Are You A Teenager Who Reads News Online? According to the Justice Department, You May Be a Criminal

(eff.org) During his first term, President Barack Obama declared October 2009 to be “National Information Literacy Awareness Month,” emphasizing that, for students, learning to navigate the online world is as important a skill as reading, writing and arithmetic. It was a move that echoed his predecessor’s strong support of global literacy—such as reading newspapers—most notably through First Lady Laura Bush’s advocacy.

Yet, disturbingly, the Departments of Justice (DOJ) of both the Bush and Obama administrations have embraced an expansive interpretation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) that would literally make it a crime for many kids to read the news online. And it’s the main reason why the law must be reformed.

Take action to fix computer crime law.

As we’ve explained previously, in multiple cases the DOJ has taken the position that a violation of a website’s Terms of Service or an employer’s Terms of Use policy can be treated as a criminal act. And the House Judiciary Committee has floated a proposal that makes the DOJ’s position law, making it a crime to access a website for any “impermissible purpose.” For a number of reasons, including the requirements of the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act, many news sites have terms of service that prohibit minors from using their interactive services and sometimes even visiting their websites.

Take, for example, the Hearst Corporation’s family of publications. If you read the terms of use for the Houston Chronicle, the San Francisco Chronicle, or Popular Mechanics websites, you’ll find this language, screamed in all-caps:

“YOU MAY NOT ACCESS OR USE THE COVERED SITES OR ACCEPT THE AGREEMENT IF YOU ARE NOT AT LEAST 18 YEARS OLD.”

In the DOJ’s world, this means anyone under 18 who reads a Hearst newspaper online could hypothetically face jail time. But Hearst’s publications aren’t the only ones with overly restrictive usage terms. U-T San Diego and the Miami Herald have similar policies. Even NPR is guilty, saying teenagers can’t access their “services” (including the site, NPR podcasts and the media player) without a permission slip:

“If you are between the ages of 13 and 18, you may browse the NPR Services or register for email newsletters or other features of the NPR Services (excluding the NPR Community) with the consent of your parent(s) or guardian(s), so long as you do not submit any User Materials.”

Some sites must have recognized the problem and crafted their policies to only forbid users under the age of 13.  These include the New York Times, the Boston Globe, and the Arizona Republic. NBCNews.com uses this wording:

“By using or attempting to use the Site or Services, you certify that you are at least 13 years of age or other required greater age for certain features and meet any other eligibility and residency requirements of the Site.”

This means that inquisitive 12-year-olds who visit NBCNews.com to learn about current events would be, by default, misrepresenting their ages. That’s criminal by DOJ standards and would be explicitly illegal under the House Judiciary Committee’s proposal.

We’d like to say that we’re being facetious, but, unfortunately, the Justice Department has already demonstrated its willingness to pursue CFAA to absurd extremes. Luckily, the Ninth Circuit rejected the government’s arguments, concluding that, under such an ruling, millions of unsuspecting citizens would suddenly find themselves on the wrong side of the law. As Judge Alex Kozinski so aptly wrote: “Under the government’s proposed interpretation of the CFAA…describing yourself as ‘tall, dark and handsome,’ when you’re actually short and homely, will earn you a handsome orange jumpsuit.”

And it’s no excuse to say that the vast majority of these cases will never be prosecuted. As the Ninth Circuit explained, “Ubiquitous, seldom-prosecuted crimes invite arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement.” Instead of pursuing only suspects of actual crimes, it opens the door for prosecutors to go after people because the government doesn’t like them.

Unfortunately, there’s no sign the Justice Department has given up on this interpretation outside the Ninth and Fourth Circuits, which is why the Professor Tim Wu in the New Yorkerrecently called the CFAA “the most outrageous criminal law you’ve never heard of.”

The potential criminalization of terms of service is a prime reason that Congress needs to overhaul CFAA and it’s certainly why the House Judiciary Committee should abandon the seemingly DOJ-drafted bill it floated recently and instead sit down with Rep. Zoe Lofgren, Rep. Darrell Issa, and others to negotiate real reform.

Are you a minor with a thirst for information? You, and your parents who vote, should together tell Congress to fix CFAA.

Advertisements

Freedom of the Press Foundation Publishes Leaked Audio of Bradley Manning’s Statement

1aabbc

(Freedom of The Press) -Today, Freedom of the Press Foundation is publishing the full, previously unreleased audio recording of Private First Class Bradley Manning’s speech to the military court in Ft. Meade about his motivations for leaking over 700,000 government documents to WikiLeaks. In addition, we have published highlights from Manning’s statement to the court.

While unofficial transcripts of this statement are available, this marks the first time the American public has heard the actual voice of Manning.

 

Download

See Help Spread Bradley Manning’s Words Across the Internet to embed the full audio, as well as excerpts from the audio, on your website.

He explains to the military court in his own cadence and words how and why he gave the Apache helicopter video, Afghanistan and Iraq Wars Logs, and the State Department Diplomatic Cables to WikiLeaks. Manning explains his motives, noting how he believed the documents showed deep wrongdoing by the government and how he hoped that the release would “spark a domestic debate on the role of the military and our foreign policy in general as it related to Iraq and Afghanistan.” In conjunction with the statement, Private First Class Manning also pleaded guilty to 10 of the 22 charges against him.

Freedom of the Press Foundation is dedicated to supporting journalism that combats overreaching government secrecy. We have been disturbed that Manning’s pre-trial hearings have been hampered by the kind of extreme government secrecy that his releases to WikiLeaks were intended to protest. While reporters are allowed in the courtroom, no audio or visual recordings are permitted by the judge, no transcripts of the proceedings or any motions by the prosecution have been released, and lengthy court orders read on the stand by the judge have not been published for public review.

 

A short film by Laura Poitras

A group of journalists, represented by the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR), has been engaged in a legal battle to force the court to be more open. While the government has belatedly released a small portion of documents related to the case, many of the most important orders have been withheld—such as the orders relating to the speedy trial proceedings or the order related to Manning’s prolonged solitary confinement.

Michael Ratner, president emeritus of CCR, called the government “utterly unresponsive to what is a core First Amendment principle.” Ratner noted this is a public trial, the information being presented is not classified, and that contemporaneous access to information about the trial is necessary to understanding the proceedings. Nonetheless, the lawsuit has been tied up in the appeals court for months.

Freedom of the Press Foundation’s mission is to support and defend cutting-edge transparency journalism by supporting those organizations that publish leaks in the public interest. We often report on news surrounding government secrecy, educating the public about the important relationship between leaking and independent journalism. When we received this recording, we realized we had a unique opportunity to bring some small measure of transparency directly by allowing the world to hear for itself the voice of someone who took a controversial and important stance for government transparency.

We hope this recording will shed light on one of the most secret court trials in recent history, in which the government is putting on trial a concerned government employee whose only stated goal was to bring attention to what he viewed as serious governmental misconduct and criminal activity. We hope to prompt additional analysis of these proceedings by other journalistic institutions and the public at large. While we are not equipped (technically or as a matter of human resources) to receive leaked information nor do we plan on receiving them in the future, we are proud to publish and analyze this particular recording because it is so clearly matches our mission of supporting transparency journalism.

The information provided by Manning has uncovered stories of wrongdoing by the United States, as well as by leaders and politicians around the world. The cables were reportedly one of the catalysts that led to the Arab Spring and sped up the end of the Iraq War. To this day, more than two years after their release, the information provided by Manning is used every day by journalists and historians in major publications are the world to enlighten and inform the public, both in the United States and around the world. In a time when the extent and reach of U.S. government secrecy is unprecedented, and there are credible reports that the government has abused its secrecy and classification systems to cover up numerous illegal and unconstitutional activities, Manning’s actions should be seen as an overdue sliver of sunlight into an overly secret system rather than as a basis for a prosecution seeking decades of imprisonment.

By releasing this audio recording, we wish to make sure that the voice of this generation’s most prolific whistleblower can be heard—literally—by the world.

Regardless of whether one believes that Manning’s acts were right or wrong or a mix of both, he has taken responsibility for them by pleading guilty to ten charges, for which he faces up to twenty years in prison. The government however, is continuing to pursue all of the charges against him, including charges under the Espionage Act and “aiding the enemy” —which could have huge consequences for press freedom and the First Amendment. The ACLU has expressed concern that this “aiding the enemy” charge could criminalize speech for all sorts of active military members, noting that “In its zeal to throw the book at Manning, the government has so overreached that its ‘success’ would turn thousands of loyal soldiers into criminals.”

And Harvard Law professor Yochai Benkler has argued that this prosecution could decimate national security journalism by outlawing whole categories of journalist-source relationships in the future: “[T]he prosecutors seem bent on using this case to push a novel and aggressive interpretation of the law that would arm the government with a much bigger stick to prosecute vaguely-defined national security leaks, a big stick that could threaten not just members of the military, but civilians too.”

Extreme secrecy in our courts, just like in our government’s policies and our politics, is an anathema to democracy. Whether military or civilian, this type of closed-door legal process impairs the public’s right-to-know and journalists’ ability to report on matters of deep public concern. The courtrooms of America should be open to the public, so they can see and hear what is being done in their name.

You can donate to aggressive journalism outlets dedicated to transparency and accountability on our homepage. You can learn more about Bradley Manning’s case by visiting the Bradley Manning Support Network.

Pentagon “Cyber-Warriors” Planting “False Information on Facebook”

Who’s Faking It? Pentagon

 

On November 22, 2012, the Los Angeles Times published an alarming piece of news entitled “Cyber Corps program trains spies for the digital age”. The “cyber-warriors” who are headed for organizations such as the CIA, NSC, FBI, the Pentagon and so on, are trained to stalk, “rifle through trash, sneak a tracking device on cars and plant false information on Facebook [emphasis added]. They also are taught to write computer viruses, hack digital networks, crack passwords, plant listening devices and mine data from broken cellphones and flash drives.”

Not surprisingly, less than a month later, it was rumored that Iran ’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Khamenei had started a Facebook page. The style and content of the site ruled out its authenticity, but the State Department was amused. In spite of the potential for alarm, State Department Spokeswoman Victoria Nuland jokingly expressed Washington ’s curiosity to see how many “likes’ Khamenei would receive. This is no joking matter. Any message on this page would be attributed to Khamenei with a potential for dangerous ramifications.

Barely a month later, on January 24, 2013, Guardian’s blaring headlines exposed fake blogs and Facebook pages made for BBC Persian’s Iranian journalists with claims that these were made in order to harass, intimidate, and discredit the journalists. These fake blogs, according to The Guardian charges, are not by the American Cyber Corps warriors, but are alleged to be the creation of the Iranian ‘Islamic cyber-activists’ in “what appears [emphasis added] to be an operation sponsored by the authorities”.

While truth is the fist casualty of war, journalists are also fair game thanks — in large part owing to the provisions of the Information Operations Road Map of 2003 (signed by the then Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and pursued by Defense Secretary Leon Panetta). As part of the plan, “public affairs officers brief journalists”. In 2005 it came to light that the Pentagon paid the Lincoln Group (a private company) to plant ‘hundreds of stories’ in Iraqi papers in support of U.S. Policies. The plan also called for “a range of technologies to disseminate propaganda in enemy territory: unmanned aerial vehicles, “miniaturized, scatterable public address systems”, wireless devices, cellular phones and the internet. “

In light of such wide spread propaganda, deception and digital warfare by the Pentagon, and with the recent Los Angeles Times revelations of the Cyber Corps training, truth become indistinguishable from falsehood and thus accepting or rejecting the authenticity of allegations by the Guardian becomes subjective, in spite of the reality of the victimhood of BBC journalists (ditto Radio Farda, VOA) whose reporting is not welcomed in Iran.

The broadcast of BBC Persian into Iran is problematic. Leaving aside the illegality of it (see article), BBC Persian which was launched in early 2009, receives significant funding from the United States . To many Iranians, no doubt including the Iranian government, BBC’s role was (and continues to be) a dark reminder of its past role in destroying Iran’s democracy in 1953 when, by its own admission, the BBC spearheaded Britain’s propaganda and broadcast the code which sparked the coup and the overthrow of Prime Minister Mossadegh.

As if in a reenactment, the role of BBC Persian in the 2009 post-election unrest was significant. Claiming that BBC Persian Services was basing its reporting on “citizen journalists” and on the receiving end of “eight user generated communications per minute”, their own report indicates that some of the reporting was impossible to verify. Unlike BBC Persian (and VOA, Radio Farda, etc.), Wired Magazine did its homework fully. In its report aptly titled “Iran: Before You Have That Twitter-Gasm…” , it revealed that the “ U.S. media is projecting its own image of Iran into what is going here on the ground.” BBC Persian, true to its track record, and thanks to State Department funding, had a desire to trumpet in a new era in Iran ’s history – A historical change planned from without, with help from within. Unlike 1953, it failed.

Once again, with the Iranian elections on the horizon, indications are that the recent elections in the United States and Israel will not produce a break-through in the US-Iran relations, or the foreign policy agenda of the United States toward Iran — warfare by other means, including propaganda. Cognizant of this fact, either the Iranian government is bracing itself for a propaganda war by discrediting sites with a potential to propagate misinformation, which may explain duplicating the BBC (admittedly, a clever move), or, the American Cyber Corps has outdone itself with the ability to point the finger at Iran.

Either way, in launching its cyber warfare, the United States has crossed the Rubicon. Cyber warfare, much like germ warfare, is dangerous, relentless, and without boundaries. The casualties of such warfare will continue to rise – unstoppable.

Soraya Sepahpour-Ulrich is a Public Diplomacy Scholar, independent researcher and writer with a focus on U.S. foreign policy and the role of lobby groups.

Censorship: Facebook deletes pages of 9/11 activists

1aba(Digital Journal) -Recently, Facebook has removed the pages of about 50 political activists. Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth founder Richard Gage lost his page, as did several other activists. Later, the pages were reactivated.

 
Several people associated with the alternative news website InfoWars.com also had their pages removed. InfoWars reports,

 

In September 2011, Infowars reporter Darrin McBreen was told by Facebook staff not to voice his political opinion on the social networking website. Responding to comments McBreen had made about off-grid preppers being treated as criminals, the “Facebook Team” wrote, “Be careful making about making (sic) political statements on facebook,” adding, “Facebook is about building relationships not a platform for your political viewpoint. Don’t antagonize your base. Be careful and congnizat (sic) of what you are preaching.”

 

The Facebook purge includes those who have posted pro-Second Amendment statements and/or made comments about the report made by the Washington Post /CBS News that another gunman had been arrested in the woods near Sandy Hook Elementary after the shooting.

 

The office of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth reports that Mr. Gage has never made any statements about gun ownership on his page. The AE911 office also confirms that a number of 9/11 activists have been targeted by Facebook.

 

Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth produced a documentary last year, Experts Speak Out, which has found large audiences, particularly through a PBS affiliate. Consequently, many engineers and building professionals now question the official story of the collapse of the three World Trade Center towers.

 

Infowars reports the following individuals have had their pages deleted or suspended:

 

Kurt Nimmo (account suspended)

 

Aaron Dykes (account inactive)

 

Amber Lyon (account suspended)

 

Brandon J. Raub (account inactive)

 

Michael F Rivero (account inactive)

 

Anthony J Hilder (account inactive)

 

William Lewis (account inactive)

 

Richard Gage (account inactive)

 

William Rodriguez (account inactive)

 

Infowar Artist (account inactive)

 

We are Change (account inactive)

 

Wacboston At Twitter (account inactive)

 

Michael Murphy Tmp (account inactive)

 

Robert M Bowman (account inactive)

 

Peter Dale Scott (account inactive)

 

Jason Infowars (account inactive)

 

Mike Skuthan (account inactive)

 

Packy Savvenas (account inactive)

 

Sean Wright (account inactive)

 

Katherine Albrect (account inactive)

 

Update: As of December 28th, the above pages have been reactivated. Facebook has not issued a statement.

Ambassador says US “cannot sign the ITU regulations in their current form”

(Arstechnica) -The United States announced on a conference call with reporters on Thursday that it would not be supporting regulations approved at the International Telecommunications Union (ITU) WCIT-12 conference in Dubai. The assembled delegates will meet for the formal signing ceremony to close out the conference on Friday.

“The United States has announced today that it cannot sign the ITU regulations in their current form,” Ambassador Terry Kramer said (Kramer leads the American delegation at the conference).

He spoke just after an Internet resolution as part of the final draft had been approved by a majority of attending nations, some of whom seemed confused about whether they were actually voting on the draft proposal.

“The US delegation was apparently angered by developments in the early hours of Wednesday morning, when Russia and its allies succeeded in winning, by a mere show of hands, approval of a resolution that mentions the Internet,” The New York Times wrote. “The show of hands followed an attempt by [Mohamed Nasser al-Ghanim, director general of the Telecommunication Regulation Authority of the United Arab Emirates] to gauge, as he put it, ‘the temperature of the room.’”

The ambassador also said that so far, a number of other nations would either not be signing or have “significant reservations” and are consulting their governments overnight in Dubai. Those countries include the United Kingdom, Costa Rica, Denmark, Egypt, Sweden, the Netherlands, Kenya, the Czech Republic, Canada, New Zealand, and Poland—but the group may turn out to be larger.

“The United States has consistently believed and continues to believe that the ITR should be a high-level document and that the scope of the treaty does not extend to Internet governance or content,” Kramer added. “Other administrations have made it clear that they believe the treaty should be extended to include those issues, and so we cannot be part of that consensus.”

The final text of the International Telecommunications Regulations treaty that was approved has not yet been made public. It’s obvious there is a staunch divide between Washington and a number of its allies, vis-à-vis other countries who are in favor of more national control of the Internet (most notably Russia, China, and their allies).

“It is clear that the world community is at a crossroad in its collective view of the Internet and of the most optimal environment flourishing of the Internet in this century,” he added. “No single organization or government can or should attempt to control the Internet or dictate its future development.”

On the conference call, Ars was able to ask why such international affirmation was even needed, when China, Iran, Syria and others routinely unilaterally impose restrictions on their domestic Internet.

“Countries have national sovereignty rights—they can do what they want,” Kramer said. “What we don’t want over time is a set of global agreements that people can point to and say: ‘Listen, you know, this treaty gave us the right to impose these terms on global operators of some sort.’ We don’t think that this will happen per se, it’s not legally binding, but you don’t want something to happen where people can think it is a binding term in a global environment.”

20 Outrageous Examples That Show How Political Correctness Is Taking Over America

(TheTruth) -The thought police are watching you. Back in the 1990s, lots of jokes were made about “political correctness”, and almost everybody thought they were really funny. Unfortunately, very few people are laughing now because political correctness has become a way of life in America. If you say the “wrong thing” you could lose your job or you could rapidly end up in court. Every single day, the mainstream media bombards us with subtle messages that make it clear what is “appropriate” and what is “inappropriate”, and most Americans quietly fall in line with this unwritten speech code. But just because it is not written down somewhere does not mean that it isn’t real. In fact, this speech code becomes more restrictive and more suffocating with each passing year. The goal of the “thought Nazis” is to control what people say to one another, because eventually that will shape what most people think and what most people believe. If you don’t think this is true, just try the following experiment some time. Go to a public place where a lot of people are gathered and yell out something horribly politically incorrect such as “I love Jesus” and watch people visibly cringe. The name of “Jesus” has become a curse word in our politically correct society, and we have been trained to have a negative reaction to it in public places. After that, yell out something politically correct such as “I support gay marriage” and watch what happens. You will probably get a bunch of smiles and quite a few people may even approach you to express their appreciation for what you just said. Of course this is going to vary depending on what area of the country you live in, but hopefully you get the idea. Billions of dollars of media “programming” has changed the definitions of what people consider to be “acceptable” and what people consider to be “not acceptable”. Political correctness shapes the way that we all communicate with each other every single day, and it is only going to get worse in the years ahead. Sadly, most people simply have no idea what is happening to them.

The following are 20 outrageous examples that show how political correctness is taking over America…

#1 According to a new Army manual, U.S. soldiers will now be instructed to avoid “any criticism of pedophilia” and to avoid criticizing “anything related to Islam”. The following is from a recent Judicial Watch article

The draft leaked to the newspaper offers a list of “taboo conversation topics” that soldiers should avoid, including “making derogatory comments about the Taliban,” “advocating women’s rights,” “any criticism of pedophilia,” “directing any criticism towards Afghans,” “mentioning homosexuality and homosexual conduct” or “anything related to Islam.”

#2 The Obama administration has banned all U.S. government agencies from producing any training materials that link Islam with terrorism. In fact, the FBI has gone back and purged references to Islam and terrorism from hundreds of old documents.

#3 Authorities are cracking down on public expressions of the Christian faith all over the nation, and yet atheists in New York City are allowed to put up an extremely offensive billboard in Time Square this holiday season that shows a picture of Jesus on the cross underneath a picture of Santa with the following tagline: “Keep the Merry! Dump the Myth!

#4 According to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, it is illegal for employers to discriminate against criminals because it has a “disproportionate” impact on minorities.

#5 Down in California, Governor Jerry Brown has signed a bill that will allow large numbers of illegal immigrants to legally get California driver’s licenses.

#6 Should an illegal immigrant be able to get a law license and practice law in the United States? That is exactly what the State Bar of California argued earlier this year…

An illegal immigrant applying for a law license in California should be allowed to receive it, the State Bar of California argues in a filing to the state Supreme Court.

Sergio Garcia, 35, of Chico, Calif., has met the rules for admission, including passing the bar exam and the moral character review, and his lack of legal status in the United States should not automatically disqualify him, the Committee of Bar Examiners said Monday.

#7 More than 75 percent of the babies born in Detroit are born to unmarried women, yet it is considered to be “politically correct” to suggest that there is anything wrong with that.

#8 The University of Minnesota – Duluth (UMD) initiated an aggressive advertising campaign earlier this year that included online videos, billboards, and lectures that sought to raise awareness about “white privilege“.

#9 At one high school down in California, five students were sent home from school for wearing shirts that displayed the American flag on the Mexican holiday of Cinco de Mayo.

#10 Chris Matthews of MSNBC recently suggested that it is “racist” for conservatives to use the word “Chicago”.

#11 A judge down in North Carolina has ruled that it is unconstitutional for North Carolina to offer license plates that say “Choose Life” on them.

#12 The number of gay characters on television is at an all-time record high. Meanwhile, there are barely any strongly Christian characters to be found anywhere on television or in the movies, and if they do happen to show up they are almost always portrayed in a very negative light.

#13 House Speaker John Boehner recently stripped key committee positions from four “rebellious” conservatives in the U.S. House of Representatives. It is believed that this “purge” happened in order to send a message that members of the party better fall in line and support Boehner in his negotiations with Barack Obama.

#14 There is already a huge push to have a woman elected president in 2016. It doesn’t appear that it even matters which woman is elected. There just seems to be a feeling that “it is time” for a woman to be elected even if she doesn’t happen to be the best candidate.

#15 Volunteer chaplains for the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department have been banned from using the name of Jesus on government property.

#16 Chaplains in the U.S. military are being forced to perform gay marriages, even if it goes against their personal religious beliefs. The few chaplains that have refused to follow orders know that it means the end of their careers.

#17 All over the country, the term “manhole” is being replaced with the terms “utility hole” or “maintenance hole”.

#18 In San Francisco, authorities have installed small plastic “privacy screens” on library computers so that perverts can continue to exercise their “right” to watch pornography at the library without children being exposed to it.

#19 You will never guess what is going on at one college up in Washington state

A Washington college said their non-discrimination policy prevents them from stopping a transgender man from exposing himself to young girls inside a women’s locker room, according to a group of concerned parents.

#20 All over America, liberal commentators are now suggesting that football has become “too violent” and “too dangerous” and that it needs to be substantially toned down. In fact, one liberal columnist for the Boston Globe is even proposing that football should be bannedfor anyone under the age of 14.

DAVE MUSTAINE Does Not Understand The First Amendment Or How To Use Google

DaveMustaine

(Blabbermouth.com) One thing I’m sad about is that Megadeth is winding down their current tour. Why am I sad? It means there is less of a chance of frontman Dave Mustaine saying something incredibly stupid that will make me giggle and make some butthurt Dave fans call me biased.

In the last few weeks alone, Mustaine has spewed about not leaving the country although Obama was re-elected and then discussed secession, which is just the tip of the iceberg of all the stupid shit he’s said this year.

Today we learn that Dave doesn’t understand how the first amendment works.

At a recent concert in Salt Lake City, UT, Mustaine launched into another rant, starting by calling out people such as myself for calling him out…

“Anybody that knows me knows that I have a way of getting myself in trouble in that the First Amendment doesn’t apply to Dave Mustaine. Seems like the fuckers in the world can say whatever they want, but I say something, I get in trouble….”

First off, the first amendment gives you freedom of speech without persecution from the government. Secondly, saying people can’t call you out for being a jackass would infringe on those people’s first amendment rights, buddy. Third, just because no record label wants to deal with your bullshit anymore doesn’t mean you are being censored. (Sidenote: I’ve heard from a few sources at labels that Megadeth was sending feelers to that said he is no longer worth it). So you can say whatever you want, Dave, but don’t be shocked when people react with massive eyerolls.

Anyway, Dave continued…

“See, if I say something like, the president right now, who I won’t mention by name because I promised myself I would never say his name again, but that this guy has borrowed more money than since George Washington to George W.”

“What, are we stupid? Now, based on the thickness of a hundred-dollar bill, if you stacked one of those on top of another one, it would be 11,077 miles in the fucking atmosphere, the debt that this fucking country has right now because of this government. 11,077 miles’ worth of hundred-dollar bills up into the sky. And guess who has to pay that: you and me.”

“It’s time for our fucking revolution.”

Dave, I know you’re a big fan of Alex Jones and friends of his, but are you aware of Google? Maybe once in a while when you hear a bogus claim like this, you can try to do yourself a favor and fact check before sounding like a moron. Oh hey look, here is a nice cushy articlecompletely debunking your idiotic statement.

The sad thing about all of this, to me, is that Dave is still very much a great songwriter. A song off their most recent album, TH1RT3EN came up on random in my music playlist recently and I couldn’t help but give the devil his due. Dave still has it, musically, it’s just…whatever he’s talking about in-between songs is so terrible it turns me off to the whole thing. Get a grip, already!

Ok, now you can call me a biased asshole…

FBI and State Police Conduct Manhunt/Raid Against Prepper Angry Over Obama Reelection

(IntelHub) -Due to its close proximity to Washington DC, in recent years Maryland has become one of the worst police states in the country.

Last month, we reported on a botched FBI raid in Maryland, where unarmed teenagers were shot at simply for being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Then, just the other day in Baltimore, an activist and blogger had his house surrounded by police over a trumped-up charge that was over 3 years old.

Now, in a more rural area of Maryland, a man named Terry Porter became the target of a massive manhunt involving FBI and state police after being reported to be a“survivalist” with a “collection of guns” who outlined his anger over the presidential reelection to an undercover officer.

This situation apparently stemmed from an anonymous tip from someone who reported Terry to the police because he owned guns and invested in a bomb shelter.

Where this “anonymous” tip actually came from is still a mystery due to the fact that many of the neighbors in the area who were questioned by reporters have expressed support for Terry and have said that they are extremely offended by the tax dollars and police resources that were used to hunt down a nonviolent person.

It seems from all accounts that Mr. Porter is a nonviolent person who has come under federal suspicion simply for preparing himself and his family for any trouble that may occur in the future.

Sadly, AFTER the police begun to investigate the man, they found out that he had a 1992 felony drug conviction on his record which enabled them to be able to then attack his house with 150 armed officers.

This is not some doomsday maniac as the mainstream media would suggest, disasters happen all the time, and more often than not, people are unprepared just as we are seeing in the aftermath of Hurricane Sandy.

According to the initial local news report:

A Sharpsburg area man who was the subject of a massive search by police Thursday afternoon turned himself in to Maryland State Police on Friday and was charged with 14 firearms violations, according to the Washington County State’s Attorney’s Office and Sheriff Douglas W. Mullendore.

Terry Allen Porter, 46, of 4433 Mills Road, was being held on $75,000 bond Friday night at the Washington County Detention Center, according to a jail spokesperson.

State police issued a press release after 6 p.m. Friday that said Porter turned himself in at the Hagerstown Barrack at 9:30 a.m., and that he and his attorney met with investigators.

Police went to Porter’s home Friday and seized a rifle and a shotgun, the release said. That was in addition to two rifles and three shotguns recovered Thursday night, the release said.

The confirmation that Porter was at the detention center was the first acknowledgment that he was the subject of Thursday’s manhunt.

Earlier Friday, a day after FBI agents, Maryland State Police, Washington County Sheriff’s Office deputies, two special response units and others descended on an area south of Sharpsburg for a massive manhunt, authorities had little to say about what they were doing, why they were doing it and for whom they were searching.

After receiving complaints from the anonymous tipper, police sent in an undercover officer posing as a customer for the mans business.

A Sharpsburg man charged last week with illegal possession of firearms is a“doomsday prepper” who told an undercover Maryland State Police trooper about an underground bunker and surveillance cameras on his property, according to a charging document filed in Washington County District Court.

[…..]

A state police corporal went to Porter’s home Nov. 16, posing as a customer for the business Porter runs from his home, the charging document said. Porter got “very irritated” during a discussion of the recent presidential election and “openly admitted to being a prepper,” the document said.

From all accounts, Porter had been a law-abiding sentence for the last 20 years. An article by a local Maryland blogger confirmed this fact.

It is true that Porter had a 20-year-old drug conviction on his record (confirmed here by the Hagerstown Herald Mail) but apparently had no subsequent run-ins with the law.

He is legally not allowed to own a gun so he does have a legal problem, but that doesn’t justify the cost and scope of this massive operation.

Heather Hamilton, 35, who lives at 18809 Burnside Bridge Road, around the corner from Porter’s house, said Friday that a Maryland State Police trooper went to her home the day before to talk to her about what was going on and mentioned that it was regarding a man she had known since childhood.

“You had helicopters flying over, SWAT crews down here, excavation equipment was brought in, and armored vehicles,” she said.

“It was ridiculous for (the man), who would not hurt another person for anything. Unless you would attack him, he’s not going to go after anyone.”

She said she viewed the operation as “a big waste of taxpayer money.”

Another neighbor, Doug Bigelow, also outlined his support for Porter. “Surprised at what was going on, Bigelow said he always found his friend to live his life on the “straight and narrow.

Bigelow said he “would feel safe leaving his kids with the man.”

Basically, a man worried about the tyrannical Obama regime as well as a possible collapse of society was raided by at least 150 agents acting on initial information that the man was a survivalist.

The fact that 20 years before he had a drug conviction enabled the FBI to carry out a raid they would have never even considered if it wasnt for the fact that they knew that the man was preparing and was distrustful of the government. To say the raid was simply for illegal possession of firearms is to ignore all the facts of this horrific story.

Terry Porter was doing nothing illegal by preparing and basically made the mistake of being too public with his preparedness and dislike for Obama which apparently is now cause for a FBI investigation which could in turn lead to a raid in what has now become the modern American police state.

Global Governance Begins on December 14

(americanthinker.com) The International Telecommunications Union (ITU), an imprint of the UN, is holding its World Conference on International Telecommunications (WCIT) from December 3-14, 2012. The stated purpose of the WCIT is to update the UN’s “global treaty” on telecommunications to deal more directly and comprehensively with the internet. Knowing who controls the UN, it is not hard to see that a primary aim of the updated “treaty” will be to give credence to the regulation and monitoring of online activity in ways that are desirable to the (authoritarian) majority of member states.

Here is a portion of the ITU’s official explanation of the need for a new regulatory regime, in its Resolution 146:

[T]he International Telecommunication Regulations (ITRs) were last amended in Melbourne in 1988.

[T]he international telecommunications environment has significantly evolved, both from the technical and policy perspectives, and… it continues to evolve rapidly.

[A]dvances in technology have resulted in an increased use of IP-enabled infrastructure and relevant applications presenting both opportunities and challenges for ITU Member States and Sector Members.

[I]n order for ITU to maintain its pre-eminent role in global telecommunications, it must continue to demonstrate its capacity to respond adequately to the rapidly changing telecommunication environment.

[I]t is important to ensure that the ITRs [International Telecommunications Regulations] are reviewed and, if deemed appropriate, revised and updated in a timely manner in order to facilitate cooperation and coordination among Member States and to reflect accurately the relations between Member States, Sector Members, administrations and recognized operating agencies.

In case you missed a few classes of Regulatory Bureaucracy Speak 101, please allow me to translate:

Since we last updated our global telecommunications regulations, the internet, operating in a relatively unregulated environment, has grown by leaps and bounds, as human productive endeavors when left unregulated have an annoying tendency to do. Therefore, in order to keep this wildly successful communications network from getting any farther ahead of our regulatory apparatus, it is time to develop a strong, binding framework to limit internet growth, use, and activity in ways deemed necessary by those UN member states, such as China, Russia, and Iran, that are opposed on principle to unrestricted international communication, on the grounds that it tends to foster an informed and rebellious population.

In sum, authoritarian regimes with a vested interest in limiting public access to the outside world, or monitoring and censoring communications for “sensitive” content, are beginning to question whether the ITU is a sufficient guarantor of their control over their inmates with regard to global communication. If we do not act now to “demonstrate our capacity to respond adequately,” our “pre-eminent role in global telecommunications” — i.e., our role as facilitator of the statist status quo — will be challenged. In other words, if Vladimir thinks we are not serving his interests anymore, he will get angry, and no one wants to see Vladimir angry.

Is this translation of mine all just a lot of conservative fear-mongering about an innocent UN agency going about its daily business of fostering “supportive, transparent, pro-competitive, and predictable policies,” as Resolution 146 says?

Well, one easy way to check on that would be to read through the WCIT meeting’s official agenda. Unfortunately, that agenda, though linked on the ITU website, is password-protected to restrict access to members of the global bureaucracy. Specifically, the agenda may officially be read only by those government administrators, relevant apparatchiks, and contributing academics who are members of the Telecommunication Information Exchange Service. Yes, that is TIES — you could not invent a more suitable acronym for the “information service” of a global regulatory agency.

Internet users and providers, including even some, such as Google, that have a spotty history of resisting government encroachments into their industry, are expressing grave concerns about the ITU’s intentions. However, the ITU’s secretary-general, Hamadoun I. Touré, seeks to reassure us that this meeting of the UN’s telecommunications regulatory agency has nothing to do with regulating communication. Asked on Al-Jazeera why, given the extraordinary success of the internet as an unregulated domain, the ITU is choosing to write regulations now, he said:

The ITRs that is going to take place in Dubai is not about that. The ITRs is not about internet regulation. I’m very much surprised that all the debate is about this. The ITRs is revising the 1988 treaty that set the stage for the information society we are in today. But at the time, in 1988, it was only telephone communications, mainly, and back then, the settlement between operators was based on time, distance, and location. Today, we have a very significant growth of voice, video, and data, and therefore there is a need to fine tune the business model so that there is more investment in the infrastructure, to cope with the exponential growth in voice, video, and data traffic…. It’s not about internet freedom. Nobody today would dare to go against the freedom of the internet.

Lesson One on how to recognize a liar: if absolutely everything a man says is provably untrue, he is probably lying. (Merely ignorant people speak the truth occasionally, just by accident.)

“The ITRs” — that is, the International Communications Regulations — are “not about regulation.” So when we read, as in Resolution 146 above, that the International Telecommunications Regulations must be “revised and updated in a timely manner,” this revision and updating (of “Regulations”) is somehow unrelated to regulation. Well, that’s comforting.

The purpose of this conference — which the chief regulator, cutting to the chase, does not refer to by its actual name (WCIT), but by its primary objective, the ITRs that will be produced there — is to revise “the 1988 treaty that set the stage for the information society we are in today.” What a perfect self-revelation of the power-mad soul of a globalist regulator. The UN treaty on telecommunications, Touré claims, “set the stage” for the internet revolution in mass communications. Brilliant researchers, technological whiz kids, and adventurous entrepreneurs did not make it happen; UN bureaucrats did.

And we must put this absurd self-aggrandizement in the context of Touré’s very next sentence: “But at the time, in 1988, it was only telephone communications, mainly.” So the 1988 UN regulations “set the stage” for the internet boom, even though they had nothing to do with the internet. To be fair, this statement is undoubtedly true, though not in a way that Touré would ever concede: it was indeed the lack of UN regulations regarding the internet that made its exponential growth possible.

And this unfettered growth, of course — the sense that the internet is expanding “out of control” — is precisely the “challenge” that the new ITRs will be designed to address. Note, as well, how reminiscent Touré’s words are of another famous anti-freedom globalist, who, in his well-known “You didn’t build that” remarks, offered the following:

The internet didn’t get created on its own; government research created the internet, so that all the companies could make money off the internet.

By “on its own,” in that sentence, President Obama means “by individuals.” His point, like the ITU secretary-general’s, is that coercive regulatory authorities are ultimately responsible for the existence and success of the internet, as they are responsible for the existence and success of everything. This makes government the ultimate proprietor of all things, thus authorizing government to insert itself into these things at its own discretion.

Another Obamaesque point from Touré: the development of new communications technology creates “a need to fine tune the business model so that there is more investment in the infrastructure.” Market forces, you see, could never develop “infrastructure” to meet the needs of business expansion — rather, government, observing current conditions, must determine what people need, and make or arrange the appropriate “investments” to provide it. Again, this reinforces the notion of government as sole proprietor of the underlying conditions of commerce — that is, of the market itself. Government creates the terms and conditions, and then “allows” people to carry out their business on its well-regulated turf. The “free market,” the roads, the internet — all of these are, in the authoritarian’s view, “infrastructure,” and we all know that “infrastructure” is in the public domain. The need for “infrastructure” is now the left’s euphemistic argument for government regulation of everything.

The best part of Touré’s lying clinic, however, is saved for last: “Nobody today would dare to go against the freedom of the internet.” If a sixth grade naïf said such a thing, a responsible adult would smile kindly, and then gently explain that there are, sadly, many people in the world who do not believe men should be free. If the chief regulator of the UN’s telecommunications agency says it, you should feel like the humans in the movie Mars Attacks as the aliens recite their memorized English sentence — “Don’t run, we are your friends” — while zapping everyone in sight.

The UN agenda is dominated by national governments that certainly would, and do, dare to “go against the freedom of the internet.” (Ask a Chinese exchange student if she has a Facebook account, and see what response you get. Actually, don’t ask — those kids don’t need any added fear in their lives.) Of course Touré knows this. His explicit denial of the obvious proves him a (bad) liar. “Freedom of the internet,” as defined by the UN, has precisely the same validity and purpose as the word “Democratic” in the name Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.

So what is this all about? It is often said that the first task in a modern military occupation is to take control of the means of mass communication, thereby to control the dissemination of information. The internet, by virtue of its having spread throughout the world so quickly, and of its being largely immune to national boundaries, creates a special problem for authoritarian governments which are, in effect, occupying forces in their own nations.

Certain governments have taken many steps to curtail internet activity within their own borders, of course. The problem is that the very free nature of the internet itself tends to shine a bright spotlight on the oppressiveness of such national policies. Far preferable for such suppressors of speech, then, would be an “international treaty” reached by “global consensus” that creates a system of loopholes for the suppression of speech on grounds of “national security” and the “prevention of foreign interference in a sovereign nation’s political process.”

In short, suppression of undesirable political speech, both within and between nations, would be much easier and less subject to scrutiny if it could be undertaken with the imprimatur of a UN treaty full of deliberately vague language about “protecting the integrity of a nation’s self-determination,” for example. Furthermore, once such a treaty — i.e., set of regulations — becomes the agreed upon standard for all or most nations, its euphemisms will begin to sound more palatable and reasonable to an inattentive public. (“After all, it isn’t right that foreigners should be stirring up civil discord and anti-government sentiment, is it?”) Before you know it, today’s critics of the ITU’s agenda will be echoing John Boehner’s post-election capitulations on ObamaCare — “it’s the law of the land.”

No surprise, then, that the main impetus behind the implementation of new regulations, and the granting of greater authority to the ITU itself, comes from Russia and China. (See Declan McCullagh’s observations on this threat here, and L. Gordon Crovitz’ Wall Street Journal piece here.) Online fraud, spam, and issues of protecting public morals will all be used as convenient cover for creating international authority for national authoritarianism.

It seems likely that the new ITRs — ushered in under the guise of modernizing “infrastructure” — will have as their main purpose and effect the whitewashing of despotic suppression of free speech, monitoring of users, and restriction of users’ access to information not approved for dissemination by the state. These methods are already used by some governments without (official) UN approval. The formal go-ahead from UN headquarters, however, will make the job of crushing internet age resistance movements (think of Iran’s Green Revolution) much easier, by allowing the oppressive regime to file formal grievances against groups or governments that it deems to be violating its national sovereignty or undermining its political system.

This quiet UN takeover of the internet is the important first step in a new kind of occupation. The globalists, with the help of the re-elected Obama administration, are going to move forward quickly with their plans for what Al Gore and Herman van Rompuy call “global governance.” A key part of this process is the reduction of the world’s last defense against authoritarianism — the United States of America — to the status of just another mild-mannered vote at the UN. Enter Barack Obama, with his hyper-conciliation to the Muslim Brotherhood, his promise to Vladimir Putin to finish dismantling America’s defenses after his re-election, and his remaking of a prosperous constitutional republic as an economically doomed leftist regulatory state.

Just as hyper-regulation within a nation subverts representative government, by creating a panoply of bureaucratic directives that supervene upon changing electoral tides, so international hyper-regulation will have the effect of nullifying any transnational voice of unified dissent — specifically, any voice speaking on behalf of the free exchange of ideas.

The range of speech, both with regard to content and dissemination, will be curtailed by the ITU’s proposed regulations. That will be the point of these regulations. They will help authoritarians preserve their power, prevent the oppressed from organizing from a distance, and restrict the much needed influx of moral support from abroad.

Now, Mr. Obama, if you will just sign one more executive order, Agenda 21 in its entirety will become “the law of the land,” and the forced migration may proceed — gently at first, as we don’t want to startle anyone. But don’t worry, if the objections get too boisterous, we can always assert the national security provisions of the International Telecommunications Regulations to tamp things down a little. Those ITRs are proving very effective for normalizing conditions in China, Russia, and Iran. And your Department of Homeland Security has already anticipated this eventuality by introducing into its guidelines on domestic terrorism language identifying people who revere liberty as potential security threats.

In any case, as November 6 proved, at least 140 million American adults can be effectively subdued by repeatedly chanting, “Don’t run, we are your friends.”

Obama Covertly Signs Directive Authorizing Military to Control the Internet

(Occupy Corporatism) -Last week, the Senate failed to pass hurried cybersecurity legislation. To ensure privacy on the Web, the Electronic Communications Privacy Act was revised. Senator Harry Reid explained: “The bill that was and is the most important to the intelligence community and the Pentagon was just killed, and that was cybersecurity. Mr. President, I had a number of people come to me during the day and say ‘Are you going to allow relevant minutes on this?’ I said, ‘Sure.’ They said, ‘How about five?’ I said, ‘Fine.’ But Mr. President, whatever we do on this bill isn’t enough for the [U.S.] Chamber of Commerce. Not enough. So everyone should understand cybersecurity is dead for this Congress.”

Senators Lieberman and Collins concocted the “SECURE IT Act” that restricted the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) from new authority to govern cybersecurity and digital controls over privately owned power grids and internet service providers.

In another move by the Senate, the Federal Trade Commission was given jurisdiction (again) to fight internet fraud.

The Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) filed a Freedom of Information Act (FIOA) request to obtain a copy of Presidential Policy Directive 20 (PPD20) or the new cybersecurity declaration from the executive branch of our US gover nment.

Obama has outlined a protocol that explains procedures that enable the military industrial complex to prevent digital attacks from foreign nations, hackers and any other definable threat to national security by specifying “constitutes an “offensive” and a “defensive” action in the rapidly evolving world of cyberwar and cyberterrorism, where an attack can be launched in milliseconds by unknown assailants utilizing a circuitous route.”

It is said that PPD20 directs the military to take over the internet in the event a cyber-attack is acknowledged by the President. Obama has outlined a protocol that explains procedures that enable the military industrial complex to prevent digital attacks from foreign nations, hackers and any other definable threat to national security on the internet. This “secret law” allows the National Security Agency (NSA) and Pentagon to employ armed forces to ensure American cyber-infrastructure and digital communications.

In March, to convince Congress to vote for legislation (that was subsequently voted down) that would empower the DHS to protect the US government against cyber-attacks, Obama staged hacker attack to US infrastructure with the intention “to provide all senators with an appreciation for new legislative authorities that would help the U.S. government prevent and more quickly respond to cyber-attacks.”

A classified briefing on the “hypothetical cyber-attack against United States critical infrastructure networks” was held as well.

The focus of attack was:

• U.S. banks
• Power grids
• Telecommunications systems

The blame for the lack of cohesive cybersecurity is placed on public and private corporations because of their lack of cooperation with the federal government, according to Mark Weatherford, deputy undersecretary for cybersecurity of DHS. At a Security Innovation Network conference Weatherford asserts: “It’s not a technical issue. The governance of security is equally as important as the technology.”

However these systems are not connected to the internet and therefore that argument is moot. In fact, the power grid and public water systems “are rarely connected directly to the public internet. And that makes gaining access to grid-controlling networks a challenge for all but the most dedicated, motivated and skilled — nation-states, in other words.”

The NSA’s involvement in cybersecurity has been covert which makes Congressional legislation difficult because pin-pointing the NSA’s exact authority is nearly impossible.

The PPD20 is beyond an executive order. This is a declaration by the first American Dictator-in-Chief who plans to use military force to ensure over-reaching governmental control over the Web.

The UN has offered to assist sovereign countries in internet surveillance for anti-terrorism purposes. In a recently published report entitled “The Use of the Internet for Terrorist Purposes” (UITP), the UN claims that social media sites are used for terroristic schemes in terms of organization and recruitment; specifically Skype, Facebook, YouTube and Twitter.

The International Telecommunications Union (ITU), an extension of the UN, became the UN’s official move toward totalitarian control over the internet. And in December of this year, Dubai, India will be hosting their conference which will decide the globalist stance on the free flow of information on the Web.

Hamadoun Toure, the ITU secretary-general, stated that: “When an invention becomes used by billions across the world, it no longer remains the sole property of one nation, however powerful that nation might be.”

The UN’s ITU proclaims that because the internet is a “global entity” that the UN should have jurisdiction over it, manage its abilities according to global UN standards and engage restrictions that could be installed at the fundamental level of the internet to prevent any infractions of international mandates. The UN wants to include the domain-name system along with the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), which is currently a privately owned US non-profit organization.

It is expected that the ITU would begin a sort of taxation that international telecommunications corporations would be expected to pay for the ITU’s handling of web traffic as it flows across the world. ITU members would be privy to the new-found cash flow that would be in the hands of international governance; which could begin to line the pockets of the UN in record time.

In October, Janet Napolitano, Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) claims that unspecified reports coming from US financial institutions assert that hackers are “actively” attacking them. Napolitano said: “Right now, financial institutions are actively under attack. We know that. I’m not giving you any classified information… I will say this has involved some of our nation’s largest institutions. We’ve also had our stock exchanges attacked over the last [few] years, so we know… there are vulnerabilities.”