Archive for the ‘remote control’ Category

c/o HuffPo‘s Jay Stanley

So the U.S. security establishment is salivating at the prospect of a new cybersecurity “Cold War.” In an over-the-top op-ed in Tuesday’s Washington Post, Mike McConnell issues a declaration that we are “fighting a cyber war today” and compares it to the nuclear showdown with the Soviets. McConnell exemplifies the security establishment as much as anyone — former director of the National Security Agency (NSA), former Director of National Intelligence, and currently executive vice president at Booz Allen Hamilton, a private-sector refuge for former U.S. intelligence officials (and a company that stands to make large sums from consulting on cybersecurity).

The Cold War was, among many other things, a bonanza for the military and for security agencies from the NSA to the CIA to the FBI, which saw their budgets skyrocket and their power and reach expand in ways that were unprecedented in a country that had always held a deep suspicion of “standing armies” and government power. With the end of the Soviet Union and talk of a “peace dividend,” these institutions faced sharp cutbacks and a loss of mission. In the 1990s there was suddenly a lot of attention paid to China and the threat it was said to pose. Then came 9/11 and — although the nature of the threat was far, far different from the Soviet Union — the security establishment nevertheless had a new raison d’ĂȘtre, and a rationale for not only maintaining all the institutions it had built up against the Soviets, but expanding its powers. Proposals such as the Patriot Act, which Congress had rejected in the 1990s, now sailed through without any examination of whether they actually addressed any of the problems responsible for 9/11 (mostly they did not).

Cybersecurity is many things. It is a genuine problem. It is a threat to civil liberties, especially online privacy and anonymity. And, it is also being pushed as the latest reason to keep shoveling new tax dollars and new powers to the NSA and other security agencies — sometimes with almost comical eagerness, as in McConnell’s piece. His op-ed is almost a perfect exhibit in leveraging current events as part of a security-bureaucracy bid for power:

Overdramatic description of the situation as a world-historic “war?” Check.

Focus on centralized, top-down, command-and-control solutions to a problem that is largely a matter of distributed rather than centralized vulnerabilities? Check.

Call for highly ambitious military “grand projects” of dubious attainability but no doubt never-ending budgets? Check. McConnell: “We need to develop an early-warning system to monitor cyberspace, identify intrusions and locate the source of attacks with a trail of evidence that can support diplomatic, military and legal options — and we must be able to do this in milliseconds.” A proposal to “monitor cyberspace” could mean different things, but when it comes from a former NSA director and intelligence chief, Americans should be afraid.

Ominous desire to gain some control over the Internet and erase Internet anonymity? Check. McConnell: “We need to reengineer the Internet to make attribution, geolocation, intelligence analysis and impact assessment — who did it, from where, why and what was the result — more manageable.”

The Internet has been an amazing engine of freedom, innovation and economic growth precisely because it is not under anyone’s control. Its radical decentralized design has permitted it to flourish through the actions of millions of people acting independently and not under anyone’s control.

But this kind of decentralized, out-of-control freedom could not be more at odds with the traditional, military, bureaucratic, control-everything security mindset. Sure enough, Mike McConnell, who seems to exemplify this mindset, wants to make “attribution” more “manageable” — seemingly an endorsement of radical calls to end the possibility of anonymity online in the name of cybersecurity. Anonymous speech is recognized as part of our First Amendment rights and is an old American tradition that goes back to the Federalist Papers, which were written anonymously by (we now know) James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay. :::MORE HERE:::

BTC – I’ve heard the “brain chipping” idea being flung around but not in context of what I know to exist in law. For now a brain chip would be voluntary – unless you’re military.

Some believe that everyone has technological “implants”. I write because I don’t necessarily know what to believe, but the burden of truth persists. When you look around online to research human microchip implants you find a lot of technology is now available to make it happen.

Apparently, Intel has created a convenience based technology where you can be deeply connected to your computer.

Intel believes its customers would be willing to have a implanted in their brains so they could operate computers without the need for a keyboard or mouse using thoughts alone. The could also be used to operate devices such as cell phones, TVs and DVDs.

Living in the Bay Area now I’m hearing the stranger experiences and claims about chipping. Some might include activist targets who have successfully deactivated chips.

In order for that to happen, there must have bee a congnition process which included the following:

1) The person somehow diagonosed or informed they were involuntarily chipped.

2) The person would have had to do some ground work in research to find a way to treat themselves in the event of an implant.

3) They found a way to remove or deactivate the internal chips.

Now – as you can tell unless there is something solid or concrete about this that you can feel with your hands or perceive in a forthwith way, it deserves to be unbelieveable.

However – the experiences themselves are irrefutable. People can lie or dispense untruths but if they claim experience or perception it does in fact exist if only in their mind.

So I encourage the gates to open for those who have experiences ONLY having had their implants removed. Send stories & contact to: