FROM the Telegraph

Steve Jobs, Eric Schmidt and Mark Zuckerberg to meet Barack Obama

Steve Jobs, Eric Schmidt and Mark Zuckerberg will be among the Silicon Valley executives at a private meeting with Barack Obama later today, according to reports.

The US President is flying to the West Coast this afternoon to discuss his budget and technology policy plans with business leaders including the Apple, Google and Facebook CEOs.

"The President and the business leaders will discuss our shared goal of promoting American innovation, and discuss his commitment to new investments in research and development, education and clean energy,” the White House said.

News of Jobs' attendance comes less than 24 hours after unverified claims by a US celebrity gossip magazine that his health has sharply detriorated. The 55-year-old, who was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer in 2004 and received a liver transplant in 2009, has been on medical leave from Apple since mid-January.

He was photographed entering a cancer clinic in Palo Alto, close to his firm's headquarters in Cupertino.

The Obama adminstration has close ties to Silicon Valley, especially to Google, with many of the firm's former employees in policy roles.

READ MORE

Lots of talk about the "internet kill switch" is afoot, just a few common sense things to ponder!!!

1) The names of the people that proposed the bill, Rockefellar, Feinstein, Kerry, Reid, Levin, Bingerman, so we know its bullshit right from the get go!!!

2) The US military (ARPANET) invented the internet. They didn't tell anyone for 20 years, and never tell anyone shit about what they do until they have done it. The fact is, if we ever were in such a situation that would truly warrant the shutting down of the internet in its entirety, they could do whatever they wanted at that point anyway without any legislation. A simple declaration of martial law would accomplish this.

3) The internet is a collection of private networks which cannot (as far as we know) be entirely shut down, in Egypt this was easy to do as there are few ISPs routed through a central network. In this scenario pulling the plug works wonders, however had Egypt the same level of control over the content of the internet (western business interests working with governments) they likely would not have done this. I personally think the severing of internet access was merely a bad cop/ good cop ploy that will have Egyptians lining up to vote in some pro-corporate western backed neo-liberal that will merely hand out food rations with a smiley face on, have his own facebook fan page or some shit, but what do I know!

4) Why would they tell you (us) this anyways? As I have said they never tell you things until years if not decades after the fact, so what is this but a forerunner to a more sinister plot? As if this is something they just thought about after the Israeli made Stuxnet worm infected critical Iranian infrastructure (?) and are now taking more seriously in light of Egypt doing the same thing? Yet Obama has openly condemned this censorship in Egypt? Yet the bill has brought back to the table because of these events??? Mixed messages indeed...

5) Is there a TV kill switch? A phone line kill switch? Nope. One purpose of this bill is to create a seamless knit between the private companies that run the internet and the long since sold out government, virtual fascism. Its not the internet shutting down that people should fear, its this unification of public and private services (under the umbrella of private interests) that will damn us in the long run.

6) Calling it the "internet kill switch" is a media exaggeration, instead it will work itself out to some coordinated protocol to be implemented in times of "national emergencies" with the help of ISPs.  Similiar to the fusion centers popping up across the US, basically integrating the private and the sold out public sectors, so when shit does hit the fan everyone plays ball.

7) What most people refer to as the internet is usually a collection of a few websites but not actually the internet, like Facebook, Google, twitter and their favorite blog usually powered by blogger.com. With increasing corporate consolidation of the internet (technopoly) it only becomes EASIER (not harder) to police the web, and that factor has only grown since the Internets onset, and is on track to continue. So most people do not know what the actual genetic nature of the internet is, and simply equate it with the most phenotypical, corporate, mainstream websites (which are really on par with TV in terms of their effectiveness in prompting meaningful social change), outspoken 24/7 anonymous avatards or not, these people (myself included) are foolishly embedded in the Smartgrid (no puns!)! No matter how damning the nature of the material posted on Facebook for instance, it nonetheless was posted on Facebook, (big brothers book!) thereby encouraging that which it criticizes on the most fundamental of levels. I have been well aware of this paradox for years, but press on as no one seems to give a shit LOL!!!

8) There are countless ways to shut off the internet without a centralized kill switch, one way is for the government to simply shut down Google, most people will be so put off to have to use the utterly useless (can't find shit) Bing that they will just say fuck it and go outside!!!

9) Why would they shut off something that enables them to 1) Circulate disinformation 2) Gauge and manipulate public opinion 3) Initiate and track culture trends (by pressing the go viral button) 4) monitor everything we do? They thing is they won't. Those are all the elements that will be preserved, everything that keeps us dumbed down, falsely confident and compliant will be retained, this bill simply makes official the integration of public and private which in the case of a national emergency would simply be commandeered by the government anyways.

10) Its more than likely that this whole internet kill switch business is a forerunner to more draconian legislation's, something to the extent of an "emergency internet" which disseminates pro-establishment info in times of civil unrest. It would be kind of like a mass 'safe mode' where access to bandwidth is rationed to the best bullshitters. The fact is you cannot "shut off the internet" as easy as you can control it.

Obviously this CNN MSM article is trying to soften people to the upcoming changes that will smoke out all anonymous avatards on facebook. First they make an offer, then they make an option, then they make it mandatory. Between the information on your smartphone and its relationship with your facebook account you will literally be on digital lockdown, the panopticon is nearly complete and not a gun was needed to seal the deal!!! All in the name of universal accessibility and convenience!!! YAY FREEDUMB!!!

FROM CNN


(CNN) -- Facebook wants your address and mobile phone number.
But it's not sure exactly how to ask.

It's a complicated digital courtship, particularly because Facebook doesn't just want this data for itself -- it wants to "share" this info with all of its friends, which in this case happens to be app developers (think FarmVille, Compare People and Where I've Been -- all that non-Facebook stuff that pops up in your news feed).

That may sound confusing, but the debate over this Facebook phone-number-sharing -- which caused Facebook to backtrack a bit from the request after bloggers and users expressed outrage this weekend -- essentially comes down to two related questions:

Why does Facebook want your phone number and address?

And, based on what you think about that answer, is it in your interest to hand this personal information to the network?
Let's start with the first question.

Facebook -- perhaps obviously -- doesn't want to call you to chat, or stop by your house for tea. So what's its motive for asking for these personal details?

The social network says this info helps app developers create programs and games and little social widgets that make Facebook more fun and useful.

Potential examples: A travel app could send you text messages if your flight is going to be late; a shopping app wouldn't have to ask you where to send a gift you bought -- it would just send it to your default Facebook address.

In both of these instances, the advantage is convenience. You don't have to retype your address every time you use a shopping app. This is somewhat similar to how many internet users deal with Amazon or iTunes. You save your address and even credit card number so that purchases require one click.
READ MORE

-FAD October 18th

The above article has went mega viral, after telling anyone with half a brain what they already knew. So whats the spin? After all it is on Fox news or more precisely mainstream news, what concern is it of theirs, the same people who call you radicals when your protesting the rich, to preserve your rights? Always think about that whenever they seem to be publishing something that is coming to your defense, it is most definetly the oppositte intention at work, all part of the way the use our rational paranoia of them to irrationally fear one another.

The purpose of above article is to get you to communicate less with one another about critical issues, and self-censor out of fear that someone on your list is watching you. This is the synopticon: an oppressive system in which every actor within the system acts as a monitor for that system, simply of fear that they too are being monitored.

Any monitoring done to the average activist can be done retroactively by accessing your social media history, they do not need to have actual people on their monitoring you personally, especially if you are still circulating fox news articles (!!!!), I don't think you have much too worry about, so long as you are flipping their disinfo they are OK. They want 500 million people to think that the FBI (an agency of a few thousand), has this place on lockdown and that mainstream media cares (LOL), the illuminati (rich people) are descendent of aliens and omnipotent (LOL) when the reality is they have algorithms to ensure who gets heard, their censorship is proactive, they don't need to censor you after, they can make sure that few EVER HEAR A WORD YOU SAY. And if they were on your list, they would mostly come in the form of provocateurs, in that they would likely try to blend in, and "like" alot of the stuff you post, you keep your friends close and your enemies closer. It also fuels the privacy paradox.

-Fad