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.

 

i911 - Are Hacker Attacks False Flag Attacks to Justify a Crackdown on the Internet?

page: 1
16
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 06:24 AM
link   

i911 - Are Hacker Attacks False Flag Attacks to Justify a Crackdown on the Internet?


georgewashington2.blogspot.com

Former Counter Terrorism Czar Richard Clarke told a leading expert on internet free speech, Stanford law professor Lawrence Lessig, that there was going to be an "i-9/11", in other words, an electronic terrorist act, and an "i-Patriot Act" to crack down on freedoms on the Internet under the guise of protecting against such threats:
where the instability or the insecurity of the internet becomes manifest during a malicious event which then inspires the government into a response. You’ve got to remember that after 9/11 the government drew up the Patriot Act within 20 days and it was passed.
(visit the link for the full news article)


edit on 18-6-2011 by Mdv2 because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 06:24 AM
link   

There’s going to be an i-9/11 event. Which doesn’t necessarily mean an Al Qaeda attack, it means an event where the instability or the insecurity of the internet becomes manifest during a malicious event which then inspires the government into a response. You’ve got to remember that after 9/11 the government drew up the Patriot Act within 20 days and it was passed.


When it became clear that Anon launched attacks on websites of Malaysia's government and the city of Orlando, I quickly became very skeptical about the truth of their intentions. What motive would they have to hack such targets. I don't even see how they could be 'low-priority' targets.

Perhaps I am wrong, but we should not rule out the possibility of this being a secretive operation that would create support for internet legislation. You see, governments don't like that the dirty games they play are exposed (be it China, the US or Israel). This is one of the few topic they all agree on. Internet has shown to be the perfect medium to create awareness and counter the lies we are fed by the MSM. Without the internet, the number of people questioning 911, the Iraq War, Monsanto and countless of other suspicious issues would be significantly lower. Obviously, controlled internet would make it much easier for both governments and corporations to continue doing what they are good at: betraying people and enriching themselves relatively unnoticed.



georgewashington2.blogspot.com
(visit the link for the full news article)
edit on 18-6-2011 by Mdv2 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 06:37 AM
link   
good question
who will tell (at this moment?)
I for one tend to go with the assumption
as it is in line with the way governments go for public's buy-in:
- create an issue
- present a solution

and hey, the internet truly must be a pain in the ass
not a single moment in recent history have governments liked the emergence of media
that allowed people to get informed.
now, fortunately for them, you can kill people's access to information by offering them too much information
and the web helps them a lot.



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 06:39 AM
link   
hahahaha

good luck with ur thread.

I wrote a thread a couple days ago
linking LulzSecurity to the FBI who
had the agenda of Net Neutrality
and it got deleted.

Maybe your thread will fare better.

edit on 6/18/2011 by boondock-saint because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 06:46 AM
link   
VERY GOOD thread sir. I have been thinking about this a lot lately, and it seems to me the recent hacking stories are a prelude to something big, something to make people think national security is at risk because the internet is too accessible and unfiltered and not directly controllable/manipulable by an authoritative entity. Real hackers wouldn't plan a massive internet attack for exactly this reason. What reason would they have anyway? They get their message across in more personal/direct attacks which have clear purpose and tactical results. The internet is becoming a HUGE problem for TPTB, especially with new emerging technology such as Bitcoin. They having been cooking up something big for a while now imo.



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 06:51 AM
link   
reply to post by boondock-saint
 




linking LulzSecurity to the FBI who
had the agenda of Net Neutrality
I wouldn't be surprised, this "LulzSec" group always gave me a bad feeling. But you do realize "Net Neutrality" is a "free and open web". You mean their agenda was to trample NN?



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 06:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by ChaoticOrder
I wouldn't be surprised, this "LulzSec" group always gave me a bad feeling. But you do realize "Net Neutrality" is a "free and open web". You mean their agenda was to trample NN?


If you think Net Neutrality means a free Internet
then you are sadly mistaken. The NN Laws allow
the gov backdoors into any network which is a
total loss of privacy and anonymity. You do not
totally understand what NN really means.

Net Neutrality = Internet Patriot Act



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 06:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by boondock-saint
hahahaha

good luck with ur thread.

I wrote a thread a couple days ago
linking LulzSecurity to the FBI who
had the agenda of Net Neutrality
and it got deleted.

Maybe your thread will fare better.

edit on 6/18/2011 by boondock-saint because: (no reason given)


Or maybe Lulz hacked the ATS Mod account and got rid of the evidence.




posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 06:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by ChaoticOrder
reply to post by boondock-saint
 




linking LulzSecurity to the FBI who
had the agenda of Net Neutrality
I wouldn't be surprised, this "LulzSec" group always gave me a bad feeling. But you do realize "Net Neutrality" is a "free and open web". You mean their agenda was to trample NN?


Yeah, sorry but NN does not equal open internet.
It is just Govt regulation and control on yet another aspect of our life.



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 07:02 AM
link   
the gov named it net neutrality cuz they are trying
to pass it off as they are protecting you from the
corporations meaning a neutral net equal for
everyone. But in actuality the NN law allows
gov take-over and regulation of the net.
the only way for them to do that is the monitoring
of those backdoors which violate your privacy.

that's weird cuz we heard the same rhetoric that
they were protecting us from terrorism when they
pass the Patriot Act. See where that wound up ???

edit on 6/18/2011 by boondock-saint because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 07:03 AM
link   
reply to post by boondock-saint
 


Ummm...you guys must be thinking of a bill made to counter NN or something...because it is not what you say it is.


Network neutrality (also net neutrality, Internet neutrality) is a principle which advocates no restrictions by Internet service providers or governments on consumers' access to networks that participate in the internet. Specifically, network neutrality would prevent restrictions on content, sites, platforms, the kinds of equipment that may be attached, or the modes of communication.[1][2][3]

secure.wikimedia.org...



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 07:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by boondock-saint
the gov named it net neutrality cuz they are trying
to pass it off as they are protecting you from the
corporations meaning a neutral net equal for
everyone. But in actuality the NN law allows
gov take-over and regulation of the net.
the only way for them to do that is the monitoring
of those backdoors which violate your privacy.
Exactly. So please use the term "net neutrality" properly, instead of attaching a negative meaning to it.


edit on 18-6-2011 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 07:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by macman

Originally posted by boondock-saint
hahahaha

good luck with ur thread.

I wrote a thread a couple days ago
linking LulzSecurity to the FBI who
had the agenda of Net Neutrality
and it got deleted.

Maybe your thread will fare better.

edit on 6/18/2011 by boondock-saint because: (no reason given)


Or maybe Lulz hacked the ATS Mod account and got rid of the evidence.



Or maybe there was discussion of hacking techniques, methods or posts that could be used to aid in hacking/cracking.

The terms and conditions are very explicit on this, and if any of that comes out in any discussion, it will likely be deleted.... It is what it is.

As long as people stay away from that aspect, there should be no problem here.

Boon, you know this... No grand ATS conspiracy here, we all have to live by the terms and conditions we agreed to here.

That said, I believe it is possible for there to be an outcome where these hackers can help facilitate a "crackdown" on the internet.

But do not miss the potential that there is a much broader and more ambiguous cyber-war going on here as well.

Anyone can claim to be any of these hacker groups, and how would anyone know otherwise?




posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 07:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by ChaoticOrder
reply to post by boondock-saint
 


Ummm...you guys must be thinking of a bill made to counter NN or something...because it is not what you say it is.


No, I'm not mistaken.

I'll explain. NN Laws allow the gov to keep
the internet fair for everyone.

How do you think they intend to enforce
that law ??? The only way is for them to see
into the system without hindrance. That
means they have total access to the system,
including YOU and YOUR PRIVACY.



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 07:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Fractured.Facade
Or maybe there was discussion of hacking techniques, methods or posts that could be used to aid in hacking/cracking.

The terms and conditions are very explicit on this, and if any of that comes out in any discussion, it will likely be deleted.... It is what it is.


my OP did not contain any info about hacking
or techniques. My OP was deleted too.

but just as in my thread, this one seems
to have users who come in to talk about
hacking so it can be deleted as well.
Seems to be SOP for any thread related to
LulzSecurity.

Now you know exactly why I told the OP
that I hoped his thread fared better.
I knew what was gonna happen
to it.



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 07:14 AM
link   
reply to post by boondock-saint
 




I'll explain. NN Laws allow the gov to keep
the internet fair for everyone.
Great.



How do you think they intend to enforce
that law ???
Please explain exactly what these NN laws entail, and how it allows them to invade our privacy. As far as I can tell, they would simply be forcing the larger service providers to make it fair for the rest of the providers who don't own all the telecommunications infrastructure? Where does it allow them to monitor/censor our browsing or something like that? Because that would be counter to net neutrality I'm afraid.



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 07:18 AM
link   
reply to post by boondock-saint
 


Talking about a hacking group is no grounds to delete a thread, and I'll be very surprised if this thread gets deleted, there is nothing special here, except maybe for our discussion of an i911 type attack.

Now, talking about hacking and cracking techniques...should not be against the rules either. Hacking is simple programming until you use it to exploit a system. It's a way to learn and get better. It does not always involve illegal activity, and the deletion of mere discussion of programming techniques which could theoretically be used for malicious purposes is absurd imo. Hackers are so effective because no one wants to address the exploits in a safe way until it's too late.


edit on 18-6-2011 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 07:23 AM
link   
reply to post by boondock-saint
 


A thread gets derailed, with that stuff, in a way hijacked and it happens, unfortunate.... If a hacker group didn't like where your thread was going, is it possible for them to use their ATS accounts to do that???



Why don't you post it again, with a bit more information, and warning for those who may seek to hijack your thread?

Use the alert feature when posts "go there"??

Just an idea.... As long as it is done within the terms and conditions, there should be no problems.



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 07:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by ChaoticOrder
Please explain exactly what these NN laws entail, and how it allows them to invade our privacy. As far as I can tell, they would simply be forcing the larger service providers to make it fair for the rest of the providers who don't own all the telecommunications infrastructure? Where does it allow them to monitor/censor our browsing or something like that? Because that would be counter to net neutrality I'm afraid.


I already did explain it. It is a lil complex
so I will use a different example so you
can understand better.

When congress passes a law
that law is enforced by Law Enforcement
agencies.

When an internet law is passed,
who is gonna enforce that law ???

The internet police or some agency they create.

How do you think they can catch criminals
who break this law ???

By being on the inside of it. Being on the
inside allows them to view EVERYTHING
including YOU.

When a bank auditor comes to audit the books
of the bank, do you think he is limited to what
accounts he can look at ??? Absolutely not.

Same goes for NN.

When they enforce big corporations,
they also enforce YOU the consumer.
That is a breech of privacy and anonymity.



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 07:30 AM
link   
reply to post by boondock-saint
 


You are really twisting this whole thing up into an unnecessarily complex conspiracy theory that seems to have no valid backing. You haven't explained exactly what they will be enforcing, let alone how they will do it. You just claim some internet laws supposedly made to enforce net neutrality will in fact achieve the opposite, without explaining how. You do realize they have access to all your browsing information anyway, if you think your ISP doesn't hand that stuff out you're probably sadly mistaken.


edit on 18-6-2011 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
16
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join