Other stories at We Are Change Colorado Springs

Obama Surrendering Internet to Foreign Powers

U.N.’s World Health Organization Eyeing Global Tax on Banking, Internet Activity

Passengers who refuse to go through an airport body scanner will be refused permission to fly, the Government has said.

Scanners introduced at Heathrow and Manchester.

The strict rules were confirmed as scanners were introduced at Heathrow and Manchester airport as security was stepped up following the attempt to bring down a transatlantic flight on Christmas Day.

All passengers, even children, face potential selection, the Department for Transport said.

The scanners, which are designed to detect explosives, at Heathrow’s Terminal 4 and Manchester are part of a programme which will eventually be rolled out to all major airports.

At the same time Heathrow has been training staff how to look out for unusual behaviour as passengers pass through the airport to decide who should face additional screening.

Such behaviour could include being nervous or agitated when passing through the terminal.

In addition intelligence information will also be used to identify which passengers should be subject to further checks, which could include scanning or further questioning.

Terminal 4 has been chosen for the first of Heathrow’s scanners because it is used by a number of transatlantic airlines.

The scanner will be placed in a purpose-built cubicle where passengers who are selected for screening will be taken after passing through the metal-detecting arch.

It will take about 15 seconds to scan an individual. This will be done the passenger reaches the departure lounge.

Heathrow declined to say how many passengers will be expected to go through a body scanner a day.

Lord Adonis, the Transport Secretary, said only a small proportion of passengers will be selected for scanning.

He added that a code of practice meant that nobody can be selected on the basis of race, age or gender. The assurances are designed to avoid claims that Asians could be more likely to be picked out than others.

Other safeguards announced by the Government include giving passengers the right to demand that the individual inspecting the scanner image on a screen is the same sex.

In addition the security officer inspecting the image will not see the passenger and all images will be destroyed after the individual has walked away from the scanner.

Source: Telegraph

Other stories at We Are Change Colorado Springs

Gary Fielder, Constitutional lawyer, refuses to be body scanned!

Why Whole-Body Imaging Won’t Work

Now Mobile Devices Will Scan Your Naked Body On The Streets

Without the ingenuity of America’s brightest minds and the investment of U.S. taxpayer dollars, there would be no Internet, as we now know it today.

Now, the Obama administration has moved quietly to cede control of the Web from the United States to foreign powers.

Some background: The Internet came into being because of the genius work of Americans Dr.Robert E. Kahn and Dr. Vinton G. Cerf. These men, while working for the Department of Defense in the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency in the early 1970s, conceived, designed, and implemented the idea of “open-architecture networking.”

This breakthrough in connectivity and networking was the birth of the Internet.

These two gentlemen had the vision and the brainpower to create a worldwide computer Internet communications network that forever changed the world and how we communicate in it.

They discovered that providing a person with a unique identifier (TCP/IP)that was able to be recognized and interact through a network of servers would allow users to communicate with others.

The servers woulduse a series of giant receivers to recognize the identifier and connect networks to networks, passing on information from computer to computer in a seamless real-time exchange of information. This new process of communication became know as the “information super highway,” aka, the Internet.

Now for the bad news: In an effort to show the world how inclusive, sharing, cooperative, and international America can be, the Obama administration set off on a plan to surrender control and key management of the Internet by the U.S. Department of Commerce and its agents.

The key to the control America has over the Internet is through the management of the Domain Name System (DNS) and the giant servers that service the Internet.

Domain names are managed through an entity named IANA, the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority. The IANA, which operates on behalf of the U.S. Department of Commerce, is responsible for the global coordination of the DNS, IP addressing, and other Internet protocol resources.

In short, without an IP Address or other essential Internet protocols, a person or entity would not have access to the Internet.

For years, the international community has been pressuring the United States
to surrender its control and management of the Internet. They want an international body such as the United Nations or even the International Telecommunications Union, (an entity that coordinates international telephone communications), to manage all aspects of the Internet in behalf of all nations.

The argument advanced for those seeking international control of the Internet is that the Internet has become such a powerful, pervasive, and a dependent form of international communications, that it would be dangerous and inequitable for any one nation to control and manage it.

Just this past spring, within months of Obama’s taking office, his administration, through the Department of Commerce, agreed to relinquish some control over IANA and their governance. The Obama administration has agreed to give greater representation to foreign companies and countries on IANA.

This amounts to one small step for internationalism and one giant leap for surrendering America’s control over an invention we have every right and responsibility to control and manage.

It is in America’s economic and national security interests not to relinquish any control. We are responsible for the control, operation, and functionality of one of the modern world’s greatest inventions and most powerful communications network.

What better country to protect the Internet than the United States?

We invented it, and we paid for the research and implementation that made it
possible. We are the freest, most tolerant nation on earth, we believe in the
fundamental right of free speech, and we practice a free market of commerce and ideas.

America has always been against censorship and has shared its invention with the world without fee or unreasonable or arbitrary restriction. The user fee to operate on the Internet is not one paid to the U.S. government; a consumer pays it to private Internet companies, who provide access to the Internet through servers for their subscribers.

Look no further than China’s recent move against Google to censor the
Internet, and you can envision what can happen when other nations less free
than the United States seek to control the Internet beyond even their own borders.

America needs to wake up. If we lose control over the management of the
Internet, we have given away one of our nation’s greatest assets with nothing
in return to show for it.

The Obama administration’s actions will set in motion a slow and complete takeover of the Internet by the United Nations or some other equally U.S.-hostile and unfriendly international body. And once it is gone, it will be gone forever.

The surrender of the Internet will spell disaster for our nation, financially, as well as for safety, security and our standing as a great power that values freedom and the free exchange of ideas and information.

As far as I am concerned, America is still the last best hope for a more
peaceful and prosperous world and our president should not be looking for
ways to weaken us. Rather, his job is to work to strengthen us and protect our nation’s greatest asset our people’s creativity and ingenuity.

Source: News Max

Other stories at We Are Change Colorado Springs

Air Force Has ‘Counter-Blog’ Marching Orders

TSA agents raid blogger’s home, confiscate laptop, demand sources for secret Christmas security directive

Yahoo Threatens Cryptome Over Leaked Surveillance Document

Gary D. Fielder is a constitutional and criminal lawyer of 20 years. Mr. Fielder has conducted over 350 jury trials, appeared in Federal District Court, and argued before the Colorado Court of Appeals and Supreme Court. After graduating from the University of Texas at Austin, Mr. Fielder earned his Juris Doctorate at the University of San Diego in 1990. Mr. Fielder grew up in Eagle River, Alaska, and now lives in Denver.

EXCLUSIVE HIDDEN VIDEO

Source: Gig is Up

Other stories at We Are Change Colorado Springs

Why Whole-Body Imaging Won’t Work

Body Scanner Waves Tear Apart DNA

Now Mobile Devices Will Scan Your Naked Body On The Streets

Mr. Jobs,

DRM will give Apple and their corporate partners the power to disable features, block competing products (especially free software) censor news, and even delete books, videos, or news stories from users’ computers without notice– using the device’s “always on” network connection.

This past year, we have seen how human rights and democracy protestors can have the technology they use turned against them. By making a computer where every application is under total, centralized control, Apple is endangering freedom to increase profits.

Apple can say they will not abuse this power, but their record of App Store rejections and removals gives us no reason to trust them. The iPad’s unprecedented use of DRM to control all capabilities of a general purpose computer is a dangerous step backward for computing and for media distribution. We demand that Apple remove all DRM from its devices.

Source: New World Order Report

Other stories at We Are Change Colorado Springs

Ex-IBM Employee Reveals TV Abandoned Analog Band to Make Room for RFID

Body Scanner Waves Tear Apart DNA

Intel Wants Brain Implants in Its Customers’ Heads by 2020

Clearing out the high power analog tv emissions will improve signal to noise ratio for RFID emitting in the 700MHz band, and potentially allow passive satellite tracking of these RFID signals.

I’m thinking about getting a stainless steel wallet to protect against having any “enhanced” RFID cards tracked or skimmed remotely.

————

(AFP/dprogram.net) According to a former 31-year IBM employee, the highly-publicized, mandatory switch from analog to digital television is mainly being done to free up analog frequencies and make room for scanners used to read implantable RFID microchips and track people and products throughout the world.

So while the American people, especially those in Texas and other busy border states, have been inundated lately with news reports advising them to hurry and get their expensive passports, “enhanced driver’s licenses,” passport cards and other “chipped” or otherwise trackable identification devices that they are being forced to own, this digital television/RFID connection has been hidden, according to Patrick Redmond.

Redmond, a Canadian, held a variety of jobs at IBM before retiring, including working in the company’s Toronto lab from 1992 to 2007, then in sales support. He has given talks, written a book and produced a DVD on the aggressive, growing use of passive, semi-passive and active RFID chips (Radio Frequency Identification Devices) implanted in new clothing, in items such as Gillette Fusion blades, and in countless other products that become one’s personal belongings. These RFID chips, many of which are as small, or smaller, than the tip of a sharp pencil, also are embedded in all new U.S. passports, some medical cards, a growing number of credit and debit cards and so on. More than two billion of them were sold in 2007.

Whether active, semi-passive or passive, these “transponder chips,” as they’re sometimes called, can be accessed or activated with “readers” that can pick up the unique signal given off by each chip and glean information from it on the identity and whereabouts of the product or person, depending on design and circumstances, as Redmond explained in a little-publicized lecture in Canada last year. AFP just obtained a DVD of his talk.

Noted “Spychips” expert, author and radio host Katherine Albrecht told AMERICAN FREE PRESS that while she’s not totally sure whether there is a rock-solid RFID-DTV link, “The purpose of the switch [to digital] was to free up bandwidth. It’s a pretty wide band, so freeing that up creates a huge swath of frequencies.”

As is generally known, the active chips have an internal power source and antenna; these particular chips emit a constant signal. “This allows the tag to send signals back to the reader, so if I have a RFID chip on me and it has a battery, I can just send a signal to a reader wherever it is,” Redmond stated in the recent lecture, given to the Catholic patriot group known as the Pilgrims of Saint Michael, which also is known for advocating social credit, a dramatic monetary reform plan to end the practice of national governments bringing money into existence by borrowing it, with interest, from private central banks. The group’s publication The Michael Journal advocates having national governments create their own money interest-free. It also covers the RFID issue.

“The increased use of RFID chips is going to require the increased use of the UBF [UHF] spectrum,” Redmond said, hitting on his essential point that TV is going digital for a much different reason than the average person assumes, “They are going to stop using the [UHF] and VHF frequencies in 2009. Everything is going to go digital (in the U.S.). Canada is going to do the same thing.”

Explaining the unsettling crux of the matter, he continued: “The reason they are doing this is that the [UHF-VHF] analog frequencies are being used for the chips. They do not want to overload the chips with television signals, so the chips’ signals are going to be taking those [analog] frequencies. They plan to sell the frequencies to private companies and other groups who will use them to monitor the chips.”

Albrecht responded to that quote only by saying that it sounds plausible, since she knows some chips will indeed operate in the UHF-VHF ranges.

“Well over a million pets have been chipped,” Redmond said, adding that all 31,000 police officers in London have in some manner been chipped as well, much to the consternation of some who want that morning donut without being tracked. London also can link a RFID chip in a public transportation pass with the customer’s name. “Where is John Smith? Oh, he is on subway car 32,” Redmond said.

He added that chips for following automobile drivers – while the concept is being fought by several states in the U.S. which do not want nationalized, trackable driver’s licenses (Real ID ) – is apparently a slam dunk in Canada, where license plates have quietly been chipped. Such identification tags can contain work history, education, religion, ethnicity, reproductive history and much more.

Farm animals are increasingly being chipped; furthermore, “Some 800 hospitals in the U.S. are now chipping their patients; you can turn it down, but it’s available,” he said, adding: “Four hospitals in Puerto Rico have put them in the arms of Alzheimer’s patients, and it only costs about $200 per person.”

VeriChip, a major chip maker (the devices sometimes also are called Spychips) describes its product on its website: “About twice the length of a grain of rice, the device is typically implanted above the triceps area of an individual’s right arm. Once scanned at the proper frequency, the VeriChip responds with a unique 16 digit number which could be then linked with information about the user held on a database for identity verification, medical records access and other uses. The insertion procedure is performed under local anesthetic in a physician’s office and once inserted, is invisible to the naked eye. As an implanted device used for identification by a third party, it has generated controversy and debate.”

The circles will keep widening, Redmond predicts. Chipping children “to be able to protect them,” Redmond said, “is being promoted in the media.” After that, he believes it will come to: chip the military, chip welfare cheats, chip criminals, chip workers who are goofing off, chip pensioners – and then chip everyone else under whatever rationale is cited by government and highly-protected corporations that stand to make billions of dollars from this technology. Meanwhile, the concept is marketed by a corporate media that, far from being a watchdog of the surveillance state, is part of it, much like the media give free publicity to human vaccination programs without critical analysis on possible dangers and side effects of the vaccines.

“That’s the first time I have heard of it,” a Federal Communications Commission official claimed, when AFP asked him about the RFID-DTV issue on June 2. Preferring anonymity, he added: “I am not at all aware of that being a cause (of going to DTV).”

“Nigel Gilbert of the Royal Academy of Engineering said that by 2011 you should be able to go on Google and find out where someone is at anytime from chips on clothing, in cars, in cellphones and inside many people themselves,” Redmond also said.

To read Redmond’s full lecture, go to this online link:

Full Lecture – Click Here

Source: New World Order Report

Other stories at We Are Change Colorado Springs

VeriChip shares jump after H1N1 patent license win to develop implantable virus detection systems in humans

Former IBM Employee Gives A Presentation On RFID

Big brother is watching: The technologies that keep track of you

After a recent attempted terrorist attack set off a debate about full-body X-rays at airports, a new McClatchy-Ipsos poll finds that Americans lean more toward giving up some of their liberty in exchange for more safety.

The survey found 51 percent of Americans agreeing that “it is necessary to give up some civil liberties in order to make the country safe from terrorism.”

At the same time, 36 percent agreed that “some of the government’s proposals will go too far in restricting the public’s civil liberties.”

The rest were undecided or said their opinions would depend on circumstances.

As has happened often since the 2001 terrorist attacks, the renewed debate over security is hinging on the balance between personal liberty and safety. The suspect’s success in boarding a Detroit-bound plane allegedly carrying explosives is setting off calls for full body scans, which some find an invasion of privacy, and for new restrictions on passengers once they’re in flight.

To stop terrorists, Americans look first to better governmental coordination and use of intelligence, the poll found, with 81 percent calling that effective and only 11 percent calling it ineffective.

Body scans or full body searches at airports ranked second, named by 74 percent as an effective way to stop terrorism. Nineteen percent called those measures ineffective.

Further restrictions on carry-on baggage ranked third, called effective by 57 percent, ineffective by 34 percent.

New in-flight restrictions such as banning the use of laptops and electronic equipment or restricting people to their seats ranked last, called effective by 50 percent and ineffective by 42 percent.

A solid majority of Americans still feel safe flying, but the number has dropped.

The survey found 75 percent saying they feel safe, down from 86 percent in 2007, and 24 percent saying they don’t feel safe in the air, up from 13 percent in 2007.

Even with the Christmas Day bombing attempt and all the news coverage of it and its aftermath, terrorism remains very low on the national priority list. Just 4 percent called it the country’s most important problem.

The economy and jobs remained the top issue on people’s minds by far, named as the top problem by 48 percent of Americans polled.

Other domestic issues were cited by 31 percent, topped by 9 percent who said that health care was the biggest problem.

Fourteen percent cited some aspect of war or foreign policy, including the 4 percent who named terrorism.

The poll found that 52 percent approved of the way President Barack Obama is doing his job, and 45 percent disapproved.

METHODOLOGY:

These are some of the findings of a poll conducted from last Thursday through Monday. For the survey, Ipsos interviewed a nationally representative, randomly selected sample of 1,336 people 18 and older across the United States. With a sample of this size, the results are considered accurate within 2.68 percentage points, 19 times out of 20, of what they would’ve been had the entire adult population in the U.S. been polled. All sample surveys and polls may be subject to other sources of error, including coverage and measurement error. These data were weighted to ensure that the sample’s composition reflects that of the U.S. population according to census figures. Respondents had the option to be interviewed in English or Spanish.

Source: McClatchy

Other stories at We Are Change Colorado Springs

More Surveillance Can Make Us Less Safe

The Foiled terrorist plot is a perfect opportunity for a Fascist Police State

Why Did We Lose Our Rights if the Government Isn’t Even Keeping Us Safe?

Google doesn’t say it outright, but it’s pretty clear to me they’re blamely the cyber attack on the Chinese govt. And Google is not amused. (Emphasis added)

[W]e have evidence to suggest that a primary goal of the attackers was accessing the Gmail accounts of Chinese human rights activists. Based on our investigation to date we believe their attack did not achieve that objective. Only two Gmail accounts appear to have been accessed, and that activity was limited to account information (such as the date the account was created) and subject line, rather than the content of emails themselves.

Third, as part of this investigation but independent of the attack on Google, we have discovered that theaccounts of dozens of U.S.-, China- and Europe-based Gmail users who are advocates of human rights in China appear to have been routinely accessed by third parties. These accounts have not been accessed through any security breach at Google, but most likely via phishing scams or malware placed on the users’ computers….

We launched Google.cn in January 2006 in the belief that the benefits of increased access to information for people in China and a more open Internet outweighed our discomfort in agreeing to censor some results. At the time we made clear that “we will carefully monitor conditions in China, including new laws and other restrictions on our services. If we determine that we are unable to achieve the objectives outlined we will not hesitate to reconsider our approach to China.”

These attacks and the surveillance they have uncovered–combined with the attempts over the past year to further limit free speech on the web–have led us to conclude that we should review the feasibility of our business operations in China. We have decided we are no longer willing to continue censoring our results on Google.cn, and so over the next few weeks we will be discussing with the Chinese government the basis on which we could operate an unfiltered search engine within the law, if at all. We recognize that this may well mean having to shut down Google.cn, and potentially our offices in China.

The decision to review our business operations in China has been incredibly hard, and we know that it will have potentially far-reaching consequences. We want to make clear that this move was driven by our executives in the United States, without the knowledge or involvement of our employees in China who have worked incredibly hard to make Google.cn the success it is today. We are committed to working responsibly to resolve the very difficult issues raised.

Google basically just told China to go f itself.

Source: AmericaBlog

Other stories at We Are change Colorado Springs

Yahoo Threatens Cryptome Over Leaked Surveillance Document

Global treaty could throw file-sharers off Internet after ‘three strikes’

The Obama Justice Department’s Secret Blogging Team… Is it Illegal?

Every time the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) fails to protect aviation, as it did when it allowed Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab to board a plane Christmas Day, it punishes passengers with further restrictions and humiliations. Now the agency wants to virtually strip-search us with whole-body imagers. These gizmos peer through clothing to the skin beneath so that we appear naked on the monitor.

Even passengers who most fear terrorism might object that exposing ourselves to government agents is too high a price for safe skies. It’s also ineffective. Whole-body imaging, like all technology, ultimately relies on human operators — like the ones who missed the many and obvious signs that Abdulmutallab was planning more than a fun-filled vacation in Detroit.

The TSA already subjects your carry-on bags to X-ray scanning that penetrates the “skin” to show what’s beneath. Yet screeners routinely fail to discern the guns, knives, and other contraband their monitors show. Sometimes undercover federalinvestigators are smuggling those weapons to test screeners; other times, passengers who’ve forgotten the pistol or ammunition in their knapsack turn themselves in when they reach their gate. Expecting screeners who overlook the hunting knife beside a paperback novel to find the explosives taped near a woman’s… Well, let’s just say the distractions of whole-body imaging are considerably greater than anything in the average carry-on.

The TSA continues to insist that it protects our privacy even as it virtually strips us naked. But its spurious fig leaves may work against the success of its peep-show. The agency’s website assures us that “The officer who views the image is remotely located, in a secure resolution room and never sees the passenger.”

Journalist Charles Leocha of Consumer Traveler “had an opportunity to step into the small video viewing room manned by a single TSA officer” at Reagan National Airport. He estimates the space as measuring “5-feet by 5-feet, a big telephone booth really … one wall [was lined] with a table with a monitor, keyboard and communications equipment and a government-issue desk chair. The monitor being used had about a 17-inch screen… ..” He concludes that fatigue will be an even bigger occupational hazard than distraction: “For me a half-hour shift in this cell would be 30 minutes alone in hell.”

Still, the TSA should have no shortage of eager applicants. Being paid to view naked men, women, and children certainly reverses the usual arrangement and will no doubt appeal to a great many folks — the sort Leviathan otherwise locks up. In Britain the Guardian reports that “Ministers now face having to exempt under 18s from the scans or face the delays of introducing new legislation to ensure airport security staff do not commit offences under child pornography laws.” How long until American parents demand similar exemptions? And when they do, will that rescue the rest of us from our compulsive strip-tease since terrorists would then naturally recruit kids? Or will the TSA continue to humiliate us out of bureaucratic inertia and power-lust?

There’s a far simpler, constitutional, and less offensive way to protect aviation than photographing two million passengers in their birthday suits each day: Free the airlines from the federal government’s stranglehold on security. Let each company determine what works best for its routes, customers, and specific risks. Does anyone seriously believe that politicians and bureaucrats know more about securing planes than pilots and executives who’ve spent their lives in the industry? Even baggage handlers could give Congress a lesson in preventing terrorists from hiding bombs in checked luggage — yet the Feds dictate to them instead.

Indeed, federal regulations enabled the 9/11 attackers to kill Americans in the first place. Screeners working that tragic day were “private,” it’s true, but only in the sense that private companies hired them and issued their paychecks. Everything those screeners did, from wanding passengers to confiscating knives while permitting box-cutters, came from the Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA) playbook. Had each airline set its own policies, had it relied on serious security rather than the charade that satisfies political pretenses, 3,000 people might be alive today.

Returning responsibility for protecting its customers and inventory to the airlines also keeps everyone happy. Passengers who will rest easy only when we all fly naked can patronize See Everything Airways, with its motto No Place to Hide… Anything. Those who prize dignity and convenience over safety may prefer Tough Guy Air, where pilots not only arm themselves but also welcome passengers to pack heat as well. Since profits nosedive after any attempted skyjacking, let alone terrorism, airlines have all the incentive we could ask to institute practical, effective security.

The government failed to prevent 9/11, failed to thwart shoe-bomber Richard Reid, and failed to intercept Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab. Isn’t it time we entrusted our safety to professionals rather than politicians?

Source: Campaign For Liberty

Other stories at We Are Change Colorado Springs

Now Mobile Devices Will Scan Your Naked Body On The Streets

Body Scanner Waves Tear Apart DNA

Privacy activists score victories against more detailed body scanners at airports

Source: We Are Change Austin

Other stories at We Are Change Colorado Springs

Body Scanner Waves Tear Apart DNA

The Foiled terrorist plot is a perfect opportunity for a Fascist Police State

Why Did We Lose Our Rights if the Government Isn’t Even Keeping Us Safe?