Last night, the city of Boston, Massachusetts and some surrounding suburbs shut down. The only people on the streets were heavily armed police and military. Most businesses closed, many hospitals closed, and people were ordered to stay in their homes. Why? Because a 19-year-old terror suspect was running from police, and maybe had guns or bombs with him.
I saw an incredible lack of concern about this, both from locals and from people watching elsewhere in the US. Sure, declaring martial law in a city is inconvenient, and does horrible damage to civil liberties, but there’s a terrorist out there! He killed people, and he could kill more people! Staying in our homes keeps us safe.
Bruce Schneier & Jonathan Zittrain in conversation
April 4, 6:00pm ET
Langdell Hall South, 272 Kirkland and Ellis Classroom
From Bruce Schneier:
What I've Been Thinking About
I have been thinking about the Internet and power: how the Internet affects power, and how power affects the Internet. Increasingly, those in power are using information technology to increase their power. This has many facets, including the following:
1. Ubiquitous surveillance for both government and corporate purposes — aided by cloud computing, social networking, and Internet-enabled everything — resulting in a world without any real privacy.
Here is an example of human lives and costs of those “judges” who have no more authority to judge a ham sandwich than their fellow man.
The banks and their ilk are engaged in domestic terrorism against the American people.
This is enabled by an out of control corrupt judicial system — with Maryland and its constant overturning of homeowner motions to show cause (show the deed) constantly overturned by judges bought and paid for by the banks.
“The American legal system has been corrupted almost beyond recognition.”
Judge Edith Jones, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. Source
“This crisis of confidence in the judiciary is real and growing, Left unaddressed, the perception that justice is for sale will undermine the rule of law that the courts are supposed to uphold.”
Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor (Retired). Source
What strikes me about the event is the ease with which authorities were able to lockdown entire metropolitan areas, preventing US citizens from leaving their homes in order to go to their jobs, to doctor’s appointments, to the grocery store, or to walk their dogs. This is a precedent. It sets the stage for martial law, although it is not being called that, and for daylight curfews. Is this what Homeland Security meant two years ago when its leader said the agency had shifted its focus from terrorism to domestic extremists?
All of this is happening because of 4 or 5 deaths including one of the alleged perpetrators of the bombing. The response of the authorities is disproportionate to the crime.
Lockdowns of metropolitan areas because of a hunt for one guy that might be a patsy? This is a new development. It is ominous for our future as a free society.
Boston Bombing VS West Explosion: A Nation Conflicted
Adam Kokesh, Iraq War Veteran and host of Adam vs. The Man, presents a much needed critique of the American “Citizenry” and our emotional/intellectual response to Media-Spectacle. While the Boston Bombings were certainly a tragic/shocking event, why was no attention paid to the West Texas Fertilizer Plant Explosions that killed 15 and injured hundreds? Why are no tears spilled over the 55 victims of car bombs in Iraq?
If it's labeled as an accident, or the victims look different than us, we just don't seem to care. We get concerned about what we're told to get concerned about when it is politically convenient for the puppet-masters.
Likewise, we believe the stories/narratives we're told to believe. Obviously the Boston attack was masterminded by two kids from Chechnya and not by rogue elements in the government…right? Even the most educated amongst us are so often susceptible to this pathological condition.
The Long and Short: We need to get our collective heads out of our asses, reclaim or cognitive/emotional sovereignty, and push back against media manipulation/spectacle. The Corporatist Police State is unrelenting and we need to be sharp.
Take away quote: “Government as a safety mechanism simply does not work.”
I regularly participate in Huffington Post forums, and they have a very sophisticated system of moderation. There are certain words and phrases it won't let through. And I discovered a new one today: false flag.
When my first post was deleted (under the “notifications” tab, which is where moderation seems to be the strictest) I looked at it, because it was a short sentence.
It was clear that the offensive term could only be “false flag,” so I retyped only those two words, and sure enough, they were instantly deleted.
That only happens under the notifications tab. And when it happens, the very instant you hit the reply button it says, “This comment removed.” So apparently I can't used the term “false flag” anymore, at least when I'm under the notifications tab.
The recently-introduced Strengthening and Enhancing Cybersecurity by Using Research, Education, Information, and Technology Act (SECURE IT), HR 1468, includes a “technical amendment” that actually would be one of the most far-reaching substantive changes to the Freedom of Information Act’s (FOIA) exemptions since 1986.
Similar to a dangerous provision that was included in the version of the bill introduced in the Senate during the last Congress, Section 107 of SECURE IT creates a new exemption to the FOIA that gives the government the authority to withhold information shared with or to the cybersecurity centers created by the bill. The bill also includes troubling language that defines any information shared with the cybersecurity centers as “voluntarily shared information” that is exempt under the FOIA and preempts any State, tribal, or local law requiring disclosure of information or records, and — in case anyone was still confused about the bill's position on public disclosure — creates a new FOIA b(3) exemption for the information.
While the anti-right-to-know language in SECURE IT is particularly bad, the provision is notably similar to cybersecurity bills like CISPA that attempt to encourage companies to share information with the federal government by giving them broad assurances that nothing they share will ever be released to the public. This approach is bad public policy: it ignores that most of the truly sensitive information companies are likely to share is already exempt under the FOIA and does not include a mechanism to weigh the public interest in disclosure of the information. Some of the information that may be shared under the bill — and therefore exempt from disclosure — could be critical for the public to ensure its safety
If the federal government really needs expanded authority to withhold information under the FOIA in order to persuade companies to share cybersecurity information, the issue should be addressed by Committee's that have expertise on public access issues: the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee and Senate Judiciary. Any amendment to the FOIA, especially an amendment of this scope, should begin with careful consideration and public hearings by those Committees. It should not be a dangerously broad provision tucked into a large bill and disguised as a “technical amendment.”
