posted on Dec, 14 2010 @ 12:21 PM
I like the term... "New Internet Order" or NIO.
The NIO could become a MAC-Address roots movement (perhaps a Root-kit movement, if you will?)
Here's the idea, the core of the matter, if you will.
1 - Have the power to prevent information exchange at their whim.
Note to apologists: This is not to say that such power would be exercised as a personal whim. But since the public lack of redress and notice
is a given, it is effectively exactly that. Having this ability would mean that as they identify (or deem) targets, those targets can be removed from
the Internet, instantly, and without resistance or accountability, in particular if the cause for removal may expose secrets to public scrutiny.
Note to the adversarial: This means that there would be exactly zero possibility to both knowing a target has been eliminated from the Internet,
and the reason why it was removed. Also, it means that an infrastructure must exists which allows users to be identified as persons.
2 - Have the unquestioned authority to designate what information is proscribed from public dissemination, as well as the ability to identify breaches
instantly. Neither the sender, nor the receiver need not be known before action can be taken to remove either or both from the Internet.
3 - Have the power to act preemptively, with no intercession or remedy stopping the action until after the potential leak is squelched.
These three objectives, are to be considered in light of definitions such as: Classification is the sole purview of our government, only the
government itself can review, and declassify information. Only the government knows the nature, scope, breadth; and even the existence of the
information being compartmentalized. Lacking such knowledge of classification, the public can have no means of redress. "Elected" representative
remain figures of the public, and as such have no authority to change the construct which keeps information secret.
In order for that scenario to play out, there can no longer be such a thing as a 'warrant' requirement in cases where classified information is
related to crimes and criminal prosecution. Lacking warrant requirements, all actions relating to such cases will become 'defacto' pre-judged upon
execution of action.
Now the flip side:
Some Internet users want:
1 - The ability to speak with each other, say and express their thoughts to whatever audience they please
2 - To have unhindered access to become audience to whomever they please, without need for a third party to assess (or infer) the nature of the
3 - To not be subject to retaliation or consequence for the inferences of others based on the existence of communications
4 - To not be monitored or recorded without informed consent of all potential consequences of such record-keeping.
5 - To have as a given unimpeachable right, the ability to use any available medium of communication for free expression without threat to their well
6 - The right of the individual to ownership of any information which is undeniably an adjunct to the individual's existence.
7 - The right of people to gather, analyze, and disseminate information as they see fit, without fear of inference.
8 - The right of the people to receive a reasonable and acceptable answer to inquiries of the holders of information. The nature of all queries to
the government require direct and subservient response; as the government serves the people. This right cannot be abridged by the rationale of any
individual, any transaction with the government of the United States is, by definition PUBLIC information, and as such, cannot be held without a
contradiction to the law.
Rather than elaborate further, I invite you to attempt to marry the two......
Hint: Without Total Personal Sovereignty - we cannot expect freedom to persist unrestricted....