The drafters of this legislation leave it unclear whether the term “cybersecurity system” is trying to refer to a computer, a network of computers, security software, or something else entirely.

This definition is critical to understanding the bill. The information that a company can “identify or obtain” is limited by the term, which, in turn, limits what the company can share with the government. The definition is yet another reason why CISPA is dangerously vague.

What government agencies can look at my private information?

Under CISPA, companies can hand “cyber threat information” to any government agency with or without limitations on what agency can receive the information. Generally, the information will be given to a central hub in the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). But once it’s in DHS’s hands, the bill says that DHS can then hand the information to other agencies, including the National Security Agency.

Can the government use my private information for other purposes besides “cybersecurity” once it has it?

Yes. Even though the information was passed along to the government for only “cybersecurity purposes”—the government can use your personal information for cybersecurity, investigating any cybersecurity crime or criminal exploitation of minor, protecting individuals from death or serious physical injury, or protecting the national security of the United States. Under the National Security Act, which CISPA amends, national security interests can include:

(i) threats to the United States, its people, property, or interests;

(ii) the development, proliferation, or use of weapons of mass destruction; or

(iii) any other matter bearing on United States national or homeland security.

This broad definition gives the government too much power to use private information without safeguards.

What can I do to stop the government from misusing my private information?

CISPA does allow users to sue the government if it intentionally or willfully uses or retains their information for purposes other than what is permitted by the law. But any such lawsuit will be difficult to bring because it’s not at all clear how an individual would know of such misuse. An individual could not even use transparency laws, like FOIA, to find out, because the information shared is exempt from disclosure.

Isn’t it important to protect computer systems and networks?

Absolutely. Strong information security is critical to privacy and civil liberties, and can protect users and companies from the activities of malicious actors, be they authoritarian regimes or common criminals. Everyday, millions of ordinary users rely upon the information security of software vendors and online service providers to keep their personal information private and secure, to conduct transactions, and to express their ideas and beliefs.

CISPA, however, only addresses a small piece of the information security puzzle: sharing threat information. It does nothing to, for example, encourage stronger passphrases, promote two-factor authentication, or educate users on detecting and avoiding social engineering attacks, which is the cause of a majority of attacks on corporations. CISPA also does not address promoting more security research, more responsible disclosure or faster patches to known vulnerabilities, nor fixing the troublesome Certificate Authority system.

Who Voted FOR CISPA?
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2013/roll117.xml

Aderholt
Alexander
Amodei
Bachus
Barber
Barletta
Barr
Barrow (GA)
Barton
Beatty
Benishek
Bera (CA)
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Black
Bonner
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Burgess
Bustos
Butterfield
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Cantor
Capito
Cárdenas
Carney
Carter
Cassidy
Castor (FL)
Chabot
Chaffetz
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coble
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Conaway
Connolly
Cook
Cooper
Costa
Cotton
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Cuellar
Culberson
Daines
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Deutch
Diaz-Balart
Dingell
Duckworth
Duffy
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Enyart
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foster
Foxx
Frankel (FL)
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Fudge
Gallego
Garamendi
Garcia
Gardner
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gingrey (GA)
Goodlatte
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guthrie
Gutierrez
Hanabusa
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Heck (NV)
Heck (WA)
Hensarling
Higgins
Himes
Horsford
Hoyer
Hudson
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Israel
Issa
Jeffries
Jenkins
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
Joyce
Kaptur
Kelly (IL)
Kelly (PA)
Kilmer
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger (IL)
Kirkpatrick
Kline
Kuster
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Langevin
Lankford
Larsen (WA)
Latham
Latta
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Luján, Ben Ray (NM)
Lummis
Maffei
Maloney, Sean
Marino
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCarthy (NY)
McCaul
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meehan
Meeks
Meng
Messer
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Moran
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (FL)
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Noem
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Owens
Palazzo
Pastor (AZ)
Paulsen
Payne
Pearce
Perlmutter
Perry
Peters (CA)
Peterson
Petri
Pittenger
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Price (GA)
Quigley
Radel
Rahall
Rangel
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Richmond
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Royce
Ruiz
Runyan
Ruppersberger
Ryan (WI)
Salmon
Sanchez, Loretta
Scalise
Schneider
Schock
Schrader
Schwartz
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Scott, David
Sessions
Sewell (AL)
Shuster
Simpson
Sinema
Sires
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Southerland
Stewart
Stivers
Stutzman
Swalwell (CA)
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Titus
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walorski
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)

I know this particular piece is not my best work, but it IS important information and also my lunch break.

Stand Up, Speak Out, and Talk HARD!!!

-Prometheus Unchained
04/22/2013

https://prometheusunchainedus.wordpress.com
prometheus@prometheusunchained.us

Security theater moves to Act Two following arrest of Boston marathon bombing suspect

Mike Adams
Natural News
April 20, 2013

I’m trying to get a grip on the full spectacle of the police state theater we have all just witnessed in Boston. Where to begin?

Do we begin with the “lockdown” order that forced 400,000+ Bostonites to stay off the streets and hide in their homes while nobody admits it’s actually martial law?

Do we begin with the militarized masses of armed-up police rolling down the streets of Boston in bomb-proof assault vehicles, all in the hunt for one teenager? Click here for astonishing pictures of martial law in Boston.

Or do we even attempt to examine the spectacle of the mainstream media’s agenda-scripted coverage of all this and its failure to try to blame the bombing on so-called “right-wing extremists?”

In examining the events of the week, a rational person can’t help but conclude that only a small part of what’s being officially reported about the Boston marathon bombers has any basis in fact. And even after the announced arrest of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, the remaining survivor of the supposed terrorist bombing duo, we still have:

• No images or video of this person placing any bomb on the ground

• No acknowledgement of the existence of the “Craft” military spooks who all carried large backpacks at the marathon and were found moving away from one of the bombs just minutes before it went off

• No apology from the mainstream media for its week-long rampage against “right-wing extremists” who it vilified as the probable bombers

• No explanation for why it takes thousands of heavily-armed police, armored assault vehicles and federal agents to find and arrest one teenager

• No reply from the FBI on just how much the FBI controlled and manipulated these suspects over the last few years, as has been described by their mother.

• No legal justification for the “lockdown” martial law declaration that has been illegally forced upon the people of Boston

But don’t hold your breath on any of this. The last thing the public would ever get in any of this would be real answers.

My working theory on what really went down

Here’s my theory on what actually happened:

The FBI “recruited” the Tsarnaeva brothers years ago as part of their ongoing campaign of staging actual terrorist attacks in the USA as is well documented in the New York Times and elsewhere.

The FBI gave these guys the skills, the plans and the materials to make the “pressure cooker” bombs, then picked the target of the Boston marathon. This tactical-level planning of terrorism by the FBI is not uncommon. As Kurt Nimmo writes on InfoWars:

The FBI is notorious for recruiting and framing terrorist patsies. A report compiled by Mother Jones and the Investigative Reporting Program at the University of California-Berkley found that of the 158 prosecutions carried out on terrorism charges since 9/11, 49 defendants participated in plots that were arranged by FBI agent provocateurs.

“The Craft” operatives were then hired by the government to be on scene and observe the brothers to make sure they placed the backpacks as planned.

The original plan was to then use the explosions to blame “right-wing extremists” by nailing other patsies in the crowd who had already been set up to be present with backpacks. The two brothers would escape blame and be allowed to continue working for the FBI on other terrorism campaigns.

But when the alternative media began circulating suspicious photos of “The Craft” team members and blowing the cover on the whole operation, the FBI suddenly reversed course on Wednesday and retracted its stated arrest of a white suspect, “flipping the script” onto the Tsarnaeva brothers. Knowing they could not sustain the big lie of “right-wing extremists,” they decided to sacrifice their two pawns. If they could be killed during a firefight, that would be even better.

One of the Tsarnaeva brothers has already been shot and then run over by a vehicle (almost certainly a government vehicle, although the press ridiculously says his own brother ran over him). The other was captured last night, alive, but it has already been decided this person has no right to any due process and will be tortured and interrogated until he talks.

So the entire theatrical production now moves into Act Two, where any mention of FBI involvement will be memory-holed, and anyone who suggests the FBI might have coached or even trained these two brothers will be labeled a “conspiracy theorist.”

Score one for the FBI and its department of terrorism. This should keep the American sheeple compliant and afraid for at least another year or two…

And don’t worry; the FBI has plenty of additional terrorism plots already under way. Each of them will be released at the appropriate time to manipulate public emotions and keep driving America into a state of undeclared martial law.

Anyone who believes the official story on all this is a fool.

This article was posted: Saturday, April 20, 2013 at 12:57 pm

Proof Boston Marathon Bombing is False Flag Cover-Up

Infowars.com
April 18, 2013

Unlike Oklahoma City, the FBI cannot confiscate all of the surveillance, cell phone, and thousands of cameras that were at the finish line of Boston Marathon. 4Chan posted dozens of photos showing Navy Seal or Private Security personnel carrying the same black back packs which are the same style backpacks showed in FBI photos. It’s becoming crystal clear. Get these articles and this video out to everyone you know.

Breaking: Police Confirm Infowars Photos of Boston Suspectshttp://www.infowars.com/breaking-police-confirm…

Obama Covering Up Saudi Link to Boston Bombing?http://www.infowars.com/obama-covering-up…

Navy SEALs Spotted at Boston Marathon Wearing Suspicious Backpacks? http://www.infowars.com/navy-seals-sp…

Boston Bombing Culprits Identified? http://www.infowars.com/boston-bombin…

This article was posted: Thursday, April 18, 2013 at 9:50 am

I believe this is important enough for a second look.

prometheusunchainedus

Who Will Lead?

There is a storm coming, one of Blood, Oppression, and a yearning desire for Liberty. A war between Tyrants and Patriots, with the future of Humanity hanging in the balance. When the storm breaks, Who will lead? WE will lead!

How do we become Leaders? We first discover and accept who and what we are and the Truth of the nightmare that is the World. We then live our lives as Free Men, leading by example, living, breathing, speaking, eating, and dreaming Liberty everywhere we go. We must Speak Truth Always…even when Truth is illegal, offensive, and unpopular.

Plan ahead for the hammer of Martial Law to fall. Gather two months of canned food, weapons, ammo, and find a safe location to lay low for a few days. These will be the darkest of days. Along the way we will discover others who are like-minded who…

View original post 473 more words

Big Sis Coordinating Gun Confiscations

DHS collaborating with NY state officials to target Second Amendment rights

Paul Joseph Watson
Infowars.com
April 15, 2013

The Department of Homeland Security is collaborating with New York State government officials to confiscate guns belonging to people who are deemed, often erroneously, to have a mental condition, according to radio host Tom Bauerle.

“NY State Talk Radio Host Tom Bauerle discussed on his program that several sources inside NY State Govt have told him that the Dept of Homeland Security played an active role in meeting and collaborating with NY State Officials to develop and implement the confiscation scheme that targeted David Lewis and an as yet unknown number of others,” reports Ammoland.com.

Bauerle is a daily host on WBEN, based in Buffalo, New York.

Back in March it also emerged that the DHS was working with the Department of Revenue to collect information on gun owners in Missouri.

The fact that the DHS is coordinating with state government officials on gun confiscations is particularly unnerving given recent developments.

As we reported last week, the federal agency is testing a number of different drones at a scientific research facility in Oklahoma that have sensors capable of detecting whether a person is armed, stoking concerns that the federal agency is planning on using UAVs to harass gun owners.

The DHS has committed to purchasing more than 1.6 billion rounds of ammunition over the course of the last year, along with thousands of armored vehicles. While Americans are having their gun rights eviscerated, the government is seemingly arming itself to the teeth.

Under the NY SAFE Act, anyone considered as having a mental condition can have their firearms seized by police and their Second Amendment rights suspended. The law encourages therapists, doctors, nurses and social workers to report patients they determine may engage in conduct that may result in harm to self or others.

Last week, State police in Erie County, New York admitted they had wrongly confiscated the guns of 35-year-old college librarian David Lewis, who was prescribed anti-anxiety medication by his doctor yet was targeted after being falsely labeled as having a mental condition that could lead to violence.

Erie County Clerk Chris Jacobs admitted that police called him to clarify that they had wrongly enforced a pistol permit suspension on Lewis, highlighting the fundamental flaws in the newly passed law.

“I think that first and foremost, it stems from a flawed law that was passed so quickly without forethought on how something would be implemented,” said Jacobs, adding, “Until the mental health provisions are fixed, these mistakes will continue to happen.”

Lewis is now taking legal action, with his attorneys noting that protections should have been in force under The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act Privacy Rule, which establishes national standards to protect individuals’ medical records and other personal health information, according to the Department of Health and Human Services.

As we also highlighted recently, numerous veterans are being forced to undergo “psychiatric evaluations” before having their guns confiscated, in another example of how the Veterans Administration is accelerating a purge of armed ex-servicemembers in accordance with a federal government demonization campaign that has labeled vets domestic terrorists.

The NY Safe act is just one stepping stone to total firearms confiscation, an end goal that gun control advocates have openly admitted.

As we reported last week, Democratic Austin City Council member and potential next mayor Mike Martinez admitted during a speech last weekend that the Obama administration’s long term gun control agenda is focused on banning firearms altogether.

*********************

Paul Joseph Watson is the editor and writer for Infowars.com and Prison Planet.com. He is the author of Order Out Of Chaos. Watson is also a host for Infowars Nightly News.

This article was posted: Monday, April 15, 2013 at 7:58 am

%d bloggers like this: