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.

 

Former CIA director proposes the creation of a new Internet where 4th Amendment rights are GONE!

page: 1
13
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 10 2011 @ 08:58 AM
link   
It doesn't take any rocket scientist, to figure out that all those "cyber-attacks" on US military contractors servers, CIA website, US Senate website and stuff, most likely were inside jobs coming from some secret intell agency, to push the Pentagon's "cyber-attacks-will-be-treated-as-act-of-war" agenda. I had this insight that the cyber-attack false flag would be used by TPTB, to finally install a virtual dictatorship, a cyber martial law, absolutely killing the freedom of expression on the internet. In times where fabricated economic collapses hit some nations, military technologies are used to create environmental catastrophes, people are being arrested by feeding homeless and perpetrators of occult rituals of toddler's sacrifice get away, the internet is still the ONLY place where we can find, share and expose sources of conspiracies, manifest our indignation and mobilize collective consciousness.

But the CIA and American lawmakers, are definitely going to change it:


To combat cyberattacks, the U.S. may need more than new cyberdefenses. It might need a whole new piece of Internet infrastructure. So says former CIA director Michael Hayden, who served under President G.W. Bush, and he's not the only one. Several lawmakers and the current Cyber Command chief Gen. Keith Alexander are toying with the notion of creating a ".secure" domain where Fourth Amendment rights to privacy are voluntarily foregone in order to keep that corner of the Internet free of cyber criminals.

www.foxnews.com...



edit on 7/10/2011 by 1AnunnakiBastard because: (no reason given)

edit on 7/10/2011 by 1AnunnakiBastard because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 10 2011 @ 09:07 AM
link   
why does it matter, they are going to get
what they want anyway.

They will just unleash their own goon geek
squads in the gov to disrupt the old internet
til everyone switches over anyway.

Problem reaction solution



posted on Jul, 10 2011 @ 09:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by 1AnunnakiBastard
It doesn't take any rocket scientist, to figure out


Absolutely correct.


So says former CIA director Michael Hayden, who served under President G.W. Bush,


Dang it... I predicted as I was clicking on this thread that it was going to say that Bush, Sr. had proposed this... but only a lackey to junior Bush.



posted on Jul, 10 2011 @ 09:11 AM
link   

The proposed solution: a dot-secure safe zone (basically, a separate Internet) where things like financial institutions, sensitive infrastructure, government contractors, and the government itself can hide behind heavier defenses.

Your fourth amendment privacy rights wouldn't apply here, as you would consent to give them up upon entry; as when walking onto a military base or into an airport, users would have to show detailed identification and credentials to get in. Those who want to remain anonymous on the Web can still frolic about in the world of dot-com, but in the dot-secure realm you would have to prove you are you.


Read more: www.foxnews.com...


This is a great way to have the public be complacent with the idea. "It's no different than if you were to walk into an airport or military base... Wouldn't you show your idea at those places?"



And then you look at the latest "hacktivist group" is saying, the uh... um... "script kiddies" (A long standing derogatory term used on the internet...)

Source



TSK: what my group has just committed i would consider a crime, however i believe the crimes that anonymous commits are justifiable. its people’s job to prevent us from what we do and to try to stop us. and so be it, i hope they try to best to find me



All of a sudden there is an influx of "hacktivist" groups appearing and launching "attacks" on corporations and .gov sites, at the same time they have been building to put cybersecurity bills through.




posted on Jul, 10 2011 @ 09:17 AM
link   



we all knew it was heading down that road so why is everyone running around waving their arms in the air in panic mode....oops oh yes i forgot which site i was in. The interesting side of all this is that people even today do not care about the change and that amount of people equals to the majority of internet users. On the other hand those attacks to those various sites, well not all were from official employees , thought we should clear that myth up just so we can all get off that conspiracy trip.



edit on 10-7-2011 by cerebralassassins because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 10 2011 @ 09:28 AM
link   
Doesn't seem all that ridiculous to me. My first thought before reading any of the article was, just give them their own internet system and leave ours alone. Then they can't blame the common folk for all their troubles.

Yeah, it would be another stepping stone towards invasion of privacy if you are involved in their system, but isn't it that way already?

Just recently I had a small epiphany, we are not going back to 1776. We do not live in a country of 4 million we are over 300 million,(just in the US) the world has grown in size and problems and they aren't going away. Sadly, things do change. Now if some huge hits and we are knocked back to the middle ages, then we could talk about the simpler days and the simplers rules of life. For now, it's a huge matrix that does need controlling.



posted on Jul, 10 2011 @ 09:32 AM
link   
reply to post by boncho
 


So, the article is implying that TPTB will create their own internet, but AGAIN, it doesn't take any NASA astrophysicist, to figure out that it's a move which will lead to a kill switch on the old 'net. As we can see in the below video, they already are rehearsing how it could be done, and still looking like an accident or technical failure:


edit on 7/10/2011 by 1AnunnakiBastard because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 10 2011 @ 09:52 AM
link   
"He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither."

If you think about it, this quote is kind of recursive. It makes you re-read it more than once!

Who would most likely want security over freedom?

People who're paranoid and over-respond to threats!

And will they ever experience freedom? No, because they're paranoid!

And will they ever experience security? No, because it's never enough and ppl fight for freedom!

So they will always attempt to sacrifice freedom for security in a never ending loop.

This quote should be rephrased as:
"He who sacrifices freedom for security gets neither."

The first version misleads you into thinking that they can still get it, even though they don't deserve it. So by correcting this you can see the recursive nature of the original quote.

So:
People DESIRE freedom and, thus, too little means no security!

What happens when there's too little freedom? People fight for it! Etc.

Paranoid people also tend to always be paranoid because there's always something to fear.

Sorry if this is confusing. Recursion is still a weird concept to me.
edit on 10-7-2011 by jonnywhite because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 10 2011 @ 10:17 AM
link   
reply to post by SunnyDee
 


---------------------------
Please understand that I'm an older lady; I have little computer savvy. I can operate one, but cannot do anything "fancy", I don't know the meaning of a lot of computer jargon, etc. That being said, several months ago, my small-town local bank was trying to talk me into doing more banking on the Internet, getting online statements, etc. As most are aware, there's been talk for some time that "the internet could go down" (for various reasons). I shared my concern with her that if the internet went down, then how could I access my account, etc. She told me that banks have their own internet. So if banks already have their own internet, do government facilities, as well, already have their own? If so, why would the "normal" (what everyday people use) internet need changed? Or am I totally misunderstanding the whole concept??



posted on Jul, 10 2011 @ 10:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Habit4ming
reply to post by SunnyDee
 


---------------------------
Please understand that I'm an older lady; I have little computer savvy. I can operate one, but cannot do anything "fancy", I don't know the meaning of a lot of computer jargon, etc. That being said, several months ago, my small-town local bank was trying to talk me into doing more banking on the Internet, getting online statements, etc. As most are aware, there's been talk for some time that "the internet could go down" (for various reasons). I shared my concern with her that if the internet went down, then how could I access my account, etc. She told me that banks have their own internet. So if banks already have their own internet, do government facilities, as well, already have their own? If so, why would the "normal" (what everyday people use) internet need changed? Or am I totally misunderstanding the whole concept??


I guess you are referring to "intranets", aren't you??? Government sectors, military, industry moguls and stuff, have their intranets. The article is reporting the creation of a second internet, an elitist internet. Well guess what?? If one day you are here on ATS talking about how the orbital path of USAF drone X-37B, which is part of the "Global Area Strike System", is synchronized with 95% of all major earthquakes of 2011, since March 11 and in the next day you access the proposed "Illuminatinet" to check some tech-specs at the website of Boeing or Lockheed, get ready for being arrested, judged as domestic terrorist and thrown at Guantanamo.


edit on 7/10/2011 by 1AnunnakiBastard because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 10 2011 @ 10:50 AM
link   
God bless America eh?

Land of the once-free - home of the scared-silly



posted on Jul, 10 2011 @ 11:09 AM
link   
You folks are missing one important thing here, and that is infrastructure. The .secure TLD would run on the same cable/phone/satellite transmission lines as does .com and everything else. They can't just string up new lines all over the world to run an isolated .secure Top Level Domain, as that would mean creating an isolated physical network worldwide. The interweb is evolving. Used to be just dial-up, physical copper lines, and slow transmission rates, but now with fiber optics and cable and wireless access points. The whole system is being upgraded and modified, but not isolated. The whole point is the connectivity. Can TPTB actually lay fiber optics dedicated specifically for their own use, with no other network connections? Hardly.



posted on Jul, 10 2011 @ 05:37 PM
link   
aw, thanks anonymous and lulzsec

edit on 10-7-2011 by CasiusIgnoranze because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 11 2011 @ 12:01 AM
link   
reply to post by 1AnunnakiBastard
 


That video report from ABC.......

*sigh*

That sounded like a report for idiots. Too many bad jokes and stupid sound effects and cartoons to be taken seriously which, considering the loss of the internet in two countries regardless of the actual cause, is very serious.

As far as the OP, it makes sense they'd try to do that and I'm honestly not surprised nor would I be if that came into being.



posted on Jul, 11 2011 @ 12:06 AM
link   
Gah..

I have a feeling the internet is going to suck in 10-20 years.

Get all the torrenting out of your system now while you can.



posted on Jul, 11 2011 @ 02:15 AM
link   
In my own opinion, the governments (TPTB if you like) would be unlikely to close off the internet. Having considered the matter for all of a few minutes I came to the conclusion that right now they have the means to track all the conversations, easily search for keywords which could be used in plots against them etc. If the internet were removed from general usage, the talk of overthrowing the system would become harder to trace were someone to start an underground movement based on face to face meetings or snail mails.
Although much slower to pick up momentum an offline group could keep things much more secretive than a group using the easily tapped internet. As part of TPTB which would you rather be dealing with?



posted on Jul, 11 2011 @ 07:33 AM
link   
Not going to happen as the internet of today will be the same internet of tomorrow. Nothing will change but the amount of websites.



posted on Jul, 14 2011 @ 09:45 PM
link   
Ya all these cyber attacks being glorified lately has me thinking, then this. All this has me thinking about this Anonymous character too, starting to wonder if thats all phony to try and show how far all this cyber warfare and hacking can be taken, use it against us kinda thing, not saying I believe all this but It has crossed my mind.



posted on Jul, 14 2011 @ 10:16 PM
link   
I can't has gunz on the interwebz?


Couldn't resist -- but seriously, dig a lil' bit deeper. Think a little deeper. It's likely that we can better spend our intellectual capital. The genie's already out of the bottle, and have a little faith in yer feller man already!! -- those not involved in three, four, or five letter gubment agencies, of course. And certainly not THE man. But the man -- the guy (or girl, clearly) that likes to buy stuff, sell stuff, research stuff, write stuff, publish stuff, work on stuff, do stuff with stuff. The Webz is full of stuff. Stuff costs money. Big Money for Big Corpz. Big Corpz decides and makes THE man. THE man likes to be paid. Well, when he's not just printing it for free, that is...




edit on 14-7-2011 by Yukitup because: does interwebs require an s, or a z?



posted on Jul, 24 2011 @ 11:32 PM
link   
reply to post by 1AnunnakiBastard
 


Not to kill the internet or anything(I have been keeping my mouth shut on this for awhile) but the internet doesn't really exist. All that does exist is personnel computers across the world that connect to servers across the world(so you have both interstate commerce going on as well as international commerce going on).

Under existing law's constitutional protections end when you connect to a server located outside of the USA(akin to sending a piece of mail or making a phone call overseas).

I have come to the conclusion that the vast majority of my fellow Homo Sapiens Sapiens aren't that bright. If people actually spent the time to read the Constitution they would know the million and one way's they can use it to their benefit.



new topics

top topics



 
13
<<   2 >>

log in

join