Welcome To The Home Of TheOldOak.Info's Official News Blogsite, The News That We Found Interesting.
Feel Free To Comment If You Wish.
Please Also Check Out TheOldOak.Info For More Documents, Info, And Backstory On Subjects.
Check The Headlines Below To See The Latest Stories On Those Subjects.
AUSTIN, Texas — Sen. Al Franken claimed Monday that big corporations are “hoping to destroy” the Internet and issued a call to arms to several hundred tech-savvy South by Southwest attendees to preserve net neutrality.
“I came here to warn you, the party may be over,” Franken said. “They’re coming after the Internet hoping to destroy the very thing that makes it such an important [medium] for independent artists and entrepreneurs: its openness and freedom.”
Net neutrality, he added, is “the First Amendment issue of our time.”
Receiving a hero’s welcome from the liberal crowd, Franken took repeated shots at big telecoms, singling out Comcast.
Eric Blair & Michael Edwards
Infowars.com
February 25, 2011
Just over a month ago, Google announced that they were changing their algorithm in order to weaken the search engine rankings of sites they deem to be “content farmers.”
Whereas most of Google’s algorithm changes are barely noticeable, the current change that they have been working on since last January will affect 12% of U.S. searches.
There has been much debate about what “content farming” is, and Google has done little to offer a clear explanation, simply stating, “low quality” or “shallow” sites would be affected. This is similar to the vague definition of pornography — you’ll know it when you see it.
The problem with such a vague approach to what is a strictly defined algorithm is that it leaves too much room for a human interpretation. And as we have seen, Google has been exposed as having connections to U.S. intelligence agencies, which doesn’t bode well for alternative news sites that aggregate anti-establishment stories from around the web. Given the other censorship threats facing the Internet, it seems those who might be critical of Internet control and real-time surveillance of average Americans are being targeted.
One definition of content farming sites comes from Danny Sullivan at Search Engine Land:
- Looks to see what are popular searches in a particular category (news, help topics)
- Generates content specifically tailored to those searches
- Usually spends very little time and or money, even perhaps as little as possible, to generate that content
The first point is particularly troubling for alternative news, since these are the sites who often scour mainstream news to discover which topics are of popular interest so that competing commentary can be offered on a given issue. Even in the area of “help topics” there are many alternative news sites, such as our own, who focus on tips for survival, protection from economic crisis, advice for privacy protection and personal security, etc.
Again, with the overshadowing definition of “shallow” content, who is deciding this? Furthermore, point two addresses tailoring content for specific searches, which sounds a lot like the “Google Bombs” introduced by Alex Jones and implemented by others as an effective way to compete with the mainstream media pablum, which focuses heavily on celebrities, sports, and other truly shallow and low quality content.
And, finally, point three seems to penalize blogs and other low-cost means of sharing opinions, as if not having a mainstream media budget automatically implies low quality, when provably the reverse is often true. Those who research information and present their own opinions as to the significance of what they have studied generally are doing so out of a passion to expose lies and direct their fellow man to the truth.
Google’s punishment of those who re-post material as an essential tool for sharing information appears to now reduce news aggregators to the status of plagiarists within the algorithm. There are many alternative news sites and blogs which have original material that they freely share, in part or in full, purely to support one another in disseminating the truth. We all know what plagiarism looks like and a link back to the original source should not, for instance, be grounds for labeling a site as shallow.
Google needs to address the vital tool of sharing information, as well as to more clearly define their algorithm in upcoming press releases, or we can only conclude that they have begun to wage war on news sites who aggregate information to present an alternative to establishment media.
It’s recently been revealed that the U.S. government contracted HBGary Federal for the development of software which could create multiple fake social media profiles to manipulate and sway public opinion on controversial issues by promoting propaganda. It could also be used as surveillance to find public opinions with points of view the powers-that-be didn’t like. It could then potentially have their “fake” people run smear campaigns against those “real” people. As disturbing as this is, it’s not really new for U.S. intelligence or private intelligence firms to do the dirty work behind closed doors.
It’s not a big surprise that the U.S. military also wants to use social media to its benefit. Last year, Public Intelligence published the U.S. Air Force social media guide which gave 10 tips for social media such as, “The enemy is engaged in this battlespace and you must engage there as well.” Number three was
“DON’T LIE. Credibility is critical, without it, no one cares what you have to say…it’s also punishable by the UCMJ to give a false statement.” The Air Force used the chart below to show how social media influences public opinion.
A Senate proposal that has become known as the Internet “kill switch” bill was reintroduced this week, with a tweak its backers say eliminates the possibility of an Egypt-style disconnection happening in the United States.
As CNET reported last month, the 221-page bill hands Homeland Security the power to issue decrees to certain privately owned computer systems after the president declares a “national cyberemergency.” A section in the new bill notes that does not include “the authority to shut down the Internet,” and the name of the bill has been changed to include the phrase “Internet freedom.”
“The emergency measures in our bill apply in a precise and targeted way only to our most critical infrastructure,” Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) said yesterday about the legislation she is sponsoring with Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn). “We cannot afford to wait for a cyber 9/11 before our government finally realizes the importance of protecting our digital resources.”
But the revised wording (PDF) continues to alarm civil liberties groups and other critics of the bill, who say the language would allow the government to shut down portions of the Internet or restrict access to certain Web sites or types of content.
Even former Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak didn’t actually “shut down” the Internet: at least at first, a trickle of connections continued.
Software will allow 10 personas per user, replete with background , history, supporting details, and cyber presences that are technically, culturally and geographacilly consistent. Individual applications will enable an operator to exercise a number of different online persons from the same workstation and without fear of being discovered by sophisticated adversaries. Personas must be able to appear to originate in nearly any part of the world and can interact through conventional online services and social media platforms.
The request was for 50 licenses, which means the Air Force hoped to create up to 500 fake Internet people. The request was filled in June, which means these fake people could be roaming the 'net right now.
WASHINGTON (AFP) - Republican members of the US Senate and House of Representatives are seeking to quash rules approved by US telecom regulators designed to ensure an open Internet.
The five-member Federal Communications Commission (FCC), in a vote split on party lines, agreed in December to the rules aimed at safeguarding "network neutrality," the principle that lawful Web traffic should be treated equally.
Supporters have argued that the rules are needed to ensure an open Internet but opponents have decried them as unnecessary government intervention.
Republicans in the Senate and House formally introduced a matching "resolution of disapproval" on Wednesday seeking to reverse the rules.
House majority leader Eric Cantor, a Republican from Virginia, said the resolution is intended to "debunk the FCC's harmful and partisan plan to regulate the Internet."
"From the Internet's inception we have taken a hands-off approach," added Representative Greg Walden, a Republican from Oregon.
"The Internet did not become the explosive driver of communications and economic growth it is today until we turned it over to free enterprise," Walden said. "Changing direction now will only harm innovation and the economy."
US carrier Verizon Communications filed a legal challenge to the FCC's rules last month, calling them an "assertion of broad authority for sweeping new regulation of broadband networks and the Internet itself."
The rules are a balancing act by the FCC between support for consumers and the cable and telephone companies that are the US Internet service providers.
The FCC drafted the rules after suffering a legal setback in April when a court ruled that it had not been granted the authority by Congress to regulate the network management practices of Internet service providers.
Under the banner of fighting child pornography, the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Justice knocked out 84,000 websites last week. The websites did not host or link to child pornography as the government claims.
“As part of ‘Operation Save Our Children‘ ICE’s Cyber Crimes Center has again seized several domain names, but not without making a huge error. Last Friday, thousands of site owners were surprised by a rather worrying banner that was placed on their domain,” reports TorrentFreak, a tech site.
Senator Joe Lieberman peddles his kill switch legislation under the rubric of the phony war on terror.
“Advertisement, distribution, transportation, receipt, and possession of child pornography constitute federal crimes that carry penalties for first time offenders of up to 30 years in federal prison, a $250,000 fine, forfeiture and restitution,” was the message visitors to the sites were greeted with after a judge signed a seizure warrant and Big Sis contacted the domain registries and instructed them to point the domains in question to a server that hosts the above warning message.
“However, somewhere in this process a mistake was made and as a result the domain of a large DNS service provider was seized,” writes Ernesto for TorrentFreak.
It is certainly possible although not probable the takedown was an error. It is more likely the sites were taken offline in calculated fashion in order to send a message – government has the ability to deny a large number of websites access to the internet.
In response to widespread protests and mass unrest, the authoritarian Egyptian government shut down the internet in late January. In addition, the Mubarak regime gave the order to shut off mobile phone service. “All mobile operators in Egypt have been instructed to suspend services in selected areas. Under Egyptian legislation, the authorities have the right to issue such an order and we are obliged to comply,” explained Vodaphone.
The government wants to implement a likewise system in the United States. Senator Joe Lieberman introduced a bill that would allow the Obama administration to pull the plug on the internet. The bill would amend the Homeland Security Act of 2002 enacted during the manufactured hysteria following the events of September 11, 2001. According to the language of the bill, it would “enhance the security and resiliency of the cyber and communications infrastructure of the United States” by allowing the president to use a figurative “kill switch” and seize control of the web in response to a Homeland Security directive.
“Right now China, the government, can disconnect parts of its internet in case of war and we need to have that here too,” Lieberman told CNN last year.
Myanmar shut down the internet in 2007 and Iran and China did the same in 2009. Governments crave the absolute power of denying millions of people access to the internet and other forms of telecommunication.
The Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset legislation is expected to be reintroduced into Congress this session. Late last month, Brandon Milhorn, Republican staff director and counsel for the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, said that the Senate was revisiting the bill. Detractors call it the “internet kill switch” bill while supporters argue it is essential for our national security.
If passed, the law would give Obama and future presidents the ability to designate the internet – and other network computer systems – as vital to national security. If the government decided to shut down the internet or certain parts during a declared emergency – more than likely a contrived false flag event – it will not be “subject to judicial review,” in other words the Fourth Amendment will not apply. The power to declare such an emergency would not come from Congress.
An early version of the bill introduced by Democrat Jay Rockefeller and Republican Olympia Snow authorized the White House to “declare a cybersecurity emergency” and explicitly gave the executive branch the power to “order the disconnection” of networks and websites. House Democrats have taken a similar approach in their own proposals, according to Declan McCullagh writing for CNet News.
Webster Tarpley on Obama’s internet kill siwtch.
Blocking the access of 84,000 websites from the internet is not a mistake. It was a beta test by the government to test the technical aspects of the action and gauge response. The government is not in the business of seriously combating child pornography. Like the Mubarak regime in Egypt, the government in the United States is interested in having a mechanism in place to shut down the public internet or take out targeted websites and domains.
More and more people are flocking to the internet for news and information.
Millions are ignoring the corporate media and the government propaganda it spews. Before the economy crashes completely and people take to the street like they are now doing in the Middle East, the government wants to have its internet kill switch firmly in place.
It may get the chance during this session of Congress.
