Big Brother Watch: Tenet calls for killing internet freedom

Did you miss this story like I did?

Evidently in a speech last week for government managers--but barred to the press--Tenet explicitly called for the era of internet freedom to come to an end.

The money quotes:

"I know that these actions would be controversial in this age where we still think the Internet is a free and open society with no control or accountability," he added. "But, ultimately, the Wild West must give way to governance and control."

The way the Internet was built might be part of the problem, he said. Its open architecture allows Web surfing, but that openness makes the system vulnerable...Access to networks like the World Wide Web might need to be limited to those who can show they take security seriously"

More below:

I rarely write diaries but this has stunned me and demands a response.

Evidently allowing 9/11 to happen wasn't enough of a stain on this incompetent yet powerful man's career. He's now conceiving of transforming the Internet into a militarized zone with identity checkpoints and monitored content. All in the name of security. That is not a tin-foil interpretation, that is what he is actually clearly proposing. (The tin-foil comes in when I think to myself that the GOP would benefit from stemming the tide of Leftist organizing and fundraising on the internet.)

I suggest you read the linked articles and get your head around what George Tenet is actually saying. It is shocking and this story needs to grow some legs NOW.

Linked articles:
here
here
here

Slashdot discussion here.

Anyways, you should be aware that this trial balloon is being floated. This is what they are thinking about and it looks crazy to me. Does it look crazy to you too or am I overreacting?

Ideas for responses? Is it even technologically feasible to put the World Wide Web on "lockdown" in America? I'd like to hear a Kos discussion on this matter.

•  Tenet can say what he likes, BUT

  it cannot overrule the Constitution of our free society, in the name of safety.

  Our forefather's warned of such sophistry.

  BTW, what's the point of fighting the enemy of free societies when we act just like the enemy?  

  by Einsteinia on Mon Dec 06, 2004 at 10:43:18 AM PDT

  •  So explain why the PATRIOT Act

    ... hasn't been declared unconstitutional.

    by admiralh on Mon Dec 06, 2004 at 11:40:21 AM PDT

    •  several parts of it have...

      i don't think any of the cases has made it to SCOTUS, but i could be wrong.  anyhoo, there have been at least three lawsuits wherein the terms of the patriot act used in the prosecution have been deemed unconstitutional.

      by Cedwyn on Mon Dec 06, 2004 at 12:02:48 PM PDT

  •  Constitution

    You mean a free society like one where the FBI spies on political and religious groups.

    Or one where "enemy combatants" are not considered POWs or regular criminals and are put indefinitely at an offshor military base.

    Or one that can check what you get at the library and doesn't allow the library to tell you that it happened.

    by Sedge on Mon Dec 06, 2004 at 11:44:17 AM PDT

    •  Good, Point that's why it's not inconceivable

      that the Bushitco might just end sporting the summer line of Florida orange jumpsuits.

      In the meantime, we can still overturn this election.  We until January 6th for ONE person within Congress to set forth an investigation based on "reasonable suspicion" of vote fraud, and, thus, delay the confirmation of the presidency.

      by Einsteinia on Mon Dec 06, 2004 at 12:56:24 PM PDT

  •  Unfortunately I cannot agree

    There's a lot of lip service and reverence to the constitution in our national political dialogue--but in day to day practice the bill of rights is routinely ignored in this country in the service of "security concerns". Searches and seizures. Drug laws and Prohibition.

    It bears remembering that marijuana was legal at one time in this country. And that there was no income tax. Don't fool yourself, important norms and "freedoms" of a society can change drastically.

    by Tropicana on Mon Dec 06, 2004 at 12:12:56 PM PDT

    •  The income tax

      was established by a constitutional amendment. That means it had to pass the hardest test any statute could but subject to before going into law. That's a far cry from the Patriot act that many legislatures didn't even read before voting "yay" on.

      by Goldfish on Mon Dec 06, 2004 at 02:41:17 PM PDT

      •  Since the repubs

        took over, there are very few bills that the Congress or Senators read before they pass.  Debate isn't allowed.

        by glitterscale on Mon Dec 06, 2004 at 04:42:57 PM PDT

        •  Hence my point

          That the income tax amendment is not a compareable situation to the current one.

          by Goldfish on Mon Dec 06, 2004 at 04:46:59 PM PDT

  •  Tenet can say what he likes, BUT

    the WWW is an internationally distributed, massively redundant network...  block what, where, and how? Look how successful China has(n't) been in blocking access.

    by wickerman26 on Mon Dec 06, 2004 at 12:32:32 PM PDT

•  Diaried before..

  ...by my FIRST diary, in fact..which I quickly found had already been diaried. Links to other Kos diaries in my first comment.

  http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/12/3/203434/877

  by Recluse on Mon Dec 06, 2004 at 10:57:33 AM PDT

•  Safety from what? Hackers?

  OK, I take security seriously. I swear. If i see a hacker hacking into my machine, I promise to...

  by upstate NY on Mon Dec 06, 2004 at 11:37:56 AM PDT

  •  Good question

    As a communication tools among plotters, I can imagine the internet has some serious advantages. On the other hand, cell phones are probably equally useful. To say nothing of just plain old transportation for messengers. Or the postal service.

    Another stated fear is of coordinated "attacks" on financial and other public infrastructure. I am curious to hear informed opinions about whether real havok could be achieved.

    Perhaps there is some reality to these concerns. But I question what countermeasures they are actually considering. I think privacy and anonymity will be the first place to create a chokepoint. What others could there be.

    by Tropicana on Mon Dec 06, 2004 at 12:23:56 PM PDT

  •  If you're like most people, hackers own you now

    The average PC running Windows XP has 26separate malware programs on it, according to a recent study by Earthlink.  Some are spyware, some are daemons for sending out spam, some pop ads up on your machine, some are viruses and worms.
    

    While I have no sympathy for most of Tenet's agenda, I wouldn't mind at all if ISPs forced you to clean that crap up before connecting to the network and spreading it.
    

    by Joe Buck on Mon Dec 06, 2004 at 02:52:36 PM PDT

    •  I don't follow you.

      The network is where you pick up that crap. It doesn't propagate from one home computer to another home computer. It propagates by connecting to various dedicated web pages.

      Besides, the point I was making is that there is no defense from hackers. I can't defend myself from them. If that's the litmus test for being on the internet, then 3 people inside the Pentagon are the only one who will qualify. Either that or you'll have to show your official GOP card.

      by upstate NY on Mon Dec 06, 2004 at 05:04:18 PM PDT

    •  that's why I work on a MAC

      aside from the fact that I LOVE this
      computer.

      by plugnplay on Mon Dec 06, 2004 at 05:14:36 PM PDT

•  qwerty

  And this is exactly why I say sites like this one should be ready to move to an offshore backup server.

  The Internet was built to withstand a nuc-you-lar attack, surely it can withstand these idiots.

  by Sarkasba on Mon Dec 06, 2004 at 11:57:25 AM PDT

  •  Until this morning...

    ...I thought that was a fairly exagerated perspective. But when someone like Tenet says what he said, I think contingency plans need to be considered.

    by Tropicana on Mon Dec 06, 2004 at 12:02:52 PM PDT

    •  Just this morning??

      You don't even NEED Tenet to help you along to this conclusion when you consider the Indymedia.org Server Fiasco earlier this year.

      US authorities asked the UK offices of a US-based company to take down and hand over several of Indymedia's servers, resulting in the disabling of several Indymedia affiliates around the world and a sever loss of data, including unrelated projects which they never fully recovered.

      When PRESSED on the issue, their server space provider eventually said they were complying with anti-terrorism laws or some bullshit like that.

      If they think Indymedia is a terrorist organization, it won't be much of a stretch for them to paint dKos with the same brush.

      Thats why, I say, be ready to move offshore, and back up active servers daily if possible. Tenet's statement only confirms my opinion for me.

      by Sarkasba on Mon Dec 06, 2004 at 12:31:52 PM PDT

      •  The indymedia story disturbed me

        and continues to concern me greatly. It invokes many complex issues.

        But it was conceivable to me that there could have been a legitimate grounds for an investigation and that the first thing they do is confiscate the evidence. I don't think it was excessively passive to withhold judgment with the hope that a legitimate rationale or vindication would be forthcoming at some point.

        Even so, what Tenet is calling for is a much larger problem. Harassment of a single URL, however unjust, is a much different animal than talking about restructuring and restricting the WWW with fundamental "control and governance" architectures.

        by Tropicana on Mon Dec 06, 2004 at 12:48:56 PM PDT

        •  As I understand it

          The Indymedia incident had to do with a request from Swiss police regarding pictures Indymedia had posted which showed Swiss under cover police officers. Considering that such pictures could compromise on-going criminal investigations, and quite easily put those officers lives in grave danger, the investigation was not unreasonable; remember, a clear and present danger is one of the standards where freedom of the press is superseded.

          That all said, while the investigation into Indymedia may have been appropriate and Constitutional valid, it still offers a disturbing view of how a government might go around taking control of the Internet.

          by Goldfish on Mon Dec 06, 2004 at 03:18:28 PM PDT

          •  fuck the swiss pigs.

            "their lives MIGHT be in danger" is a good enough reason to squelch free speech for literally tens, if not hundreds, of thousands?

            HUH?

            by RabidNation on Mon Dec 06, 2004 at 10:03:31 PM PDT

            •  Comments like that

              Show what a truly thoughtless fucking moron you are.

              How about if I post personal information about you on the web where it can be seen by people who would kill you given have the chance and see what you say then punk? That kind of thing has no place here, or anywhere else that vaules reasonable discussion.

              And before you go off on me for troll-rating you, let me just point out that its only because of that stupid subject line, and not because I disagree with you, per se.

              by Goldfish on Mon Dec 06, 2004 at 11:58:04 PM PDT

          •  fuck the swiss pigs.

            "their lives MIGHT be in danger" is a good enough reason to squelch free speech for literally tens, if not hundreds, of thousands?

            HUH?

            besides, this is an obvious horseshit excuse. the request came from the US. Why would the swiss come to the US to go after a host in the UK?

            please.

            by RabidNation on Mon Dec 06, 2004 at 10:05:00 PM PDT

            •  And This horseshit post

              Came after one you already made. Granted you said more with this one, but you seem to have felt it necessary to put your stupid "fucking pigs" crap in the subject heading.

              I actually do have a response for the body of these post, but I'd rather have no interest in discussing anything with someone who thinks the way you do.

              "Who cares, they were just pigs?"

              Replace pigs with your slur de jure, and you've got the battle cry of every hate monger through out history.

              by Goldfish on Tue Dec 07, 2004 at 12:07:35 AM PDT

      •  hmm...

        Interestingly, [or not] Indymedia's servers were shut down when the infamous "Brad Menfils" that we're hearing about now [has proof of fraud in the election], posted on a message board [I believe it was based in Oregon], stating he was with the RNC and had the "goods" during the debates.  I forget what the goods were, but he made the same claim that he made recently, that he feared retribution if discovered... and wham! the servers went dead and were snatched...

        My tin foil hat post du jour..LOL

        by krankitup on Mon Dec 06, 2004 at 01:13:01 PM PDT

    •  This medium is not compatible

      with top-down propagandizing.  Ultimately, power elites need the consent of the governed.  Consent comes in many forms beyond pro forma "agreement" -- fear, distraction, division, apathy, ignorance, disorganization.  No medium offers as many antidotes to disempowerment as this one.

      We're kidding ourselves if we think the freedom of expression and organization we've enjoyed for the past 10 or so years isn't under direct threat.
      

      by Mogolori on Mon Dec 06, 2004 at 12:38:46 PM PDT

      •  The Rise of Open-Source Politics

        Whether you're a Democrat in mourning or a Republican in glee, the results from election day should not obscure an important shift in America's civic life. New tools and practices born on the Internet have reached critical mass, enabling ordinary people to participate in processes that used to be closed to them..

        The era of top-down politics--where campaigns, institutions and journalism were cloistered communities powered by hard-to-amass capital--is over. Something wilder, more engaging and infinitely more satisfying to individual participants is arising alongside the old order...

        'The reason these community sites have formed,' says Gross [of Smirking Chimp], rattling off the names DailyKos, MyDD, Eschaton, Democratic Underground and Buzzflash, along with the Smirking Chimp, 'is the Democratic Party is too based on insiders.' (Some Republicans apparently feel the same way, and have started similar sites, like RedState.org.) Indeed, at most political organizations, 'membership' and 'participation' mean little more than writing a check in response to a direct-mail appeal, as Harvard professor Theda Skocpol argues in her 2003 book Diminished Democracy.

        Link: http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20041122&s=sifry
           

        by lawnorder on Mon Dec 06, 2004 at 04:14:31 PM PDT

•  if the internet is the wild west.......

  and the government wants to control it, then we be the sioux, and we can change George Tenet's name to George Custer and have a historical reenactment of the Little Big Horn.

  by cato on Mon Dec 06, 2004 at 12:41:20 PM PDT

  •  Battles and Wars

    So, you want us to win the battle but lose the war.   Democrats on reservations for the next couple hundred years, starting to sound more likely all the time.

    by IdahoEv on Mon Dec 06, 2004 at 05:42:34 PM PDT

•  Who the hell is Tenet

  Last I checked, he resigned.  Who the hell cares what he has to say now?  Shouldn't he be "spending more time with his family" about now?

  by DEA on Mon Dec 06, 2004 at 12:42:13 PM PDT

  •  Connect the dots

    If Tenet is talking this way in semi-public, how many people in "government security" are developing the model and means of how to implement this goal? As we speak.

    The core issue isn't Tenet, but with the ideas he is representing. You can bet that these ideas are alive and well in the people who are actively in power.

    It would behoove us to think about this now and prepare for opposition.

    by Tropicana on Mon Dec 06, 2004 at 01:01:29 PM PDT

•  Not surprising

  This was inevitable. The internet is the only level playing field in an otherwise corporate dominated media. The left is now organizing and sharing information and ideas like never before - thanks to the open architecture of the internet. How long did we really expect them to let us get away with it?

  The internet was initially embraced by the corporatocracy because of its efficiency. Moves to sacrifice efficiency for control are inevitable. If we don't want to see the internet turn into corporate-owned interactive television, we need to keep up to speed on all of this AND be prepared for the fight of our lives when the shit starts to come down.

  by miasmo on Mon Dec 06, 2004 at 01:45:29 PM PDT

•  How it will happen

  I've been seeing this comming for quite some time.  The DMCA is a bigger threat than the Patriot Act.

  The logic of copyright infringement cases is changing- there is now, in effect, a presumption of guilt in these cases.  You have to prove (beyond a reasonable doubt) that you did not infringe on copyright.  Indeed, simply providing the ability to infringe on copyright is getting punished as if you had violated the copyright yourself- even if there are other, legitimate, uses for your product.  Simply because dKos has a legitimate other use (political commentary), and just because this other use is the primary intended use, and not copyright infringement, is no protection.

  Were Tenet to stand up tomorrow and order dKos taken down because of unapproved content, it'd never survive constitutional scrutiny (at least not until Thomas, Scalia, and Rhenquist get at least two more friends on the court).  But I notice a number of diaries and comments quote large sections of copyrighted articles- sometimes even full copies are posted.  Including this very diary.  Congratulations- Kos is now guilty of copyright infringement.  Bye bye dKos.  And via the same way, bye bye all the other blogs.

  Freedom of the press only belongs to those who own one.  The copyright cops aren't trying to limit the freedom of the press, they're trying to limit the ownership of presses.  And dKos is our press.

  The worst is yet to come.  I forsee an alliance based upon the mutal self-interest of shutting down free speech on the internet between Microsoft (to kill Linux), Hollywood Movie/Record companies (to kill file sharing), the mainstream news media (to kill off the alternative reporting/commentary of the blogs), the DLC "establishment" Democrats (to help out their good chums and sugardaddies from Hollywood, and to kill the insurgent grassroots organizing on the internet), and the Republicans (to kill democracy and free speech in general).

  There are signifigant technological impediments to eliminating free speech on the internet.  But the attempt will be made, in the next few years.
  

  by bhurt on Mon Dec 06, 2004 at 01:49:32 PM PDT

  •  2600?

    I'm guessing you're a fellow 2600 reader. If not, check it out. I don't understand most of the technical stuff but love it for info on civil liberties.

    by Planet B on Mon Dec 06, 2004 at 01:53:43 PM PDT

  •  EFF here I come...

    Let me just say this to start: I am NOT a free speech purist, and I don't agree with a number of the stances that the EFF has taken.  I am a firm believer in the right of copyright holders to not only profit from their works during their lifetimes, but also pass those rights onto their heirs.

    That being said, this is scary, scary stuff and I agree that the ultimate regulation that Tennet is proposing will come down to the DMCA and copyright law.  Once you can track someone's file exchange information in the name of cutting down on copyright infringement, it isn't even a half-step to saying "well, let's also look at the security implications of all of this file sharing".

    Solution?  DEFINE the public domain through legislation instead of leaving it up to the courts...or WIPO...or arbitration (which always favors the copyright holder).  If the public domain is strengthened through legislation, that's the first step in cutting down on the right of copyright holders - and then the federal government - to unreasonable search and seizure of people's data and online histories.

    Just my $0.02...  

    by grannyhelen on Mon Dec 06, 2004 at 04:35:08 PM PDT

    •  How skewed the debate has become

      It's a sign of how skewed the debate has become that advocating any limits to the powers and rights associated with copyright is tantamount to advocating no copyrights whatsoever.  Which should demonstrate who is in charge of the framing in this debate.

      Framing is an interesting perspective.  Consider the term I've carefully avoided using- "Intellectual Property".  What a brilliant bit of framing, much better than anything the Republicans have ever managed.  There is a theory that all rights are property rights- this is true in the way that all computers are Turing machines, i.e. true in theory, false in actual practice.  By calling it "property" we conjure the assumptions and prejudices (literally, pre-judgements) we inheritantly associate with normal matter-based property.

      For example, there is no "public domain property".  There is property owned by various levels of goverment, but all property is owned by someone or some organization.  Every square inch of land.  Forever.  Ownership of the property can change from hand to hand, but the fact that it is owned does not.  You don't just wake up one day to discover that no one owns a particular peice of property.

      Another aspect of this frame is that the owner of a peice of property has final veto on any and all uses of said property.  You do not have any inherit right to use the least square inch of my property.  And I have the right to erect any fences or protections I deem necessary or prudent to prevent unauthorized use of my property.  This is exactly the "right" being exercised in my hypothetical future copyright suit against dKos.  By reproducing their copyrighted material, even the least little bit of it, we are "trespassing" on their "property".  Fair use doesn't make any sense in the Intellectual Property frame.  And they have the "right" to not only punish us for trespassing, but to prevent us by any technological means from being able to do so.

      Of course, copyrights and patents aren't "property" as we commonly understand property- they're goverment granted monopolies.  Which isn't bad, the goverment has granted many monopolies when it benefited society.  The Telephone company used to be such a monopoly, the electric companies and cable companies still are.  But notice that the granted monopoly brings with it goverment regulation and requirements.  The phone company is required to provide emergency service (effectively 9-11) wether you pay for it or not.  The electric company has to run power lines to every house, wether it's profitable or not.  The gas company is not allowed to shut off my heat in the middle of winter up here in Minnesota.  And all of them have limits on what they're allowed to charge their customers.  These regulations are necessary to prevent the companies from abusing their monopolies.

      So we're definately behind on the framing of the argument, and hindered further by limited access to "mindshare".  Unfortunately, I know of no more important debate currently going on than this one.  As this is nothing more than a question of wether we will be a democracy or not.  For without free speech, and free press ownership, I do not think democracy can survive.  

      by bhurt on Mon Dec 06, 2004 at 07:06:07 PM PDT

      •  copyrights

        are unnecessary and archaic for real people. the only people to whom they matter are the corporatocracy.

        I'm a musician; I've seen mp3s of my shit all over hell. meanwhile, Ihaven't put out a CD in 6 years (better things to do these days). Am I crying? no. the right to free speech/expression is more valuable to me than territorial rights - which ultimately serve to inhibit, rather than enhance, the former. "i've got my fence here; you've got your fence there; we've each got our own territory, and now we've got to fight it out in the marketplace." as opposed to cooperation.

        current copyright and patent law is expressly designed to inhibit creation, not enhance it. opensource/copyleft/slash-c communities are where the real creation is going on, and it's precisely the arena targeted by patent attorneys who'd like nothing better than to do away with, for example, open source software such  as the kind that powers this site (apache and scoop) so's that microsoft could sell its shit instead.

        just my opinion...

        by RabidNation on Mon Dec 06, 2004 at 10:22:40 PM PDT

•  Not surprised

  I've thought since well before 9/11 that eventually they would try to shut down the internet. Yeah, go ahead, call me a conspiracy theorist (I'll take it as a compliment, trust me).

  People are discovering things every day. I just had an email exchange with a good friend of mine about something I sent him from my blog. He told me that five years ago he would have thought I was crazy for saying such things [about media manipulation by our govt], but now he views all mainstream media with a new skepticism.

  And I think this openness is only growing. Of course they'll try to shut it down. It's not a question of if, but of when. Will we be able to stop them?

  by Planet B on Mon Dec 06, 2004 at 01:51:23 PM PDT

  •  I have no doubt

    that the current junta will shut down the net in any way possible.  This has been coming for a long while.
    This is the last bastion of uncensored information and free discussion.  
    We've lost our feisty free press.  The internet is the big fish.

    by barnowl on Mon Dec 06, 2004 at 02:29:33 PM PDT

•  relax

  tenet may get one or two of them, but he can't possibly shut down all the internets

  by scottesposito on Mon Dec 06, 2004 at 02:47:35 PM PDT

•  World Wide Web is just that

  How is restricting American citizens access to the Internet going to safeguard American cyber-security when some 15 yearold hacker in the UAE with a new PC curtsies of al-Qaeda can do as much damage as a kid in Bufoo Iowa?

  The only answer is that hackers and crackers and cyber-terror aren't really the threat Tenet is worried about. I'm no tin-hatter, but to hear a former CIA director say things like this is extraordinarily disturbing.

  by Goldfish on Mon Dec 06, 2004 at 02:49:41 PM PDT

•  Hmmmm

  As an American Citizen I'm outraged by Tenet's trial balloon on limiting access to the web to those who "take security seriously" and recognize it as the first step to limiting free expression on the most important medium since television.

  As a Systems Administrator, if by "take security seriously" he was just referring to kicking off people with bad anti-spyware and anti-virus apps so their machines can't be zombied up to send spam, I'm pretty OK with the idea.

  /sarcasm

  by nightsweat on Mon Dec 06, 2004 at 02:56:03 PM PDT

  •  Most Important Since TV?

    No, since the goddamn printing press!

    by Goldfish on Mon Dec 06, 2004 at 02:59:19 PM PDT

•  Rove: Next time NO INTERNET!

  Kerry came too close for confort - Rove & the gang will not risk having the internet around to spoil their plans on 20012...

  It will be probably transformed into a "business only" thing due to fears of "eeeeevil" hackers, cyber terror and conspiracy theory blogs

  by lawnorder on Mon Dec 06, 2004 at 03:49:40 PM PDT

  •  A Digital Dark Age ?

    For various reasons, including the sheer volume and the speed technology gets obsolete, we are going to loose a large part of eletronic content, particularly the free web based kind...

    Daily Kos :: How the Irish Saved Civilization

    St. Patrick kept our light during the Dark Ages

    When the Roman Empire disintegrated into chaos, illiteracy became the standard, all the great continental libraries vanished, and scholarship ceased to exist.

    It would have been a great loss, and certainly would delay the 20th century technical advances, perhaps for centuries.

    We were all saved by Irish monks who dedicated their lives to the monumental task of copying every piece of Western literature they could uncover...

    by lawnorder on Mon Dec 06, 2004 at 03:59:15 PM PDT

    •  Looks like

      I'll have to go back to the 'home country' and take up residence in one of those old abandoned monasteries.

      by RobertInWisconsin on Mon Dec 06, 2004 at 06:21:30 PM PDT

      •  y'all are forgetting about

        "Internet II." What we're currently using is the 8-track tape version of the "information stuporhighway."

        remember way back when when USENET was a big deal? (I do...shit, I was dumbstruck by email in '91). where'd it go? Obsoleted. Replaced by something "newer" and "better."

        so will go the WWW. They won't regulate it out of existence; it'll just be eclipsed and marginalized following the intro of its replacement - which, I'm sure, will incorporate all kinds of swell features the current 'net can't touch. Think about seamless integration of your 'puter, your mobile phone, your teevee, your home phone, your fax machine, your car...the automated home/entertainment machine of the future. people'll flock to it, and will look back at the WWW the same way people look at CB radios now.

        this new environment, you can bet, will be top-down administered, all movements tracked, all communications watched. a micropay, pay-as-you-go wonderland where it simply is too damn expensive to do free sites like this'un. figure: if you develop a model where the hookup and content are FREE to the consumer...you then get to charge the provider...which drives all but the media monoliths and the state out of business. no more blogs. no more kos. no more free content.

        by RabidNation on Mon Dec 06, 2004 at 10:38:02 PM PDT

•  A Friend of a Friend

  of mine made this..it's been floating around the internet today, after reading this diary I figured this was the place to post it
  
  

  by sula on Mon Dec 06, 2004 at 03:58:18 PM PDT

  •  Beautiful.

    It's going up on my site tonight, if that's ok w/ you...

    BTW, re your sig: "nothing is fucked, dude, nothing is fucked."

    (were only that that were true). :)

    by RabidNation on Mon Dec 06, 2004 at 10:51:34 PM PDT

    •  since the guy

      put it up and was spreading it around I'm sure it's not a problem..
      as to the sig...yeah, I wish.....

      by sula on Wed Dec 08, 2004 at 11:20:30 PM PDT

•  It's all the internet's fault

  Daily Kos :: Divided country? It's all the internet's fault

  They had the media. They had the reporters neutered and surrounded. They had the WH, the Senate, the radio, TV... They had the money advantage, the incumbent advantage..

  And yet it was another close call.

  What made up for the obvious difference in resources ?

  WE DID.

  You and I and thousands of other webheads who did a virtual grassroots work to fund Kerry, to distribute real news, to investigate problems and to inform the public.

  I picture Rove screaming at Ashcroft one day and saying: Next time NO Internet!!!

  Remember the middle ages, when it was almost a crime to teach the populace to read ? Reading was something only the gentiles could handle... Nothing good could come of teaching the rabble how to read..

  by lawnorder on Mon Dec 06, 2004 at 04:07:29 PM PDT

•  Registers, Banks shut down from satellites

  Store (cash) registers and the banking system can be shut down when the military "curtails" or cuts off the satellite links in space.  Not sure what they can do to the internet itself right now.

  Read that the government is making its own internet, so I presume the U.S. military will control/shut down our internet ports in the future.

  Our... constitutional heritage rebels at the thought of giving government the power to control men's minds. Thurgood Marshall

  by bronte17 on Mon Dec 06, 2004 at 05:00:11 PM PDT

•  Well I'm not a scare't

  Let them try to shut the internet down, betcha those libertarians will just love internet ID passes.  Sooner or later they will figure that this has gone too friggin far.  
  

  by lilorphant on Mon Dec 06, 2004 at 05:03:49 PM PDT

•  As a backup ...

  what book(s) are you prepared to commit to memory, as per Fahrenheit 451?

  by Dhavo on Mon Dec 06, 2004 at 05:21:14 PM PDT

•  i'd like to see him try

  ..and how the fuck does he propose to do it?
  it's guarenteed some german college students would hack it in less than a year

  by morgie5912 on Mon Dec 06, 2004 at 05:54:25 PM PDT

•  They'd never get it through-

  There's far too much economic investment involved- can you imagine just (as a quick example) pulling all of the travel reservations now being done online and having to do them by hand, by real people? There's a reason why companies put up websites! Nope, it would hit the economy squarely in the pocketbook- on the business end, and since they own the administration, they never let something with the far-reaching impact through. No, they'll find some other way to fit the choke-chain on us.

  by Lainie on Mon Dec 06, 2004 at 07:50:10 PM PDT

  •  Thats the kicker

    Businesses understand security. Thus the internet will become a giant virtual shopping mall.

    by DeanDemocrat on Mon Dec 06, 2004 at 09:28:13 PM PDT

•  beyond the Bushes

  one could observe larger shifts in the very landscape and structures of society.  According to McKenzie Wark in his recently published "A Hacker Manifesto" (Harvard Univ Press)--an update of Marxism--there is a new "Vectoralist" class that has emerged above the Capitalist class which had once replaced the "Pastoralists." The Vectoralist today is seeking dominion through margin, much like the capitalist does through profit and the pastoralist through rent.  At each level an abstraction was produced: first property out of land, then capital out of produce(d goods), finally margin out of information.  And at each level of development there have been hackers, a class unto themselves, going back in time: the organized workers in the factory, even earlier the rebellious farmers.  
  Because of this real potential of the internet in a new world structure, it seems only a matter of time before the powers that be, whether the State alone/ or more likely in combination with the Vectoralist class must tame the wild internet for full realization of its potential.  Yesterday it was the barbed wire, then the warehouse, today it will be a commodified vector of info producing strange chimeras such as the military-entertainment complex that has replaced the military-industrial complex in the ultra-developed world.
  Wark's little book is quite a read, I can hardly summarize his points, his sources are further exploration.  But I believe the case for a broader revolution he cogently calls for in later chapters is at the heart of every blog and hack I'd ever know.
  He writes:
  Under pastoralist or capitalist rule, the free and useless hack is suppressed or marginalized, but otherwise retains its own gift economy.  Under vectoralist rule, the hack is actively encouraged and courted, but only under the sign of commodified production.  For the hacker, the tragedy of the former is to be neglected, of the latter, not to be neglected. [168]*(the book is not paginated, #refers to argument#)

  by alt hitman on Mon Dec 06, 2004 at 07:51:01 PM PDT

•  "It can't happen here"

  I hope the skeptics aren't whistling past the grave.  What is "a better internet," anyway?  They will talk about spam and viruses and pirating, and the gates in will be bought and consolidated and shut down, and people will thank them for protecting them from the evil-doers on the internet.

  There are things that big powers like the US cannot do.  The government cannot impose democracy at the point of a gun.  It cannot legislate teenagers into chastity.  It cannot mandate knowledge out of happening.  But it can and does protect its power over its own citizens.

  The drunk beats his wife for backtalking.  The robber kills the victim for seeing his face.  The embezzler smiles to your face while cleaning out your retirement.  It happens all the time.

  Does human nature somehow change for people in power?

  by media girl on Mon Dec 06, 2004 at 08:04:15 PM PDT

  •  Keeping the Message out There

    I think successful progressive websites should think about branching out. How about a Kos newspaper or a Kos Cable show? How about a  support site from the Kos community for people who want to run for local office?

    by enterprise on Mon Dec 06, 2004 at 08:23:50 PM PDT

•  Rev. Martin Niemoller, 1945

  Close to 50 years later I submit to you an updated version of Rev. Martin Niemoller famous poem.

  First they came for the Hackers,
  and I didn't speak up,
  because I wasn't a Hacker.
  Then they came for the File Sharers,
  and I didn't speak up,
  because I wasn't a File Sharer.
  Then they came for the Blogers,
  and I didn't speak up,
  because I was a reader.
  Then they came for me,
  and by that time there was no one
  left to speak up for me.

  by DeanDemocrat on Mon Dec 06, 2004 at 09:32:28 PM PDT

  •  I like it

    That is pretty brilliant and succinct.

    It doesn't incorporate security issues, which are not a meaningless concern--but it captures my POV perfectly.

    by Tropicana on Mon Dec 06, 2004 at 10:36:37 PM PDT

•  I hope to highlight this Diary

  I hope to highlight this Diary in a new "this week in Fascism" diary. Please come to my Preliminary Diary and let me know how you feelabout this Idea. I will be using the "Sign" of "Obsession with national security" for your Diary unless you ask me not to or suggest a different heading.

  by Tomtech on Sat Dec 11, 2004 at 09:02:30 PM PDT

•  I listed this Diary

  I have submitted my first "This week in Fascism Diary. Please come and express your approval/distain.

  by Tomtech on Sun Dec 12, 2004 at 08:59:02 PM PDT