WikiLeaks founder drops 'mass spying' hint

Originally posted by inf3cti0n
I think the kill switch in reality is just a proggy to remap everyone's keyboard type to Dvorak

That would end the internet right quick.

Im pretty sure Obama's kill switch is as effective as his "change"

youtube 2012

I agree, it would be a task to remove it completely, yet always remember without power, (electric) there's very little that would remain.
Talk about addiction, electricty wins hands down.

reply to post by HappilyEverAfter


The point is, they don't need to kill business and whatever else by shutting down the internet. If they really wanted to they could just target wikileaks as they have in the past. Don't try to turn my valid point into some kind of dumbed down logic.

reply to post by HappilyEverAfter


You have a point there, but I'm sure we are working on a back up reboot plan
WITH EVERTHING SCRUBBED all nice and clean. Keep the info you like,
delete the threats,etc. HIT RESTART, there its all better now. A nice clean
fresh start, on a new system where none of the old file work, except the ones
you decided to keep. And now we are in more control than ever!

Look Mom, Top of the World!- James Cagney

reply to post by inf3cti0n


Indeed, but you can scream this till your blue in the face but people will still keep on harping about this "kill switch" as if it can actually be done.

It is not possible for one country to shut down the internet. All the President could do is bugger the internet within the US.


Never mind the fact that there isn't an actual thing called "the internet" anyway.... It's just a protocol, there is no such physical thing in the world called "the internet"..

reply to post by Alethea


I noticed that right away. Where was that photo taken? Is he being protected
under the wing of a Secret Faction? Good observation. It almost seems
decorated purposefully for its symbolism. Also the color arrangement.

reply to post by stumason


You seem to be very confident of your statements, I hope your right.
Because the internet is amongst other things, the true free worldwide press.
When you hear the rumours that M.I.C. Science is roughly 50 years or more
advanced than what we are working with, you have to hold onto your seat every now and then.

Originally posted by stumason
reply to post by inf3cti0n

 

Indeed, but you can scream this till your blue in the face but people will still keep on harping about this "kill switch" as if it can actually be done.

It is not possible for one country to shut down the internet. All the President could do is bugger the internet within the US.


Never mind the fact that there isn't an actual thing called "the internet" anyway.... It's just a protocol, there is no such physical thing in the world called "the internet"..

Technically, there are deep-sea cables which allow the internet to exist. If I remember correctly, India was almost completely shut out of internet access when a deep sea cable was damaged in the Mediterranean.

That would be the extent of a tangible internet I guess. All it would really take to kill the internet though would potentially be the severing of cables (perhaps another BP type explosion where the internet can't be fixed for a year). Hope I'm not giving TPTB any ideas. At least if this happens now, you saw the idea here first

reply to post by Portugoal


Agreed, Only way we'll find out for sure is if Wikileaks releases the pumpkin.

Either they are taking the proper time to verify their Information, or they

are enjoying the media attention, and understand the value of keeping folks

hanging on the edge of their seat. In the meantime, I'll be in lounge with my

favorite bartender "Lloyd". My moneys no good there,"Courtesy of the House"

reply to post by Wildmanimal


It's my job. I work for a telco keeping "the internet" running, amongst other things. Without boring people with the technical details, it just isn't possible for the US president to "turn off" the internet. Anyone who believes otherwise has been misinformed.

To put it another way, do you believe the President could turn off China's telephone network? Same thing. People might bang on about ICAAN or the mythical root DNS servers, but ICANN is a toothless regulator with no physical access to any network and the root DNS servers can be replicated in short order using existing DNS devices with cached data, if they haven't already.

Given the importance of the internet to so many countries (Power grid management for example) it would be foolish to think precautions haven't been taken over "the internet" being compromised by megolomaniac US President.

Originally posted by Portugoal
Technically, there are deep-sea cables which allow the internet to exist. If I remember correctly, India was almost completely shut out of internet access when a deep sea cable was damaged in the Mediterranean.

That would be the extent of a tangible internet I guess. All it would really take to kill the internet though would potentially be the severing of cables (perhaps another BP type explosion where the internet can't be fixed for a year). Hope I'm not giving TPTB any ideas. At least if this happens now, you saw the idea here first

I really don't want to derail the thread or bore you with technical details, but those sub-sea cables are not for "the internet".

Yes, ISP's may purchase bandwidth off them but equally the bandwidth is sold to Telco's for sale to companies ranging from Banks to Governments for a variety of uses.

There isn't a physical internet, it is the same telecoms network that has always existed. It is just a protocol.

EDIT: The very nature of IP means that when physical links are severed, other routes are used. Severing a sub-sea cable just reducse underlying bandwidth, but whether any effect will be notice by the end user depends solely on what other routes ISP's have bought of carrier Telco's, like the one I work for.

It wasn't India either, they have plenty of bandwidth. It was some small Arabian states with just the one interconnect with the outside world. Serves them right.

[edit on 23/6/10 by stumason]

You do realize the ones that hold the secrets leak what they wish you to see and actually make you think you have stumbled on to something big.

counter-intel

My first thoughts about 'mass spying' went straight for US intelligence interests colluding with business to leverage advantages over international trade.

Basically...fixing markets for personal or national gain and giving the lie to the notion of 'free markets.'

Who watches the watchers?

Originally posted by Wildmanimal
reply to post by Alethea

 

I noticed that right away. Where was that photo taken? Is he being protected
under the wing of a Secret Faction? Good observation. It almost seems
decorated purposefully for its symbolism. Also the color arrangement.

That photo of Assange is a still from his interview on the Colbert Report, back when he was promoting the Collateral Murder release. I don't tune into Colbert that often, but I did watch that particular show. As I'm not a regular viewer of Colbert's, I can't say this for certain, but I think that is just his normal set... I've seen all three of those things before. I'll try and find another pic with them in it. The statue on the top right is the letter "C" for "Colbert."

Tom Hanks' Colbert Report interview

Assange's Colbert Report interview

Same set. Colbert's set. Nothing to do with Assange.

[edit on 23-6-2010 by JourPolaire]

[edit on 23-6-2010 by JourPolaire]

reply to post by stumason


Point taken as this, you infer that there is no way to shut down the media
side of the "internet" without affecting the infrastructure,financial,technological side of the internet. As Porto mentioned, we could certainly cut the cables,
however that would be just a complete black out to certain now unconnected areas. In other words your saying "as far as you know" there is nor a way to
selectively censure/kill information on a global scale that you would not want released. What you say makes sense. If your right, then effectively there is
no real "Kill Switch". Then what do you suppose they mean by that term?
Just out of curiosity.

reply to post by JourPolaire


Thanks for enlightening us on that symbolic decor. Old footage, so not so relevant to the current Wiki article. Hear Ya. Interesting symbolism all the same. THX

reply to post by Wildmanimal


You can certainly selectively stop specific information, using whatever usual tactics one might use. But a global disabling of the internet could only be brought about by a global power outage.

It may be possible for the President to prevent access to whatever sites he wishes from within the US too, using legislation to force ISP's to comply, but he has no way of doing so globally.

One has to understand that the networks (note the plural here, there is no one network) used by "the internet" are the exact same networks that existed bfore the internet came about, in fact the company I work for laid one of the first sub-sea cables back in the 19th century..

Those sub-sea cables carry alot more than just "internet" traffic and cutting them would only isolate those area's that had no other external connection, although internally traffic would still flow.

I suppose such a kill switch would be something like what the Chinese have, where they control what their people can and can't view on the web. This could be done, but only affecting US users. Any site hosted outside the US would be unaffected. This would also enable other services beside the internet to continue without disruption internally, such as grid management.

The first thing I thought about when hearing this was of the google maps cars going around taking photos of everything. I remember readying something that not only where they taking photos. but were sucking up details on every single wifi network around.

What for I do not know, But again today I saw something here that was saying that since the digital switch, google has bought up the analogue frequencies, and is planning to use them for subliminal marketing, even during sleep!!

Now i do not know how much I believe this if at all, but I sure as hell do not wnat to be kept awake by some git telling me I need to buy a new thigh master at 3 am!

All of your communications are monitored. Primarily by AI programmed to differentiate between harmonic tones. Depending on the words said and the words around the flag word your "case number" is directed to systems that perform finer and more exacting assessments of your communications. Finally, if you have breached securities by advertising your intent, your "case number" ends up in the workload of men and women who's job is to correlate your website visits, most common phone calls incoming and outgoing, email messages, facebook posts, youtube comments etc.

One of the reason our government is pushing "New Media" is to further encode us into a massive program, only using the tools designed by (and in turn, for) intelligence agencies.

Originally posted by superluminal11
You do realize the ones that hold the secrets leak what they wish you to see and actually make you think you have stumbled on to something big.

counter-intel

That's a great point. I just made a thread about it actually.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by JakiusFogg


States around the world are investigating Google for this. We'll see if anything comes out of this.

reply to post by JakiusFogg


Where did you hear this?

It's tripe.

The reason that there is a push for digital is so they can free up the frequencies used by analgue for even more digital frequencies. Analogue takes up more "space" than a digital signal, effectively you can squeeze more info within the same frequency range using digital signals than the old analogue ones.

In the UK, these frequencies have already started to be sold off for 3G, WiFi and other next generation technologies. Once all the old signals are off, we'll see a massive boom in the services offered wirelessly by mobile and television providers, such as more HD services for example.

[edit on 23/6/10 by stumason]