Thread: From Internet to Ubernet by 2025 - The Internet's about to get VERY personal

#NSA




TOP-SECRET DOCUMENT SHOWS FISA JUDGES SIGNED OFF ON BROAD ORDERS ALLOWING NSA TO MAKE USE OF INFORMATION “INADVERTENTLY” COLLECTED FROM DOMESTIC US COMMUNICATIONS WITHOUT A WARRANT (Story/Guardian)




NSA Files: Verizon, PRISM, Boundless Informant, FISA 702, XKEYSCORE (+ Whistleblower Edward Snowden Interview)
leaksource.info
NSA COLLECTING PHONE RECORDS OF MILLIONS OF VERIZON CUSTOMERS DAILY TOP SECRET COURT ORDER REQUIRING VERIZON TO HAND OVER ALL CALL DATA TO NSA (Story/Guardian) NSA PRISM PROGRAM TAPS IN TO USER DAT...


http://leaksource.info/2013/06/13/ns...den-interview/

Former CIA director: ‘We kill people based on metadata’

Published time: May 12, 2014 18:27
Edited time: May 12, 2014 19:27 Get short URL

Former National Security Agency (NSA) and Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) Director Michael Hayden (Reuters/Larry Downing)

At a recent debate concerning the National Security Agency’s bulk surveillance programs, former CIA and NSA director Michael Hayden admitted that metadata is used as the basis for killing people.
The comments were made during a debate at Johns Hopkins University, after Georgetown University Law Center professor David Cole detailed the kind of information the government can obtain simply by collecting metadata – who you call, when you call them, how long the call lasts, and how often calls between the two parties are made.
Although NSA supporters often claim such metadata collection is permissible considering the content of the call is not collected, Cole argued that is not the case, since the former general counsel of the NSA, Stewart Baker, has already stated metadata alone is more than enough to reveal vast amounts of an individual’s personal information
Writing in the New York Review of Books, Cole elaborated (you can also watch his explanation around the 14 minute mark of the embedded video):


Published on Apr 7, 2014
The Price of Privacy: Re-Evaluating the NSA, A Debate

This year's Presidential Event was a debate between General Michael Hayden, former director of the CIA and NSA, and Dr. David Cole, Georgetown professor of constitutional law. With the prompting and critical questioning of CBS News chief White House Correspondent Major Garrett, both participants debated the constitutionality of the NSA, and the appropriate balance between personal privacy and national security.




“Of course knowing the content of a call can be crucial to establishing a particular threat. But metadata alone can provide an extremely detailed picture of a person’s most intimate associations and interests, and it’s actually much easier as a technological matter to search huge amounts of metadata than to listen to millions of phone calls. As NSA General Counsel Stewart Baker has said, 'metadata absolutely tells you everything about somebody’s life. If you have enough metadata, you don’t really need content.'

“When I quoted Baker at a recent debate at Johns Hopkins University, my opponent, General Michael Hayden, former director of the NSA and the CIA, called Baker’s comment 'absolutely correct,' and raised him one, asserting, ‘We kill people based on metadata.’”
Hayden paused after making this statement – around the 18 minute mark of the video – and then qualified it by adding, “but that’s not what we do with this metadata.”
Presumably, when Hayden emphasizes “this metadata,” he is referring to the information collected from American citizens. As RT reported in February, the US is already using metadata to select targets for drone strikes around the world. In a report for the Intercept, an unnamed drone operator – backed up by documents leaked by Edward Snowden – said the agency analyzes metadata as well as mobile-tracking technology to determine targets, without employing human intelligence to confirm a suspect’s identity.

Screenshot from YouTube user Johns Hopkins

“People get hung up that there’s a targeted list of people,” the operator said. “It’s really like we’re targeting a cell phone. We’re not going after people – we’re going after their phones, in the hopes that the person on the other end of that missile is the bad guy.”
According to Cole, the realization that the NSA is collecting such vast amounts of information has prompted action from both Democrats and Republicans in Washington. Last week, two committees in the House of Representatives recently voted unanimously to support the USA Freedom Act, which would bar the NSA from collecting metadata in bulk. The data would remain in the possession of telecommunications companies, only to be accessed by the government if it can prove reasonable suspicion to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.
As noted by Cole, however, the bill doesn’t address all the facets of the NSA’s surveillance program. As its currently written, the Freedom Act only applies to American citizens, not foreigners who are also under surveillance, nor does it address what he termed the NSA’s “guerilla-like tactics of inserting vulnerabilities into computer software and drivers, to be exploited later to surreptitiously intercept private communications.”
As RT reported previously, the NSA designed at least two encryption tools offered by the security firm RSA – one of which was made the default option, and which allowed the NSA to easily infiltrate computer security systems.

http://rt.com/usa/158460-cia-directo...a-kill-people/

FREE INTERNET: Please read this open letter to the FCC:

Please read complete letter and those who signed it here:

http://www.sanders.senate.gov/downlo...utrality+05-14

#FreeInternet 







Federal Communications Commission
445 12th Street, SW
Washington D.C. 20554
May 7, 2014
Dear Chairman Wheeler and Commissioners Clyburn, Rosenworcel, Pai, and O’Rielly:
We write to express our support for a free and open internet. Over the past twenty years, American
innovators have created countless Internet-based applications, content offerings, and services that
are used around the world. These innovations have created enormous value for Internet users, fueled
economic growth, and made our Internet companies global leaders. The innovation we have seen to
date happened in a world without discrimination. An open Internet has also been a platform for free
speech and opportunity for billions of users.
The Commission’s long-standing commitment and actions undertaken to protect the open Internet
are a central reason why the Internet remains an engine of entrepreneurship and economic growth.
According to recent news reports, the Commission intends to propose rules that would enable phone
and cable Internet service providers to discriminate both technically and financially against Internet
companies and to impose new tolls on them. If these reports are correct, this represents a grave
threat to the Internet.
Instead of permitting individualized bargaining and discrimination, the Commission’s rules should
protect users and Internet companies on both fixed and mobile platforms against blocking, discrim
-
ination, and paid prioritization, and should make the market for Internet services more transparent.
The rules should provide certainty to all market participants and keep the costs of regulation low.
Such rules are essential for the future of the Internet. This Commission should take the necessary
steps to ensure that the Internet remains an open platform for speech and commerce so that America
continues to lead the world in technology markets.
Sincerely,
Amazon
Cogent
Dropbox
Ebay
Etsy
Facebook
Foursquare
Google
Kickstarter
Level 3
LinkedIn
Lyft
Microsoft
Netflix
Reddit
Tumblr
Twitter
Vonage Holdings Corp.
Yahoo! Inc.
Zynga

2600hz, Inc.
2redbeans
4chan
8x8, Inc.
Addy
AdviserDeck
Agile Learning Labs
Airdroids
AirHelp
AnalyticsMD
Appar
Apportable
AppRebates
Apptology
Assembly Made, Inc.
Authentise
Automattic/WordPress.com
BadgerMapping
Bitnami
BitTorrent
Blu Zone
CBeyond
Chirply
Clef
CloudFare

Codecademy
CodeCombat
CodeHS

CodeScience
Colourful Rebel
Contextly
Coursera
CrowdTilt
Cube, Co
dasData
Digg
Distinc.tt
DuckDuckGo
Duolingo
DynaOptics
Embedly
Fandor
Floor64
Flowroute
Flurry
Fonebook
Funeral Innovations
Gandi
Gawker
General Assembly
Github
Grid
Handy Networks
Haystack.tv
Heavybit Industries
HelloSign
HeyZap
iFixit
iLost
Imgur
Instapaper
inXile Entertainment
Kaltura
LawGives
Leaflad
LendUp
Linearair
Linknovate
littleBits
Lucipher.net
MDDHosting LLC
Medium
Meetup
Meteor Development Grouo
Minds + Machines
Misk
MixRank
MobileWorks
Motionry
MozartMedical
Mozilla
NOTCOT Inc
O’Reilly Media
OfficeNinjas
Open Materials
Open Spectrum
OpenDNS
Opera Software ASA
PayTango
Pocket/ReaditLater


Poll Everywhere, Inc
Printrbot
Publitas.com
Rallyware
Recrout
Redbubble
Rewheel/Digital Fuel Monitor
Reylabs
Rogue Labs
Shapeways
Sidecar
Sift Science
Simpolaris
SketchDeck
Skytree
SlidePay, Inc

Socialscope
Solidoodle
SpiderOak
SpoonRocket
Spotfront
StackExchange
StartX Stanford
Statwing
Tastemaker
The Next Web
Triggit
Tsumobi
Tucows
Twilio
UberConference
UltiMachine
Ustream
Vidmaker
Volary Foundation
Voys Telecom
Waxy
Worldly
Xola


http://www.sanders.senate.gov/download/net-neutrality-letter?inline=file&utm_source=target&utm_medium=em ail&utm_content=Read+the+letter+from+Google+Amazon +and+Microsoft+featuredlinkurl&utm_campaign=Target %3A+Net+Neutrality+05-14

Proposed FCC Reg’s Gag Internet Freedom

Posted by Rodney Lee Conover on May 15, 2014

Internet providers would receive preferential treatment if new rules being proposed are implemented by the FCC, potentially resulting in a veritable gag order for content producers.

Enter to win the Family Gun Package Giveaway!

Proposed changes would open the way for discrimination and suppression of internet content based on its source. This may be another nail in the coffin of free speech. Such discrimination could result if a phone company like AT&T slowed down traffic from phone services like Skype, or if Comcast slowed Netflix video speeds to favor its own online video service, Xfinity. Worse yet, news sources could be monitored and information suppressed if the “source” and the IP are at odds in their respective political affiliations. Are you starting to see the ramifications?
hat tip: Fox News

House Republican leaders are calling on the Federal Communications Commission to back off proposed open Internet rules, warning that allowing service providers to control content on their networks threatens to “derail” the Internet.

House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio; Majority Leader Eric Cantor, R-Va.; Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., and Conference Chair Cathy McMorris Rodgers, R-Wash., on Wednesday urged the FCC to reconsider the rules.

“At a time when technology businesses need certainty to innovate, this is not the time for the FCC to engage in a counterproductive effort to even further regulate the Internet,” the lawmakers wrote to FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler.

Wheeler proposed rules last month that would replace the FCC’s open Internet order from 2010, a measure which was struck down by a federal appeals court in January.

The rules are not expected to be made public before a FCC meeting on Thursday to discuss them. Following a public comment period, a commission vote on the rules is likely to occur sometime in the summer.

The so-called net neutrality rules would prohibit Internet providers from blocking or slowing down websites but allow them to make deals with content companies for preferential treatment, according to The Wall Street Journal.

In their letter, the Republican lawmakers said the rules would “needlessly inhibit the creation of American private sector jobs, limit economic freedom and innovation, and threaten to derail one of our economy’s most vibrant sectors.”

According to an FCC official, Wheeler broadened the scope of the rules after the commission received 35,000 public comments—many of them expressing outrage.

Wheeler, a Democrat, also tweaked his proposal after the five-member commission’s two other Democrats expressed concern.

“The new draft clearly reflects public input the commission has received,” the FCC official said in a statement. “The draft is explicit that the goal is to find the best approach to ensure the Internet remains open and prevent any practices that threaten it.”

Among the additions is a provision that would “presume” it to be illegal for an Internet provider to prioritize the traffic of an affiliated service — for example, it would be considered illegal if Comcast Corp. tried to give faster treatment to video streams of its subsidiary network, NBC.

However, an Internet service provider would be allowed to challenge that “presumption,” the official said.

In the revised proposal, Wheeler also seeks comment on the possibility of treating broadband providers as so-called “common carriers” like telephone companies, which are subject to greater regulation than Internet providers, under Title II of the Communications Act of 1934

The FCC and Wheeler have so far avoided subjecting cable and telecoms companies to Title II treatment, although Wheeler has said the option remains on the table. In the new proposal, he entertains more discussion on it than his initial proposal did.

The proposal also asks whether all paid-priority fast lanes should be banned outright. The previous version only asks if some paid-priority services should be banned.

Wheeler has faced a torrent of criticism after the earlier proposal made it appear as if he was overhauling the principle of “network neutrality,” which says Internet service providers should not be allowed to discriminate against Web traffic depending on its source.

Last week, Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., and several of his Democratic colleagues wrote to Wheeler urging him to drop the proposed rules in favor of regulations that protect net neutrality.

“Sanctioning paid prioritization would allow discrimination and irrevocably change the Internet as we know it,” the senators wrote. “Small businesses, content creators and Internet users must not be held hostage by an increasingly consolidated broadband industry.”

The FCC will hold a preliminary vote on the rules at Thursday’s meeting. Wheeler aims to have a set of rules in place by year’s end. An earlier set of rules from 2010 was struck down by an appeals court in January after Verizon challenged them.

GOP leadership must be successful in their efforts to get the FCC to ditch efforts to further regulate the internet. Or, the web will be made a tool for controlling the masses.
(T)

Read more at http://joeforamerica.com/2014/05/gop...3FTXeBAt40q.99

Gee who voted for it to begin with??? Wake up America these fools do nothing but lie and twist their words to suit their needs. All I can say is gee another 3 letter illegal agency, working for you again.

How Covert Agents Infiltrate the Internet to Manipulate, Deceive, and Destroy Reputations


One of the many pressing stories that remains to be told from the Snowden archive is how western intelligence agencies are attempting to manipulate and control online discourse with extreme tactics of deception and reputation-destruction. It’s time to tell a chunk of that story, complete with the relevant documents.Over the last several weeks, I worked with NBC News to publish a series of articles about “dirty trick” tactics used by GCHQ’s previously secret unit, JTRIG (Joint Threat Research Intelligence Group). These were based on four classified GCHQ documents presented to the NSA and the other three partners in the English-speaking “Five Eyes” alliance. Today, we at the Intercept are publishing another new JTRIG document, in full, entitled “The Art of Deception: Training for Online Covert Operations.”By publishing these stories one by one, our NBC reporting highlighted some of the key, discrete revelations: the monitoring of YouTube and Blogger, the targeting of Anonymous with the very same DDoS attacks they accuse “hacktivists” of using, the use of “honey traps” (luring people into compromising situations using sex) and destructive viruses. But, here, I want to focus and elaborate on the overarching point revealed by all of these documents: namely, that these agencies are attempting to control, infiltrate, manipulate, and warp online discourse, and in doing so, are compromising the integrity of the internet itself.Among the core self-identified purposes of JTRIG are two tactics: (1) to inject all sorts of false material onto the internet in order to destroy the reputation of its targets; and (2) to use social sciences and other techniques to manipulate online discourse and activism to generate outcomes it considers desirable. To see how extremist these programs are, just consider the tactics they boast of using to achieve those ends: “false flag operations” (posting material to the internet and falsely attributing it to someone else), fake victim blog posts (pretending to be a victim of the individual whose reputation they want to destroy), and posting “negative information” on various forums. Here is one illustrative list of tactics from the latest GCHQ document we’re publishing today:
Other tactics aimed at individuals are listed here, under the revealing title “discredit a target”:
Then there are the tactics used to destroy companies the agency targets:
GCHQ describes the purpose of JTRIG in starkly clear terms: “using online techniques to make something happen in the real or cyber world,” including “information ops (influence or disruption).”
Critically, the “targets” for this deceit and reputation-destruction extend far beyond the customary roster of normal spycraft: hostile nations and their leaders, military agencies, and intelligence services. In fact, the discussion of many of these techniques occurs in the context of using them in lieu of “traditional law enforcement” against people suspected (but not charged or convicted) of ordinary crimes or, more broadly still, “hacktivism”, meaning those who use online protest activity for political ends.The title page of one of these documents reflects the agency’s own awareness that it is “pushing the boundaries” by using “cyber offensive” techniques against people who have nothing to do with terrorism or national security threats, and indeed, centrally involves law enforcement agents who investigate ordinary crimes:
No matter your views on Anonymous, “hacktivists” or garden-variety criminals, it is not difficult to see how dangerous it is to have secret government agencies being able to target any individuals they want – who have never been charged with, let alone convicted of, any crimes – with these sorts of online, deception-based tactics of reputation destruction and disruption. There is a strong argument to make, as Jay Leiderman demonstrated in the Guardian in the context of the Paypal 14 hacktivist persecution, that the “denial of service” tactics used by hacktivists result in (at most) trivial damage (far less than the cyber-warfare tactics favored by the US and UK) and are far more akin to the type of political protest protected by the First Amendment.The broader point is that, far beyond hacktivists, these surveillance agencies have vested themselves with the power to deliberately ruin people’s reputations and disrupt their online political activity even though they’ve been charged with no crimes, and even though their actions have no conceivable connection to terrorism or even national security threats. As Anonymous expert Gabriella Coleman of McGill University told me, “targeting Anonymous and hacktivists amounts to targeting citizens for expressing their political beliefs, resulting in the stifling of legitimate dissent.” Pointing to this study she published, Professor Coleman vehemently contested the assertion that “there is anything terrorist/violent in their actions.”Government plans to monitor and influence internet communications, and covertly infiltrate online communities in order to sow dissension and disseminate false information, have long been the source of speculation. Harvard Law Professor Cass Sunstein, a close Obama adviser and the White House’s former head of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, wrote a controversial paper in 2008 proposing that the US government employ teams of covert agents and pseudo-”independent” advocates to “cognitively infiltrate” online groups and websites, as well as other activist groups.Sunstein also proposed sending covert agents into “chat rooms, online social networks, or even real-space groups” which spread what he views as false and damaging “conspiracy theories” about the government. Ironically, the very same Sunstein was recently named by Obama to serve as a member of the NSA review panel created by the White House, one that – while disputing key NSA claims – proceeded to propose many cosmetic reforms to the agency’s powers (most of which were ignored by the President who appointed them).But these GCHQ documents are the first to prove that a major western government is using some of the most controversial techniques to disseminate deception online and harm the reputations of targets. Under the tactics they use, the state is deliberately spreading lies on the internet about whichever individuals it targets, including the use of what GCHQ itself calls “false flag operations” and emails to people’s families and friends. Who would possibly trust a government to exercise these powers at all, let alone do so in secret, with virtually no oversight, and outside of any cognizable legal framework?Then there is the use of psychology and other social sciences to not only understand, but shape and control, how online activism and discourse unfolds. Today’s newly published document touts the work of GCHQ’s “Human Science Operations Cell,” devoted to “online human intelligence” and “strategic influence and disruption”:

Under the title “Online Covert Action”, the document details a variety of means to engage in “influence and info ops” as well as “disruption and computer net attack,” while dissecting how human beings can be manipulated using “leaders,” “trust,” “obedience” and “compliance”:



The documents lay out theories of how humans interact with one another, particularly online, and then attempt to identify ways to influence the outcomes – or “game” it:


We submitted numerous questions to GCHQ, including: (1) Does GCHQ in fact engage in “false flag operations” where material is posted to the Internet and falsely attributed to someone else?; (2) Does GCHQ engage in efforts to influence or manipulate political discourse online?; and (3) Does GCHQ’s mandate include targeting common criminals (such as boiler room operators), or only foreign threats?As usual, they ignored those questions and opted instead to send their vague and nonresponsive boilerplate: “It is a longstanding policy that we do not comment on intelligence matters. Furthermore, all of GCHQ’s work is carried out in accordance with a strict legal and policy framework which ensures that our activities are authorised, necessary and proportionate, and that there is rigorous oversight, including from the Secretary of State, the Interception and Intelligence Services Commissioners and the Parliamentary Intelligence and Security Committee. All our operational processes rigorously support this position.”These agencies’ refusal to “comment on intelligence matters” – meaning: talk at all about anything and everything they do – is precisely why whistleblowing is so urgent, the journalism that supports it so clearly in the public interest, and the increasingly unhinged attacks by these agencies so easy to understand. Claims that government agencies are infiltrating online communities and engaging in “false flag operations” to discredit targets are often dismissed as conspiracy theories, but these documents leave no doubt they are doing precisely that.Whatever else is true, no government should be able to engage in these tactics: what justification is there for having government agencies target people – who have been charged with no crime – for reputation-destruction, infiltrate online political communities, and develop techniques for manipulating online discourse? But to allow those actions with no public knowledge or accountability is particularly unjustifiable.Documents referenced in this article:

• The Art of Deception: Training for a New Generation of Online Covert Operations

http://www.pakalertpress.com/2014/05/07/how-covert-agents-infiltrate-the-internet-to-manipulate-deceive-and-destroy-reputations/

WND EXCLUSIVE

Best and worst companies for Internet privacy

See how Comcast, AT&T, Snapchat measure up

Published: 12 hours ago

A consumer organization concludes that when it comes to protecting customer information from government requests, Snapchat has a dismal record of failure, and Comcast, AT&T and Amazon aren’t far behind.

The report by the Electronic Frontier Foundation,”Who Has Your Back,” surveyed major Web companies from Adobe to Yahoo regarding their policies and practices regarding the personal information of customers.

The report examines how 26 of the top technology companies handle customer privacy in six categories.

Snapchat was found to be publishing law-enforcement guidelines but not requiring a warrant for delivering content, not telling users about government data requests, not publishing transparency reports and not fighting for users’ privacy rights in court or in Congress.

EFF Activism Director Rainey Reitman credited Edward Snowden, the former NSA contractor who leaked thousands of classified documents, with forcing changes.

“The sunlight brought about by a year’s worth of Snowden leaks appears to have prompted dozens of companies to improve their policies when it comes to giving user data to the government,” Reitman said. “Our report charts objectively verifiable categories of how tech companies react when the government seeks user data, so users can make informed decisions about which companies they should trust with their information.”

EFF’s report awards up to six gold stars for best practices in categories such as “require a warrant for content” and “publish transparency reports.” Last year, just two companies surveyed earned a full six stars – Sonic, a California ISP and Twitter.

This year, Apple, CREDO Mobile, Dropbox, Facebook, Google, Microsoft and Yahoo all joined Sonic and Yahoo in receiving six full stars. Several others – LinkedIn, Pinterest, SpiderOak, Tumblr, Wickr and WordPress – only missed getting all six stars because they did not have to bring public court battles on behalf of their users, EFF said.

See all the privacy-related reports at WND’s Superstore, including “Police State, U.S.A.,” “One Nation Under Surveillance” and “How American is Becoming a Police State.”

Significantly, most of the companies surveyed “have made a formal commitment to inform users when their data was sought,” adopting a practice pioneered by Twitter, the report said.

“Additionally, 20 of the companies EFF reviewed published transparency reports detailing government requests for user data, which is a striking increase from last year, when only seven companies in EFF’s report published them. This is now a new standard in the tech industry: corporations are actively and voluntarily working to shed light on the government attempts to access user data,” the report said.

“Snapchat joins AT&T and Comcast in failing to require a warrant for government access to the content of communications. That means the government can obtain extraordinarily sensitive information about your activities and communications without convincing a judge that there is probable cause to collect it,” said EFF Staff Attorney Nate Cardozo. “We urge these companies to change course and give their users this simple and needed protection from government overreach.”

EFF reported that the legal landscape for consumer privacy right now remains unsettled.

“Both Congress and President Obama are negotiating legislative reform that could curtail or even end bulk surveillance programs, while other congressional proposals would instead enshrine them into law. In multiple recent public opinion polls, the American people attest that they believe government surveillance has gone to far,” the EFF report said.

“In the face of unbounded surveillance, users of technology need to know which companies are willing to take a stand for the privacy of their users.”

The report points out some areas of concern.

“Amazon earns two stars in this year’s ‘Who Has Your Back’ report. Amazon should be commended for repeatedly fighting in court to protect the privacy of its users’ book purchases and for requiring a warrant before giving data to government. However, Amazon has not publicly adopted industry best practices in other categories, such as providing notice to users about government data requests.”

The report expressed disappointment that AT&T was “silent on the issue of mass surveillance.”

“In 2006, EFF sued AT&T for its cooperation and collaboration with the NSA spying program, which was confirmed by whistleblower documents. In 2008, Congress passed retroactive immunity for AT&T, which ended our case but not the telecom’s participation in mass surveillance.”
The report said Comcast has not joined other technology companies in publicly opposing mass surveillance.

EFF said Snapchat earned the lowest score, with only one star.

“It does not keep pace with industry competitors when it comes to transparency around data requests, giving users notice when their data is sought by the government, or requiring a warrant for user content. Snapchat also does not publicly oppose mass surveillance.”

See all the privacy-related reports at WND’s Superstore, including “Police State, U.S.A.,” “One Nation Under Surveillance” and “How American is Becoming a Police State.”


Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2014/05/best-and-...BTGLYQqBVJR.99

10 Ways They Plan To Kill The Internet

TheAlexJonesChannel·16,205 videos

Published on May 21, 2014
The Internet has emerged as the most empowering tool of individual freedom since the Gutenberg's press, affording billions of people worldwide not only the tool of instant communication, but access to a wealth of liberating information, freedom from the chains of received consensus, and the opportunity to become their own media platform.
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/...
This represents an ever increasing threat to the status quo of the elite, which is why the establishment is working feverishly to dismantle the freedom granted by the world wide web in its current form. http://www.infowars.com/the-plan-to-k...
Follow Alex on TWITTER - https://twitter.com/RealAlexJones
Infowars on G+ - https://plus.google.com/+infowars/
Like Alex on FACEBOOK - https://www.facebook.com/AlexanderEme...