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.

PREAMBLE TO POPULAR SCIENCE ARTICLE (BELOW)

If you had a machine that would monitor everyone in the world 24/7 that allowed you a real time statistical breakdown of every trend, fad and social interaction, would you turn it off if you were trying to extend your influence on the masses? And if you were going to make a kill switch do you think that you would be obligated to tell any of your slaves? Considering you tell them nothing anyway? Its doubtful!!!

They will never turn off the internet, because when that happens people are gonna get moving!!! Its like a television kill switch, they may threaten but would they ever be foolish enough to disconnect people thereby de-zombifying them, forcing them into the streets for answers, where they can meet people and organize beyond the virtual world with the knowledge they have amassed. Its all or none with the internet, once they plugged us in, they knew they had to keep us plugged in, and never let us free with the schizophrenic blend of ideas we have acquired from here!! I know some people still believe that the internet empowers the common man and gives everyone a voice and all that bullshit, however insofar as it it provides a universal medium for communication it is also potentially manipulating. A good example is history, since the Internets onset things have gotten exponentially worse!!! The internet itself has been monopolized by a handful of corporate interests, shill brigadiers, phony revolutionaries and hacktivists, social dissent can be easily controlled and steered with the push of a button.

THE SPIN

What they are preparing people for is some kind of hyper-regulated/ emergency internet. Like a system of emergency lights that provides a bear minimum of service, minus all the cultural flare and any white noise which may contradict whichever farce they orchestrate. They want to retain the monitoring aspect of the internet and get rid of the rest!So I am thinking they are psychologically grooming people to accept a bear bones style grid that they will propose and implement after the next big false flag cyber attack as a means to "free up bandwidth and ensure security" and it will be green (!!!), stripped of all social discourse and solely for the purpose of social control. I am certain they now have mined so much data on people that open-season is almost over, they let everyone tweet for a few years, write all their opinions on here so when the roundup begins it will be a systematic cull.



FROM POPULAR SCIENCE


Dropped Connection Turning off the Internet could shut down financial networks, and it wouldn't be easy to turn them back on

Jamie Sneddon

The last time someone could shut down the Internet was probably in 1969, when it consisted of two computers. But in recent years, concerned with the possibility of a “cyberattack,” Congress has been exploring such an option.

In 2009, senator Jay Rockefeller sponsored a bill to give the president the right to “order the disconnection” of “critical infrastructure information systems or networks.” That went nowhere, but now there’s Senate bill 3480, the Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act of 2010. As its sponsor, Senator Joe Lieberman, told CNN, the bill will allow for the president to order Internet service providers to “disconnect the American Internet from all traffic coming in from another foreign country.”

Constructing such a switch would be extremely difficult. Borders are porous. Data packets originating in, say, Iran or China can enter the U.S. in many different ways—via satellite or submarine cable or packet radio, or routed through other countries. And packets can be “spoofed,” or assigned a forged IP address, which means there’s no foolproof method to be sure which packets are from home and which from abroad.

Even if it were possible to physically sever the entire U.S. telecommunications system from the rest of the world (and given enough time and money, and the acceptance of a significantly slower Internet, anything could be done), hackers could immediately create a work-around. Consider: Before the Dutch police shut it down last November, the Bredolab botnet commanded an army of 30 million virus-infected zombie computers to send spam. It did so with just over 140 command-and-control servers in the Netherlands, leased through a hosting provider. The man arrested in the case was Armenian. In this era of cloud computing, when anyone from anywhere can rent servers, including American ones, by the hour, a kill switch would be useless.



READ MORE

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

FROM CBS NEWS


Establishment Eyeing Internet ID for Americans

STANFORD, Calif. - President Obama is planning to hand the U.S. Commerce Department authority over a forthcoming cybersecurity effort to create an Internet ID for Americans, a White House official said here today.

It's "the absolute perfect spot in the U.S. government" to centralize efforts toward creating an "identity ecosystem" for the Internet, White House Cybersecurity Coordinator Howard Schmidt said.

That news, first reported by CNET, effectively pushes the department to the forefront of the issue, beating out other potential candidates including the National Security Agency and the Department of Homeland Security. The move also is likely to please privacy and civil liberties groups that have raised concerns in the past over the dual roles of police and intelligence agencies.

The announcement came at an event today at the Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research, where U.S. Commerce Secretary Gary Locke and Schmidt spoke.

The Obama administration is currently drafting what it's calling the National Strategy for Trusted Identities in Cyberspace, which Locke said will be released by the president in the next few months. (An early version was publicly released last summer.)

"We are not talking about a national ID card," Locke said at the Stanford event. "We are not talking about a government-controlled system. What we are talking about is enhancing online security and privacy and reducing and perhaps even eliminating the need to memorize a dozen passwords, through creation and use of more trusted digital identities."

The Commerce Department will be setting up a national program office to work on this project, Locke said.

Details about the "trusted identity" project are unusually scarce. Last year's announcement referenced a possible forthcoming smart card or digital certificate that would prove that online users are who they say they are. These digital IDs would be offered to consumers by online vendors for financial transactions.

Schmidt stressed today that anonymity and pseudonymity will remain possible on the Internet. "I don't have to get a credential if I don't want to," he said. There's no chance that "a centralized database will emerge," and "we need the private sector to lead the implementation of this," he said.

READ MORE

FROM ABC NEWS

Kinect Sex Game Offers Interactive Porn
Sex Simulation Company thriXXX Launches Demo YouTube Video of First Kinect Sex Game

The hands-free gaming system may have been intended to get people off the couch for some good and wholesome family fun, but an adult gaming company has found a way to use it for interactive porn.

thriXXX, a sex simulation gaming company based in Austria, on Wednesday announced that it had released a demo video showing how the Kinect controller can be used as an interface for a sex game.

"It became another avenue for us to explore the game," said Brad Abram, vice president of business development for thriXXX. "We didn't know where this was going to go but publicity yesterday [Wednesday] brought our five servers down to their knees."


Abrams said the company, which sells 3D interactive sex games like "3D Sexvilla," "Fetish3D" and "3DLesbian," started thinking about a Kinect-enabled game about a year ago, but decided to take a wait-and-see approach. Given the interest expressed in just the past two days, he said the company expects to release a working version of the demo technology in April or May 2011.

Hackers Find Creative, New Ways to Use Kinect
Kinect's depth sensor and cameras read a players arm, leg and body motions to render keyboards, joysticks and other kinds of gaming controllers totally unnecessary. The immersive experience apparently is so popular that Microsoft said it sold one million devices in the first month they were on the market.

Drawn to the potential in a $150 device outfitted with high-tech, high-power equipment, a community of hackers started pushing the limits of the device to make the Kinect do things it wasn't intended for. Buzz about the possibility of Kinect sex quickly surfaced, but thriXXX is the first actually to demonstrate a working sex game.


READ  MORE

FROM THE LA TIMES

YouTube is letting users decide on terrorism-related videos

The company has been under fire from lawmakers for refusing to prescreen militant speeches and propaganda videos. Now users can mark such uploads for removal.By Brian Bennett, Tribune Washington BureauReporting from Washington — Nudity. Sexual activity. Animal abuse. All are reasons YouTube users can flag a video for removal from the website. Add a new category: promotes terrorism.

YouTube and its parent company, Google, have been criticized by lawmakers for refusing to prescreen militant speeches and propaganda videos that have been cited in more than a dozen terrorism investigations over the last five years.

But rather than submit to policies that many argue would amount to an erosion of 1st Amendment rights, particularly in an open-access environment such as the Internet, YouTube is taking a decidedly more democratic path — let the customers decide.

The approach puts YouTube in the middle of a debate over whether it is possible to protect free speech and deny militants a powerful recruitment tool — slick videos glorifying jihad that reach into the laptops and minds of disaffected young Americans.

After years of calling on YouTube to take down content produced by Islamic extremists, Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) called the new flagging protocols a "good first step toward scrubbing mainstream Internet sites of terrorist propaganda."

"But it shouldn't take a letter from Congress — or in the worst possible case, a successful terrorist attack — for YouTube to do the right thing," said Lieberman, whose staff has met with YouTube officials on the issue.

Yet the new category also is "potentially troubling," said George Washington University law professor Jeffrey Rosen, because the phrase "promotes terrorism" is more subject to interpretation than the longstanding language in the YouTube guidelines that specifically forbids material that incites others to commit violence.

READ MORE

*Zen Gardner deserves applause for the first portion of this write up that can be viewed in full here, they have an excellent analysis of the wikileaks nonsense, one in which we all have known for some time. He kills it at the end with the illuminati blah blah blah, but its solid that point.

by Zen Gardner

Think about it. Where is this seemingly staged Wikileaks furor taking us? While we participate in digging into the juicy tidbits of information that incriminate just about anybody and everybody, where is it all going?
Lessons of 9/11

While 9/11 served as a wake up call to those awake and aware enough to see the obvious demolitions and misinformation and resultant “Pearl Harbor” effect, most of the world fell for it. And now people are literally bending over, as in airport ‘screenings’, to the onslaught of police state fascism worldwide. It’s staggering. In fact, it’s Orwellian. The armies, police and private sector are at war with the vague concept of terrorism – an unbeatable enemy in a war that can be drawn out indefinitely and fought in any arena necessary.

And what was the result of this declared war on terrorism? Not a war on terror, but an increase in fear and terror, all to justify the economic, social and political clampdown that has followed.

What will the Wikileaks debacle herald?

You guessed it–the last bastion of freedom of information and expression, a free Internet, will topple. After all, if information is now the enemy, we must carefully police any and every aspect of this dangerous medium–all for the safety and protection of ‘we the people’.
Oh, we’ll still have the Internet, just like you can still fly. You’ll just have to be on the “approved” list, screened, stamped, zapped, mugged and molested if you want to get “on the net”. No biggie. Thanks Julian–job well done.

Warning Signs
#1. Wikileaks—WAY too approved and publicized. Every TV and cable network, press worldwide, official recognition from every level of government. Heck, he even does a TED talk!  Where’s anyone else trying to expose the agenda? Only Julian. Hmmm.

#2. Biggie: This supposed system fighter says the 9/11 truth issue is “a distraction”. Mustn’t step on your bosses’ toes now, should we Julian..  Very suspicious if you ask me.
#3. Wikileaks and Assange’s sketchy background:

The WikiLeaks website first appeared on the Internet in December 2006.[15][16] The site claims to have been “founded by Chinese dissidents, journalists, mathematicians and start-up company technologists, from the US, Taiwan, Europe, Australia and South Africa”.[5] The creators of WikiLeaks have not been formally identified.[17] It has been represented in public since January 2007 by Julian Assange and others. Assange describes himself as a member of WikiLeaks’ advisory board.[18] (Wikipedia)

Also, Assange reportedly wrote for both the New York Times and the Economist which is fishy as well–not a real enlightened or ‘alternative’ mindset. His mysterious persona also plays well to the Wikileaks furtive image so people won’t expect to know too much, which also is very ‘convenient’ for keeping anything hidden.

[NOTE: There doesn't have to be deliberate, conscious involvement in some agenda on Wikileaks' part, but it helps. He, they, could be 'useful idiots' whose program has been conveniently co-opted by the controllers to serve their purpose. Either way, look for the pattern and the effects.]

#4. Watch the hype: There’s a growing crescendo of anger and hate that is now being whipped up–to the point that Assange is being called a new kind of terrorist–and more disturbingly, and as expected, the comparison is now being drawn between Assange and Bin Laden:

Notice also how we’ve been hearing about Wikileaks’ exploits for a few years now, giving us time to make the connection between it and sensational and ‘destructive informational terrorism’. Similarly we heard about Osama through the Yemen and Nairobi attacks being attibuted to him, imprinting his “brand” on the collective mind which led to the foregone phony conclusion that he had masterminded the 9/11 attacks.

Ah, ‘But what about these apparent exposures? Would they attack their own?’

Could all these serious indictments against their own just be a deflecting smokescreen to hide the real purpose? Sure worked last time. So why wouldn’t they risk taking down some of their own to give this psychological operation credibility?

ZEN GARDNER