It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Internet Illuminati: Seven Hold Keys to the Digital Universe

page: 1
4

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 30 2010 @ 03:13 PM
link   

The Internet Illuminati: Seven Hold Keys to the Digital Universe


www.cnbc.com

“More has happened here today than meets the eye,” said Vinton Serf, a former program manager with the Department of Defense who’s now with Google and goes by the galactic street name of “Father of the Internet.” “An infrastructure has been created for a hierarchical security system which can be purposed and repurposed in a number of different ways,” he said, practically writing the Hollywood script.
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Jul, 30 2010 @ 03:13 PM
link   
Having not looked very deeply into Obama's "Internet Kill Switch", I thought the idea had been grossly over-exaggerated... Apparently I was wrong.

So this infrastructure is already in place? Where are the details? What exactly does the kill process entail?

Apparently the solution has been duped the "Domain Name Security System", does this indicate that Tier 1 DNS servers will be brought down in the event an "Internet Kill" is deemed necessary? Also seemingly apparent, is that the Internet Kill process was outsourced - By whom?

Details, I need details!



www.cnbc.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Jul, 30 2010 @ 03:19 PM
link   
More info:

"DNSSEC has been ten years or so in the making by British security company CommunityDNS. It's a security system designed to make sites safer than safe and will see adoption on government websites.

Yesterday evening on Radio 4's PM programme, CEO Paul Kane of CommunityDNS had a chat with Eddie Mair about the security system. He also revealed that he is one of seven key holders worldwide who will have access to a mainframe out in Nevada where there's an internet kill-switch, essentially a ctrl, alt, delete in case of major emergency. It'll only work on sites that incorporate DNSSEC, but he's been given a role in the 'chain of trust'.

He holds one of seven keys worldwide. The idea is that a trusted technology expert from different regions globally owns one of the keys. There are seven in total but just five are needed to activate the internet reboot. It'd only be necessary in the case of a 'catastrophic global meltdown'.

Still, the rest of the internet would carry on as normal. It'd only reset websites built around DNSSEC, so while the world is melting as SkyNet launches its nuclear warheads to trigger a war between man and machine you'll still be able to post your LOLs and ROFLs on 4Chan.

Kane told The Guardian that there will never be just one key: 'Never. Even if there was such a key, it would trigger the balkanisation of the internet. The EU wouldn't want the US to have it, the Middle East wouldn't want the EU to have it, the US wouldn't want anyone to have it.' That said, Obama's got access to a partial internet kill switch in case of emergency, so perhaps the US has the most power already."

Source: www.techeye.net...

So my question: Does this have anything to do with Obama's Internet Kill Switch legislation or not?

[EDIT] To add question


[edit on 30-7-2010 by misinformational]



posted on Jul, 30 2010 @ 03:22 PM
link   
Seven "trusted security experts". If they are anything like our "trusted bankers", I think we know what to expect.

You may want to practice bending over.



posted on Jul, 30 2010 @ 03:30 PM
link   
[scratching my head...] Why would we ever want to stop information from flowing? Really, wouldn't we WANT to know what's going on and if we can help in the case of some global issue?

Would we WANT to have no quick form of information release?

No, it's in place to curtail information flow when they're lying to us. They want to be able to motivate us without pesky facts getting in the way.

What other reason could there possibly be???

[edit on 7/30/2010 by Amaterasu]



posted on Jul, 30 2010 @ 03:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Amaterasu
 


I'd have to agree with you, Amaterasu. I'd be curious to see the criteria for "catastrophic global meltdown".

[edit] Typo's (yes plural)


[edit on 30-7-2010 by misinformational]



posted on Jul, 30 2010 @ 03:49 PM
link   
The only purpose of a "kill switch" is to deprive you of internet access to information the ptb don't want you to know. Your personal pc does not control anything of strategic importance and the possibility of a terrorist attack against it is ludicrous. Paranoia and power are a really dangerous combination. Obama needs the kill switch!??? Then why give the KEYS to non-entities in third world countries? Does no one realize that this wide dispersal carries a "built-in" downtime? How long must we go without electricity until some african can get to America? What about all the other computer regulated functions of government? If terrorists are smart enough to mount an assault on the internet, perhaps they're smart enough to get around the stop-gap measures also.



posted on Jul, 30 2010 @ 03:53 PM
link   
reply to post by debris765nju
 


"How long must we go without electricity until some african can get to America? What about all the other computer regulated functions of government?" - Funny stuff!

And agreed, it's hard to align the aims of breaking down global private-sector communications with anything well-intended.



posted on Jul, 30 2010 @ 04:06 PM
link   
Hey, I have no idea what 4chan is or what sites will be affected. But since so much of our country depends on the internet, I`d have to assume they can`t shut it all down... like, wouldn`t planes crash & stuff? Also, I`m not too clear on HOW shutting parts of the internet or the whole internet would ever be necessary. If there`s "terrorism" or other "lions & tigers & bears, oh my!" out there, why don`t they pinpoint the troublemakers? Because if they want to stop the "terrorists" from communicating, wouldnt they have to shut the whole thing down? Wouldn`t the "terrorists" just use what was left of the internet? Wouldn`t they know in advance which parts of the net would possibly be shut down and so have a backup plan to use the "4chan" you speak of? Or is it that "4chan" is without any protection & would be easy to trace? Is the point of this to force the "terrorists" to have to gather together in the few parts of the net that would remain after the flicking of the switch? So, kinda like makin the haystack smaller so its easier to find the needle? I just think this "kill switch" is just an excuse because they fear the political awakening being largely facilitated by the internet... I expect a false flag attack that will have the people begging for more "security". The MSM will be talking about how "the terrorists" took full advantage of the lack of internet censorship & security in order to plan their attack(s). So they take away the internet and give it back but drasticly changed and monitored. But then I heard there was a "second internet", that could organize. But I think these will be targeted & made illegal or elliminated somehow.


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



posted on Jul, 30 2010 @ 04:08 PM
link   
The only way out now that I can see is to get Obama impeached for not being a natural US citizen. That way, all his executive orders since being an impostor president are null and void.



posted on Jul, 30 2010 @ 04:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by wcitizen
The only way out now that I can see is to get Obama impeached for not being a natural US citizen. That way, all his executive orders since being an impostor president are null and void.


How convenient..... would that mean that any military action or excessive homeland "security" measures/crimes also would be dismissed and criminals would walk free ?

Seems like the perfect plan to me



posted on Jul, 30 2010 @ 04:54 PM
link   
reply to post by doctor j and inmate c5779
 


doctor j, could you point out where 4chan is referenced in the thread?

4chan is a website/user community with links to Anonymous and Project Chanology - that many would characterize as militant in its political and cultural aspirations.

4chan would be a superb example of the anti-establishment outlets that any Internet Kill ability may be targeted to disrupt.



posted on Jul, 30 2010 @ 05:39 PM
link   
Well...

In the event of a terrorist or other attack on the Internet, the key holders will be flown to an undisclosed location in the U.S. Each key contains a fragment. If at least five are united, they will form a master key that can restore the Internet.


Restore the Internet....

Why do I have the feeling that Reset would be a more appropriate verb?

All strange as this is, I fail to even fathom how any type of "master key" somewhere can achieve what this source wants us to believe...


Peace



posted on Jul, 30 2010 @ 05:55 PM
link   
this article doesnt say anything

this "restore" doesnt exist my friends

each site you are accessing right now it resides at another computer

so, they dont have a copy of every computer on the planet that hosts content

so, I really dont understand what the word "restore" means ...

I really didnt get the article ... can anyone give us some light?

--

nowadays the structure of the internet is that there are a lot of computers over the globe that host websites, and there are computers that host DNS, that are the servers that contain the IP addresses and the names of the websites

so if you write www.abovetopsecret.com, it goes to a DNS server that searches the IP address for you ...

but there are many different DNS servers ...so , I dont get how can they have a switch in any way ...

--

to restore? only if they keep backup of these DNS servers ... but then its totality different, the websites would still be able to be accessed, and we would be able to create a private DNS server, so it wouldnt be perturbed by any kind of actions in the primary servers ...

I dont know what the hell this article taking about ... so, if anyone understands more than what I just said, please elaborate ...



posted on Jul, 30 2010 @ 06:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Faiol
 


Faiol, I am a Network Architect for a 100,000+ employee company... You are correct, there would be no way to instantaneously kill every webserver.

The articles I posted mention something about this being a client service - which would suggest companies and government agencies would have to be enrolled in CommunityDNS's service offering (this kill ability being the service). But that doesn't make a lot of sense, and certainly doesn't seem like any kind of global solution.

Further, the articles specifically references Domain Naming (also in the company's name) as in Domain Name System. DNS translates Domain Names (i.e. abovetopsecret.com) to IP address (i.e. 75.126.76.151). This seems to suggest that the company would kill this ability... But that presents some technical problems: (1) You could still access sites via IP address. (2) Local Area Networks and even your computer caches Domain Names. In short, killing DNS services wouldn't in itself provide any kind of adequate Kill ability.

Even more to the point, though our beloved websites are hosted on independent servers, they all require the same backbone infrastructure for you to access and for them to serve their content.. And this is exactly how I believe any kind of Internet Kill ability would be engineered - By crippling the Internet's infrastructure backbone.

So I find it curious that no details are revealed whatsoever... And even further, that no reference to this company's Internet killing ability is tied in with the current unpopular introduced legislation within the articles I've read.

Coincidences? Hardly

[edit] typos

[edit on 30-7-2010 by misinformational]



posted on Aug, 1 2010 @ 07:09 PM
link   
I think this deserves the ultimate ignorance award. In a world of disaffected people the future of mankind can be changed forever by a single person tracking down three people and taking a computer key away from them. Not even well guarded people at that, the terrorist could drive there. Destroy three of the seven keys and the internet as we know it is gone forever. Why would any sane person place our future in foreign hands? I am pretty sure that this falls under "traitorous acts" i.e. Benedict Arnold. He sold West Point to the British......



posted on Aug, 1 2010 @ 07:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by debris765nju
I think this deserves the ultimate ignorance award. In a world of disaffected people the future of mankind can be changed forever by a single person tracking down three people and taking a computer key away from them. Not even well guarded people at that, the terrorist could drive there. Destroy three of the seven keys and the internet as we know it is gone forever. Why would any sane person place our future in foreign hands? I am pretty sure that this falls under "traitorous acts" i.e. Benedict Arnold. He sold West Point to the British......


Indeed - Especially when all seven key holders have been identified via MSM... I've been scratching my head over this lately as well.

But when one combines multiple current events surrounding cyberspace, its security, the Obama Kill Switch, and whistle blowers (i.e. Wikileaks) - then it's not very hard to speculate at what might be taking form...

Stay vigilant. Question everything. And keep your wits about you - The times, they are a changin'



posted on Aug, 1 2010 @ 11:45 PM
link   
reply to post by misinformational
 


There are too many bad decisions being made by our politicians and our military leaders. Their egos have become larger than their I.Q.'s and their mouths are writing checks that the blood of our children will have to cover. Every war has egotistical world leaders causing the deaths of millions of people just to "vent their spleen" at other world leaders. Senseless destruction of that which has been gained at such great cost simply because someone got pissed off. Next time the politicians try to start a war let them be the ones to die. Draft them, both sides of the dispute, give them weapons of war and make them participate until one side or the other is victorious. The survivors must physically bury those they've killed. Repeat as often as necessary.



new topics

top topics



 
4

log in

join