2010-07-15

Lieberman’s Model For America: Purging The Internet of Dissent

Lieberman’s Model For America: Purging The Internet of Dissent
http://www.prisonplanet.com/liebermans-model-for-america-purging-the-internet-of-dissent.html/print/

Posted By admin On July 15, 2010 @ 5:03 am

The Chinese system has nothing to do with “war” and everything to do with political oppression
Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com [1]
Thursday, July 15, 2010

When Senator Joe Lieberman attempted to justify draconian legislation that would provide President Obama with a figurative kill switch to shut down parts of the Internet, he cited the Chinese system of Internet policing as model which America should move towards.

(VN:  you can thank Rahm and Nancy for Leiberscum still being in office and doing their dirty work for them.  I think  we should appeal to the Americans living in Conn to do a recall for his even suggesting violation of our 1st amendment rights without going through the amendment process for ridding the BOR of that particular right, but then he and his buddies have never let the "law" bother them, have they?)
Given the fact that Lieberman seeks to mimic the Chinese system as the goal of his Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act [2], should it concern us that the Chinese government routinely orders Twitter and Facebook-like services to “purge sites of politically “sensitive” words and expressions,” as the Financial Times reports [3] today?

“Right now China, the government, can disconnect parts of its Internet in case of war and we need to have that here too,” Lieberman told CNN’s Candy Crowley last month [4]. http://www.prisonplanet.com../lieberman-china-can-shut-down-the-internet-why-cant-we.html

However, China’s “war” is not against foreign terrorists or hackers, it’s against people who dare to use the Internet to express dissent against government atrocities or corruption. China’s system of Internet policing is about crushing freedom of speech and has nothing to do with legitimate security concerns as Lieberman well knows.

It’s a system concentrated around state oppression of any individual or group that seeks to use the Internet to draw attention to political causes frowned upon by the authorities.

China has exercised its power to shut down the Internet, something that Lieberman wants to introduce in the U.S., at politically sensitive times in order to stem the flow of information about government abuse [5] http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSPEK340617  of its citizens. During the anti-government riots which occurred in July 2009, the Chinese government completely shut down the Internet across the entire northwestern region of Xinjiang for days. In several regions, the authorities completely cut off the Internet for nearly a year [6], http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5ifncCt6BaacPu87xIkt9Ep_5WKEA  with many areas only now slowly starting to come back online. Major news and discussion portals used by the Muslim Uighurs in the area remain blocked. Similarly, Internet access in parts of Tibet is routinely restricted as part of government efforts to pre-empt and neutralize unrest.[7]

Twitter, Facebook and Youtube are all banned in China and even sanitized government approved versions of these websites are now being shut down for long periods of time so that they can “remove all politically sensitive content under orders from Chinese internet authorities”.

Censorship has intensified in recent weeks after a micro-blogger began to expose the fact that many government officials, executives and judges had lied about obtaining degrees from prestigious universities. The government responded to the embarrassment by ordering websites to temporarily go into “maintenance” mode while they removed the pertinent material. What this has to do with fighting a “war,” as Lieberman claims, is anyone’s guess.

The Chinese system that Lieberman wants to bring to the United States is not only about censoring material critical of the state, it’s about identifying those who post it and thereby creating a chilling atmosphere that discourages others from exercising free speech in fear that they might be the next victims of the thought police. News websites in China now require users to register their true identities [8] comments.

This move towards abolishing Internet anonymity and creating a virtual ID card is a key centerpiece of Lieberman’s cybersecurity agenda.

This strategy revolves around [9], http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/f416e31e-80af-11df-be5a-00144feabdc0.html  “The creation of a system for identity management that would allow citizens to use additional authentication techniques, such as physical tokens or modules on mobile phones, to verify who they are before buying things online or accessing such sensitive information as health or banking records.”

Only with this government-issued “token” will Internet users be allowed to “able to move from website to website,” a system not too far removed from what China proposed and rejected for being too authoritarian.

If you value Internet freedom, if you don’t want the web in the United States to be transformed into an imitation of the frustratingly slow, censored and policed Chinese version, and if you understand how whistleblowers should be protected and provided with the tools they need to expose government corruption, call your Senators [10] http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm  and demand they vote against Lieberman’s Internet kill switch bill.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Article printed from Prison Planet.com: http://www.prisonplanet.com/
URL to article: http://www.prisonplanet.com/liebermans-model-for-america-purging-the-internet-of-dissent.html

URLs in this post:
[1] Prison Planet.com: http://www.prisonplanet.com/
[2] Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act: http://hsgac.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=4ee63497-ca5b-4a4b-9bba-04b7f4cb0123
[3] Financial Times reports: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/25cb6340-8f1e-11df-a4de-00144feab49a.html
[4] Lieberman told CNN’s Candy Crowley last month: http://www.prisonplanet.com../lieberman-china-can-shut-down-the-internet-why-cant-we.html
[5] at politically sensitive times in order to stem the flow of information about government abuse: http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSPEK340617
[6] authorities completely cut off the Internet for nearly a year: http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5ifncCt6BaacPu87xIkt9Ep_5WKEA
[7] Image: http://infowars-shop.stores.yahoo.net/inemnewwoord.html
[8] News websites in China now require users to register their true identities: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/sep/06/china-websites-real-name-registration
[9] This strategy revolves around: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/f416e31e-80af-11df-be5a-00144feabdc0.html
[10] call your Senators: http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm
Click here to print.
Copyright © 2008 PrisonPlanet.com. All rights reserved.



The article is reproduced in accordance with Section 107 of title 17 of the Copyright Law of the United States relating to fair-use and is for the purposes of criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research.

2 comments:

American Action Report said...

As a whole-systems thinker, I have more questions on this issue than answers.
Advocates of Lieberman's bill say that the kill switch is needed in times or "war," which would include cyber attacks. Already the meaning of the word "war" has been twisted to include an abstract noun such as terror. Now they want to use the word to include annoyances from cyberspace. Is it a Humpty Dumpty bill in which a word can mean whatever those in power say it means?
Then there's the question of the presumed necessity of shutting down "portions" of the Internet, holding up China as a model to follow. We're given what may be a false choice: either the powers Lieberman's bill would grant or no defense at all.
That leads us to several questions. What form might these hypothetical cyber attacks take? What do we now have to manage the situation? Is it enough? If not, what would we actually need?
Asking the open-ended question, "What would we need" is not the same thing as surrendering to the Hobson's choice of surrendering our liberties to foreign enemies or surrendering our liberty to domestic enemies.
As I'm not a computer geek, I have no answers. I have only these questions? Answers, anyone?

Vatic Master said...

thanks, good thoughts and questions. First of all, there is an old saying and I think it holds well for today as it did in the old days. "If it isn't a problem, then don't fix it". When did we ever have major cyber attacks other than from mossad or our own governement???

I believe they are afraid of "resistance" by our citizens to their increased repression. Also remember, the Afghani's brought down drones using cyber attacks, but not here in this country. However, we now illegally have drones flying over America as if we were the enemy. So, some cyber attacks, if we are an occupied country, might be needed.

As for Lieberscum, he is an Israeli, not an American by action, thoughts and deeds, so whatever he does is always suspect anyway. He is like the ADL and SPLC and that is to try and control those with guns who are mostly in the south and west. So they want to make sure they cannot talk or communicate with each other. Also if the government attacks a part of our country, they do not want that part telling the rest of the country what is going on and my guess is that is what Leiberscum is more worried about than anything else.