Monday, April 10, 2017


Government assault on the free flow of information continues. Obama has transfered the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) on Oct. 1, 2016 to the control to a globalist entity, calling for censorship. The EU is threatening legal action against fake news.

Mar 26, 2017 Popular German Streamers Told They Now Require License By Government.

UPDATE: When the FakeNews meme broke a few months ago astute observers understood this was going to be cover for licensing the Internet. But the German Government of Angela Merkel has found a much simpler way of bringing the free Internet under state control.
Popular German YouTube and Twitch channel PietSmiet has been told it will need a license to continue to stream. German broadcast authority the Landesmedienanstalt has temporarily ruled that live-streaming requires a broadcasting license, which costs between €1,000 and €10,000 depending on the number of viewers. Those without a license will technically be classed as a pirate station and could be shut down. Germany is not alone in enforcing this kind of legislation. China also requires certain streamers to hold a license in order to broadcast content. (...) The ruling has mainly been made to prevent TV and radio stations from billing themselves as streaming companies in order to avoid paying a broadcasting license. (...) Will this affect UK streamers? (More)

Jan. 30, 2017


The EU is putting disproportional pressure on Facebook to root out Fake News, citing "recent events" meaning the EU Presidential election. The continuous pressure, spearheaded by the Merkel Government in Germany, stands in no comparison to the relatively small problem. Most false news reports are emanating from Russia and is very easy to spot. Sources and argumentation is usually omitted. We have to read to the conclusion of the article in FT to get an inkling of what the EU is working towards.
Mark Lewis, a media lawyer with Seddons, questioned whether self-regulation would ultimately work for global social media platforms (...) “Those who are banned on Twitter, for example, can set up the same day with a new account. The simple expedient of ID checks would avoid that.”
So that's it! EU Internet permits would have only advantages from the point of view of the EU. 1. Anonymity would be a thing of the past. 2. Online behavior can be regulated. 3. Dissent can be flushed out. 4. And last but not least, it would provide a tax base for the EU, a competence reserved for real states, what the EU desperately aspires to be! This is how it's always been done, wireless radio and television went the precise same way. Gird your loins for EU regulation of the Internet.

Oct. 15, 2016


The globalists are moving at lightning speed. Obama wants a truthiness test, so Google gives him one as a courtesy to the Government. So now let's fact-check if it's true that pigs may fly.
With eerie timing, Google launched its new "fact check" feature right around two speeches yesterday and today where Obama slyly attacked conservative media as unreliable and untruthful and called for online censorship. According to BBC, Google's new feature will discriminately select its own "fact check" articles and attach them to the top news headlines of a particular topic. (...) Google says it's doing this to "shine a light on its efforts to divide fact from fiction." In other words, they want to determine for you what is true and false on the internet. But as has been clearly shown in this election cycle, fact checking is often biased and based on opinion mixed with facts, and Google has been regarded as a company that leans left. U.S. News & World Report even did a story a couple years ago showing just how incredible bias mainstream media fact checks are against Republicans. See Obama's attack on Rush Limbaugh and conservative media Friday. And see Obama's attack on conservative media Thursday. (Source)


On Oct. 1 Obama signed administration of the free Internet over to a globalist entity. In the video above we hear Obama talking at the Frontiers Conference on Oct. 13. A better name would have been the No Frontiers Confab. The Frontiers Conference was co-sponsored by The White House, Carnegie Mellon University and University of Pittsburgh. It brought "together some of the world's innovators in Pittsburgh to discuss how science and technology frontiers will help improve lives, including progress and investments that are keeping America and Americans on the cutting edge of innovation." That apparently doesn't include objective reality, but rather Obama's subjective version.
President Barack Obama floated the notion of a test for media organizations, griping about the wide-spread existence of alternative media available in America. He was critical of the current Wild West online environment where people could say anything on social media or on news websites. “We are going to have to rebuild within this wild-wild-west-of-information flow some sort of curating function that people agree to,” he said. Throughout his presidency, Obama has repeatedly complained about the existence of Fox News and Rush Limbaugh, causing division amongst Americans and making his job difficult, but he rarely offers a solution. This time, Obama floated the notion of a media test during at a speech at Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh on Thursday. “There has to be, I think, some sort of way in which we can sort through information that passes some basic truthiness tests and those that we have to discard because they just don’t have any basis in anything that’s actually happening in the world,” he said. (More)

Sep. 22, 2016


When the Obama administration announced its plan to give up U.S. protection of the internet, it promised the United Nations would never take control. But because of the administration’s naiveté or arrogance, U.N. control is the likely result if the U.S. gives up internet stewardship as planned at midnight on Sept. 30.

Donald J. Trump, the Republican nominee for president, has sided with the sovereignty of the American people against international elites yet again by coming out in public opposition to President Barack Obama’s internet giveaway to a United Nations globalist body. (...) According to the latest polling on the issue, conducted by Breitbart News Network and Gravis Marketing, just 14 percent—a slim minority—support what President Obama is trying to do with the internet. A whopping 41 percent, meanwhile, oppose it, and 44 percent were unsure. That survey was conducted in late August, and polled 1,493 likely voters—with a margin of error of 2.5 percent. We urge Republicans to hold firm and stop the Internet giveaway by forcing the Obama administration to renew the vendor contract with ICANN for a two-year period. This would allow a Trump administration to do a full review on whether the transition should occur and whether ICANN should even continue as the U.S. government’s vendor in administering the Internet’s naming and numbering functions. (...)

Feb. 26, 2015

Net Neutrality: Where's Your Internet License?

Net neutrality is a Government solution for a problem that does not even exist. But just in case Internet providers one day might start hating their customers, Government regulation would turn the free information highway into a regulated utility, like the ehm you know, the Ministry of Information?

Proponents of Government intervention say that 'net neutrality' will "save the Internet." But does the Internet need saving?

Government regulation (whatever the consequences) is antithetical to freedom. As such, net neutrality is the political exploitation of a free medium that is not publicly owned. In other words, it's a power grab, nationalization in our time. But to some people everything is political and they would gladly turn the free information highway into a public utility. The proponents can't even be honest about it: here's the hypocrisy of it all! And perhaps it is no great surprise that Soros appears to be behind the power grab.

Dec. 10, 2015

Net Neutrality: a Solution Looking For a Problem

Government intervention for a level playing field! Except that equalizing can only be done downward, which is a pity if you're looking for quality.

Aug. 4, 2014

Snowden Affair Has 'the Kremlin's Finger Prints'

Hero and patriot Ed Snowden has revealed an array of state surveillance networks, from the US  to EU countries like the UK and France. He has now outed himself as a CIA spook. 

Oct. 23, 2014 HLS Professor Lawrence Lessig interviewde Edward Snowden op de Harvard Law School op 20 okt. jl.

Book Review: The Snowden Operation: Inside the West's Greatest Intelligence Disaster (Kindle Single) (2014) by Edward Lucas
Review by Kyle Orton @Syrian_Intifada
“Snowden is a pawn in a hostile and continuing intelligence and information-warfare operation“ 
So concludes Edward Lucas in a fascinating and easy-to-read brief look at the greatest intelligence disaster the West has ever experienced. The story of Edward Snowden as a conscience-wracked employee of the National Security Agency (NSA) who was moved to steal 1.7 million documents, leak some of them to the global press, and then flee to Russia, quite by accident, because of the overweening hand of American security services, just does not stand up to investigation. The primary reason for this is: the Snowden exposures have unearthed no wrong-doing. To be more precise: when they expose mistakes made by the intelligence agencies they also expose a vast and effective oversight mechanism that has corrected these mistakes. Lucas gives the following example: 
“Since 2011 some 56,000 e-mails of ‘US persons’ have been improperly read, a judgment from the FISA court reveals. But it is worth noting, first, that this was a list of errors which the NSA itself logged and reported—hardly the sign of a systematic cover-up or intentional abuse. Second, as a share of total e-mail traffic, measured in many billions, the number is vanishingly small.” 
In truth, “the really striking thing about the revelations to date (which are presumably cherry-picked to portray the NSA and its allies in the worst possible light) is the conscientious, tame and bureaucratic approach they reveal.” Lucas notes the unseemliness of “civil liberties” activists campaigning against their own government for not living up to its democratic values while arrogating to themselves sole discretion on which secret programs should be exposed. Flawed as elected governments may be, they are damn sight better than unelected activists motivated by a hatred of the culture that shelters them in judging what is and is not in the interests of national security. This unseemliness grows more apparent still when these activists all move so closely in the orbit of a dictatorship like Vladimir Putin’s. (Source)

Archive Internet Surveillance and Regulation