December 20 (2002), the New York Times published a story
with an exceedingly ominous headline: "Bush
Administration to Propose System for Monitoring Internet."
can think of some reasons not to be as alarmed as I am at this bit
of news and to greet this is just another ho-hum from a big journal.
When you ask, Who is so naïve as to suppose the administration
was not monitoring already? This simply appears as confirmation
of what is going on.
yawn comes from realizing this news is actually old stuff, as noted
in the article. The proposal was adumbrated September last in "draft
form." (When the draft appeared it called for "industry"
to do the monitoring, but now, in the current version, government
will undertake to do it. Surprise! Surprise!)
I am sure you can find other notes of "business as usual"
in the article.
dead-pan reporters, John Markoff and John Schwartz, who never come
even close to saying the dread word censorship, run on for a couple
of dozen short paragraphs about how the purpose of the proposal
is, of course, the urgent search for terrorist activities and not
at all about invading privacy, etc., etc., which is the worry of
the Internet service providers and others they interviewed.
any lover of the Internet is going to get cold chills from, if nothing
else, the story's lead: "The Bush administration is planning
to propose requiring Internet service providers to help build a
centralized system to enable broad monitoring of the Internet and,
potentially, surveillance of its users."
Ah, how deliciously World War II (movie version). Can you see those
marvelous Nazi officers that Hollywood always had on tap, asking
for your papers as you attempt to escape on the last train out of
Berlin? They'll surveillance you all right, have no fear. Ach! Ceeteezen
Weiss, strengst verboten! (I remember those words from some
have long felt the Bush Administration is not shaping up as the
most glorious friend of freedom the world has ever seen. I have
said before in this space that whenever the boilerplate rolls out
from the Oval Office you can usually do a direct Orwellian translation:
peace means war, security means danger, freedom means government
control, etc. That's when they are talking platitudes or denying
when they are telling you what's coming they manage to be a bit
more direct: the title of this proposal is "The National Strategy
to Secure Cyberspace."
one Ms. Tiffany Olson, deputy chief of staff for the President's
Critical Infrastructure Protection Board (don't you love those titles?)
said, according to the Times article, that the need for a
large-scale operations center is real, because Internet service
companies and other online companies only have a view of the part
of the Internet that is under their control. "We don't have
anybody that is able to look at the entire picture. When something
is happening we don't know it's happening until it's too late."
(Like 9/11 presumably?)
this from an unidentified official with a "major data services
company": "Am I analogizing this to Carnivore? Absolutely.
But in fact it's 10 times worse. Carnivore was working on much smaller
feeds and could not scale. This is looking at the whole Internet."
North has made a virtuoso demonstration of the miracle of the Internet
in offering just three or four links that revealed the depth and
extent of the linkage of the CFR, the OSS and CIA, the Rockefeller
interests, and the national government under a whole string of Presidents
for starters, FDR was a Rockefeller man through and through and
his alter ego, Harry Hopkins, often credited with "winning
the war," carried water for the Rockefellers all his life.
The Rockefellers hired a couple of historians (academics are notoriously
cheap) to falsify the record of FDR's role in the start of WW II,
and that's just one thing to their credit. As a friend of mine said,
they rigged up a long-lasting depressed stock market in the 30s
and then "bought the country back with sandwiches."
from the panorama North opened to view was any comment on a particular
bte noir of mine, Beardsley Ruml, the inventor of the withholding
tax, a Rockefeller employee and later government official, who is
deserving of a special day on the national calendar set aside for
the burning of his effigy in every county public square. Money buys
loyalty big-time, but loyalty to the commonwealth? Not a bit of
hope that somebody who knows more about the possibilities in this
area, and the technical side of whether or not it is possible for
the Powers That Be to control the Internet as they now control the
major media, will now come forward to reassure us that I am wrong
to see this as a real threat to the ability to check the suppressed
history of the age just past and to find out what is really going
have great respect for people mastered by the desire to dominate.
In the end they are headed for ruin, but they are the devil's own
instruments while they are in action, and they famously don't like
criticism. They are very thin-skinned and, like Orcs, very ugly
White [send him mail] writes
from Odessa, Texas.