Here's a clip, and then some rambling about it. I'm too pressed for time
to properly organize the line of thinking, but I think it's so
important that I did put a few hours into it.
"The damage goes beyond Iraq. Al Qaeda's media arm, As-Sahab ("The
Cloud") has similarly improved the quality and frequency of its videos;
the group, says former State Department adviser Philip Zelikow, uses
"the Internet to provide a sense of virtual identity" now that its
Afghan training camps have largely been destroyed. The question is how
to fight back, when today's most powerful technologies-the Web, cell
phones-are better suited to small, nimble organizations. Back in the
1930s national leaders could almost wholly control the framing of their
messages, says Donald Shaw, a professor of media theory at the
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill who has written about
reforms for military public-affairs officers. But now, "the podium has
lost its influence." For those who once stood behind it, that message at
least is very clear."
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16497895/site/newsweek/
In this article, the case is made that the Internet is significantly
helping our enemy.
How will our fear and paranoid-driven war-making rulers respond?
Can you just hear Cheney and his Neocon pals talking? "We must control
the Internet! It's being used against us and this is the last straw! Get
our best minds on the problem and come back with a list of
recommendations on how we secure the Internet so terrorists can't use
it!"
Nobody will mention the other implication: that a controlled Internet
takes the wind out of the legitimate protester's sails as well.
How could they control the Internet, anyway? Really not too hard. First,
require positive ID at login. Then it's simple: record all Internet
traffic in a giant database the size of some mountain in Colorado. Then,
when a person comes under scrutiny because, say, because the Information
lords don't like him, all they have to do is quietly sift through all
that information until they come across something that they can hook
into, give it to the Puff Squad, and walla! Another target neutralized.
Nobody, it turns out, is perfect. In some way or the other we all have
done something we're not proud of, and perhaps even something against
the ever-expanding body of law we live by. There are so many laws on the
books that if you said you've never committed a crime, I'd think you're
not being completely honest. Example: every time I drive without a seat
belt, I'm committing a crime. If I insist, I can wind up in jail,
heavily fined, and even be "puffed" up as a criminal for scoffing the
law, complete with unshaven photo.
Give someone access to this database, and walla: gonzo to the
opposition!
Just imagine someone sifting through 10 or 20 years of your
Internet/email usage, combined with info from tracking devices
everywhere, and tell me the Puff Squad can't find ways to beat you to a
pulp.
So the game boils down to: "who has access to this information", because
we all know that "he who runs the information runs the show". Take into
account the possibility that "he" doesn't like you, and you've got a
real problem.
Should this information exist in the first place may be the real
question, because if it does exist, then someone has to run it. Should
it become a tool for those in the same think-tanks who duped us into
war? Can we trust them to decide who is a patriot and who is the enemy?
You may recall that in the 60's there were many cases of gov't spying on
protestors going on. Well, times have changed a lot, and now those doing
the spying don't even have to leave their office. A wild guess would be
that today investigators have 100x more resources then in the 60's, as a
result of that "work".
A question: do you think I'll be able to post a message, talking like
this, to this forum, from an anonymous userid next year? The year after?
I don't think we can get around the need for positive logins for things
like shopping and voting, but we must support our right to anonymous,
unrecorded, untraceable, unfettered internet access. It's either that or
be subjected to 'those who run the information run the show'. The choice
really is that stark, and it all hinges on one word: anonymous. With
anonymous, the info isn't recorded in the first place, and that's the
only way to guarantee no links to it.
Had the framers of our Constitution and Bill of Rights lived in modern
times, they would have included a "right to privacy" in the Bill of
Rights. Because the matter wasn't really important in those days, it
wasn't an issue. Today, however, it is an issue, and the best solution
is the one they would have applied had they known.
You may hate those protestors, despise them, but you *must* protect
their right to free and anonymous speech. Take away this right and you
will effectively defeat it.
Given the attitude of those in control in Washington, with their war on
terrorism excuse, they are far more likely to move in the direction of
control then privacy. And, if/when another attack here occurs, they'll
go right over the top with it post haste.
What's important here is that information gives the power mongers more
power, and they are already out of control. It's very true that you
can't appease the appetite of the aggressor, but we've been slow to come
around on just who is the aggressor.
We're in real danger of seeing an important right disappear, and when
that happens, Big Brother will grow another 100 feet bigger. And it all
happens so quietly - and so fast!
Bill
The Neocon-influenced war machine will use this as leverage to get their
labs working on different ways to control the Internet to stop these
people from using it this way.
China will like those controls too, and might even produce them.
Net effect: the Internet becomes controlled, for the sake of our
never-ending war on terrorism.
_______________________________________________
Post Messages to: [email protected]
Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the
author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added
to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
