I believe the CIA, Mossad, FBI, or some other shadowy alphabet government agency could not only be behind the information we've been seeing coming
out of wikileaks - but they could also be behind, or encouraging, the internet group "Anonymous" which seeks to 'defend anonymous free speech'.
Former Pakistani General: CIA, Mossad behind WikiLeaks Reports
TEHRAN (FNA)- A former Pakistani army commander said that the disclosure of classified documents by the whistleblower site of Wikileaks is a US plot
to create rift among friendly and neighboring states.
Whether or not wikileaks and anonymous were created by the CIA, or were hijacked by the CIA, or were legitimate operations that the CIA is using to
steer public opinion, there is little doubt in my mind that the groups are, indeed, catalysts for something greater than their stated purpose.
Google CEO Eric Schmidt has said anonymity on
the Internet is dangerous
Arguing that anonymity on the Internet is dangerous, Schmidt had reportedly said, "In a world of asynchronous threats, it is too dangerous for
there not to be some way to identify you."
He also said governments may eventually put an end to anonymity. "We need a (verified) name service for people," he said. "Governments will
It's dangerous to not be able to identify me? Why? Where is the danger in that? Governments will DEMAND that internet users be identified? Why?
Where will this demand stem from?
Last summer the FBI quietly established a special working
group with U.S. intelligence and other agencies to identify and respond to cyber threats against the United States.
The bureau's justification for next year's budget, in which it has requested an additional 70 agents and more than 100 support personnel for its
cyber division, says the task force "seeks to address cyber intrusions presenting a national security threat."
The budget justification says the task force will "develop a global view of information warfare activity; identify intelligence gaps; create a
strategic framework to develop operations; de-conflict investigations and operations (and) generate timely intelligence."
Obviously the infrastructure for seeking out these online threats to "national security" has been in place for a couple years now if not more. All
these letter agencies need now is someone or something to shed a public light on the cyber threats America is facing.
Link to quote...
Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff told a bloggers' roundtable last month that cybersecurity was "the one area in which I feel we've
been behind where I would like to be."
"The general public is not aware (enough) of the threats," he said. "People need to be sensitized to potential vulnerabilities"
Wikileaks is the perfect opportunity to get the public aware about the threats we face from the cyber domain. But where did their documents come
from? Anyone can submit information to wikileaks. If the info is from Private Manning, how did a private get access to so many classified documents?
Did someone maybe have foreknowledge that he would do what he did? Something doesn't add up, but let's forget about that, because according to a
Rasmussen Poll, the Majority Of
Americans Believe WikiLeaks Committed Treason.
Now whether or not the poll is accurate is another question, but don't let that stop you from believing that these internet 'bad guys' need
reigning in. Not only does our country have classified information being sent around the globe via the web, risking our national security, but a
second cyber threat has popped up in direct response to dealing with the first!
MasterCard.com has been taken down
after a second distributed denial of service attack by Anonymous.
MasterCard's payment processing systems were affected during the first DDoS attack on Wednesday, with many consumers reporting that they were
unable to pay for goods online. Businesses reported a corresponding drop in trade during that first attack.
You mess with classified information, and sure some citizens might get upset over the principle of the matter - but they'll move on with their life.
People have short memories.
You mess with their money, though, and watch out. There's nothing a consumer society will condemn more than those who try to put the brakes on their
consumerism. Can't buy gas? Can't play on e-bay? Can't Christmas shop? "It's those evil internet hackers, the anonymous ones. Damn that
anonymity to hell." The people, and the government, soon will be seeking... no, DEMANDING, the END of internet anonymity.
And for what? What purpose does it serve?
A much-cited 1995 Supreme Court ruling in McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission
Protections for anonymous speech are vital to democratic discourse. Allowing dissenters to shield their identities frees them to express critical,
minority views . . . Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority. . . . It thus exemplifies the purpose behind the Bill of Rights, and of
the First Amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation . . . at the hand of an intolerant society.
To sum this all up, whether or not there are alphabet agencies involved in this recent internet wikileaks/anonymous drama that's been unfolding
before our eyes, we need to remain very vigilant about what direction these events are taking us.
I do believe there are tyrannical forces at work around the world, not always successful, but they are exerting their influence on people, on
governments, and on corporations. To destroy anonymity, and thereby reducing open dissent, would be a step towards an Orwellian police-state. Could
there be other motives to destroy net anonymity? Sure - I'd love to hear some ideas. All you have to do is find out WHO BENEFITS? Follow "the
money" as it were.
And I'll leave you with this.
Secrecy is the cornerstone of all tyranny. Not force, but secrecy...censorship. When any government, or any church, for that matter, undertakes to
say to its subjects, "This you may not read, this you must not see, this you are forbidden to know," the end result is tyranny and oppression, no
matter how holy the motives. Mightily little force is needed to control a man who has been hoodwinked...
Contrariwise, no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot
conquer a free man; The most you can do is kill him.
- Robert A. Heinlein, If This Goes On, 1940