Death Of The Internet

See video
Jay Rockefeller
June 1, 2010
02:59

Description

Death Of The Internet
by grtv

Rockefeller: Internet is "Number One National Hazard"

According to the great-grandson John D. Rockefeller, nephew of banker David Rockefeller, and former Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Jay Rockefeller the internet represents a serious threat to national security. Rockefeller is not alone in this assessment. His belief that the internet is the "number one national hazard" to national security is shared by the former Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell and Obama's current director Admiral Dennis C. Blair.

"It really almost makes you ask the question would it have been better if we had never invented the internet," Rockefeller mused during the confirmation hearing of Gary Locke (see video), Obama's choice for Commerce Secretary. He then cites a dubious figure of three million cyber "attacks" launched against the Department of Defense every day. "Everybody is attacked, anybody can do it. People say, well it's China and Russia, but there could be some kid in Latvia doing the same thing."

Jay Rockefeller's comments reveal an astounding degree of ignorance - or if not ignorance, outright propaganda. Since the September 11, 2001, attacks the government has cranked up the fear quotient in regard to cyber attacks and so-called cyber terrorism, a virtually non-existent threat except in the minds security experts and politicians. In the years since the attacks, not one real instance of real cyberterrorism has been recorded.

"Cyberattacks on critical components of the national infrastructure are not uncommon, but they have not been conducted by terrorists and have not sought to inflict the kind of damage that would qualify as cyberterrorism," writes Gabriel Weimann, author of Terror on the Internet. "Nuclear weapons and other sensitive military systems, as well as the computer systems of the CIA and FBI, are 'air-gapped,' making them inaccessible to outside hackers. Systems in the private sector tend to be less well protected, but they are far from defenseless, and nightmarish tales of their vulnerability tend to be largely apocryphal."

"Psychological, political, and economic forces have combined to promote the fear of cyberterrorism," Weimann continues. "From a psychological perspective, two of the greatest fears of modern time are combined in the term 'cyberterrorism.' The fear of random, violent victimization blends well with the distrust and outright fear of computer technology."

"The sky is not falling, and cyber-weapons seem to be of limited value in attacking national power or intimidating citizens," notes James Lewis of the Center for Strategic and International Studies. Such a threat is overblown, Lewis explains. He notes that "a brief review suggests that while many computer networks remain very vulnerable to attack, few critical infrastructures are equally vulnerable." In other words, Rockefeller's example of a kid in Latvia with a laptop posing a serious "hazard" to national security is little more than sensationalistic propaganda.

So-called cyber terrorists are far less of a threat than government. China and Australia have recently imposed draconian censorship on internet freedom. Brazil, Denmark, Canada, Finland, Ireland , Italy, Israel, the United Kingdom, the United States, and many other countries also impose nominal censorship on internet freedom. Urgent calls to restrict the medium in various ways through legislation and government action have increased over the last few years (for more detail, see Internet Censorship: A Comparative Study).

However, the real threat to internet freedom is currently posed by IT and ISP corporations, not the government.

As Alex Jones explained last June, large corporate ISPs are now in the process of imposing bandwidth caps and routing traffic over their networks and blocking certain targeted websites. For instance, in 2005 AOL Time-Warner was caught blocking access to all of Jones' flagship websites across the entire United States. Other instances of outright censorship include the UK ISP Tiscali blocking subscribers from reaching material on the 7/7 London bombings and Google's continued and habitual censorship of 9/11 material and Alex Jones' films on the ever-popular YouTube. There are many other instances as well.

Comments

 
2010 / 07 / 28
georgecailide says:

thanks for your brave work! you are HEROES of our times! GOD BLESS YOU!

2010 / 09 / 02
George says:

Ironically the video has been pulled from YouTube due to 'terms of use violations', whatever that means.

2011 / 11 / 03
EndDaFed says:

If teh interwebz are so dangerous then don't connect your network or PC to it!

Just pull the plug!! Like the 'Top Secret" depts do as discussed in the article...

Oh wait, your business won't make (more) money because it's not connected to the net? It is just too convenient?

So therefore you have assesed the risks and you are now prepared to take these risks of connectivity.

Shut up or disconnect!

2012 / 08 / 17
Damiana says:

You are very right that cyber-froeedm means the personal froeedm of the people, which is an essential human right. It is necessary to keep an eye on the State's moves to curb this froeedm even where the cyber-space is not restricted. Otherwise, in the long run, this can mean a losing of personal froeedm.Please visit and comment on my blog-post on the same topic archanablogging.wordpress.comArchana(Global Voice Author)VA:F [1.9.11_1134]please wait...VA:F [1.9.11_1134](from 0 votes)

CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
By submitting this form, you accept the Mollom privacy policy.

Related videos

Our newsletter