Science and Technology

Custom Search



Obama tells

Google CEO, Eric Schmidt,

how he should run Google


help fight the media




Items on this page are archived in the order of discovery.
Obama Surrendering Internet To Foreign Powers
Without the ingenuity of America’s brightest minds and the investment of U.S. Taxpayer dollars, there would be no Internet, as we now know it today.

Now, the Obama administration has quietly moved to cede control of the web from the United States to foreign powers.

Some background:  The Internet came into being thanks to the genius work of American's, Dr.Robert E. Kahn and Dr. Vinton G. Cerf.  These men while employed by the Department of Defense, in the DARPA office (Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency), in the early 1970’s, went to work conceiving, designing and implementing the idea of "open-architecture networking."  This breakthrough in connectivity and networking was the birth of the Internet.

These two gentlemen had the vision and the brainpower to create a worldwide computer Internet communications network that forever changed the world and how we communicate in it.

They discovered that by providing a person with a unique identifier, (TCP/IP), which was able to be recognized and interact through a network of servers, all users then could communicate amongst themselves and with others.  The servers would recognize the identifier and connect networks-to-networks, (utilizing a series of giant servers), that would pass on information from computer to computer in a seamless real-time exchange of information.  This new process of communication became know as the "information super highway," the Internet.

Now for the bad news -- in an effort to show the World how inclusive, sharing, cooperative and international America can be, the Obama administration has set off on a plan to surrender control and key management of the Internet by the U.S. Department of Commerce and their agents.

Continue reading Bradley A. Blakeman here . . .

New Bill Gives Obama "Kill Switch" To Shut Down The Internet

Prison Planet says the government would have "absolute power" to seize control of the world wide web under pending Lieberman legislation.

The federal government would have "absolute power" to shut down the Internet under the terms of a new US Senate bill being pushed by Joe Lieberman, legislation which would hand Obama a figurative "kill switch" to seize control of the world wide web in response to a Homeland Security directive.

Lieberman has been pushing for government regulation of the Internet for years under the guise of cybersecurity, but this new bill goes even further in handing emergency powers over to the feds which could be used to silence free speech under the pretext of a national emergency.

"The legislation says that companies such as broadband providers, search engines or software firms that the US Government selects "shall immediately comply with any emergency measure or action developed" by the Department of Homeland Security.  Anyone failing to comply would be fined," reports ZDNet’s Declan McCullagh.

The 197-page bill (PDF) is entitled Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act (PCNAA).

Technology lobbying group TechAmerica warned that the legislation created "the potential for absolute power," while the Center for Democracy and Technology worried that the bill’s emergency powers "include authority to shut down or limit internet traffic on private systems."

The bill has the vehement support of Senator Jay Rockefeller, who last year asked during a congressional hearing, "Would it had been better if we’d have never invented the Internet?" while fearmongering about cyber-terrorists preparing attacks.

The largest Internet-based corporations are seemingly happy with the bill, primarily because it contains language that will give them immunity from civil lawsuits and also reimburse them for any costs incurred if the Internet is shut down for a period of time.

"If there’s an "incident related to a cyber vulnerability" after the President has declared an emergency and the affected company has followed federal standards, plaintiffs’ lawyers cannot collect damages for economic harm. And if the harm is caused by an emergency order from the Feds, not only does the possibility of damages virtually disappear, but the US Treasury will even pick up the private company’s tab," writes McCullagh.

Continue reading here . . .

Obama's War On Science
MoneyRunner says Obama is a liar.  That has been firmly established.  He lied about closing Gitmo.  He lied about Medicare cuts.  He lied about the cost of the health care bill.  He lied about being able to keep your insurance plan under the health care bill.  He lied about lobbyists in his administration.  He lied about making sure that there was enough time for the public to read legislation before it was passed.  I could go on for pages, but everyone has his own favorite list of Obama lies.

One of his most egregious lies is about the abuse of science in the interest of politics.  The Left repeatedly accused the Bush administration of this.  Here is Jonah Goldberg on the subject.

.. all of the Democratic candidates [and Nancy Pelosi, Hillary Clinton, The New York Times, et al] bemoaned the Neanderthalic "Republican war on science," to borrow a phrase from a popular liberal book.  Hillary Clinton, for instance, promised that her administration would "restore scientific integrity by supporting the independent work of government scientists" and end the "open season on open inquiry."

For good or for ill, Obama beat Hillary for the nomination, but he carried the "liberals love science" torch nonetheless.  At his inauguration, he pledged, "We will restore science to its rightful place."

Fast forward to the oil spill in the Gulf.

The White House issued a blanket moratorium on deepwater oil drilling.  Obama cited a report commissioned by the Interior Department that purported to recommend the ban.

"The recommendations contained in this report," declared the document, "have been peer-reviewed by seven experts identified by the National Academy of Engineering."

Except that was untrue.  In fact, it was such a glaring lie that the seven engineers who peer-reviewed an earlier version of the document felt obliged to come forward to clear the air.

"The Secretary should be free to recommend whatever he thinks is correct," wrote the scientists, "but he should not be free to use our names to justify his political decisions."

The draft these experts saw was substantively different from the document that bore their names.  The draft called for a moratorium on issuing new permits, not stopping existing drilling (a move many experts believe would be unsafe).

One of the experts, Benton Baugh, president of Radoil, told the Wall Street Journal, that if the draft had said to halt drilling, "we'd have said 'that's craziness.'" ...

Needless to say, there is something ugly and hypocritical about glorifying the absolute authority of scientists and sanctimoniously preening about your bravery in "restoring" that authority -- and then ignoring the scientists when politically expedient.

But it is bordering on the grotesque to handpick scientists to give you an opinion and then lie about what they actually said, and implement a policy they don't endorse.

After the election, one in which I was firmly against his candidacy, I wondered if I could have been wrong in my judgment.  I was ready to reconsider if he proved to be a good chief executive.  I now admit I was wrong.  He is proving to me and millions of others that he is worse than we feared.  Brazen lies cloaked in empty rhetoric surrounded by total ineptitude, careless cruelty, and a lifestyle reminiscent of Versailles before the revolution are the characteristics of the Obama administration.  I'm sorry I was wrong.  So is the country.
Obama’s Tech-Related Ethics Problems Grows
Jonathan Strong says a top ethics watchdog group is calling for yet another investigation into the Obama White House’s ethically and legally questionable use of technology -- this time for bypassing electronic archiving requirements and visitor logs in holding a hundreds of meetings with lobbyists at a coffee shop close to the White House.

Citizens for Ethics and Responsibility in Washington (CREW), which recently called for an investigation into revelations reported by The Daily Caller, told House oversight committee Chairman Edolphus Towns, New York Democrat, in a June 28 letter he should launch an investigation into these latest charges, too.

At issue are hundreds of meetings at a Caribou Coffee close to the White House between high-ranking administration officials and top K-Street lobbyists.  The meetings were reported by the New York Times June 24.

CREW, in its letter to Towns, said he should investigate "whether the White House is purposefully flouting its responsibilities under both the Federal Records Act and the Presidential Records Act," citing claims by the Times that the coffee-house lobbyist meetings were often initiated with e-mails from White House aides' personal e-mail accounts -- bypassing an archiving system -- and appear geared towards hiding the meetings from disclosing them in a published list of visitors to the White House.

At issue legally is whether administration officials are conducting "official business" outside of record-keeping requirements in federal law.  At issue ethically is an apparent attempt to hide from disclosure hundreds of lobbyist contacts by a White House which pledged to be the most transparent in history.

The lobbyist meetings join a growing list of technology-related ethics problems for the Obama administration.  But while CREW and top GOP oversight official Rep. Darrell Issa, California Democrat, are eager to get to the bottom of the problems, Towns appears less anxious.

Towns abruptly canceled a hearing scheduled for June 24 likely to be a showdown between the White House and Issa -- Obama’s chief congressional tormentor.  A spokesman for Towns cited a "scheduling conflict" as reason for the postponement.

In addition to the lobbyist meetings, the White House officially reprimanded one of its top technology officials, Andrew McLaughlin, in May for violating Obama’s ethics pledge in communicating with his former employer and "inadvertently" bypassing e-mail archiving requirements.

A spokesman claimed the breaches were isolated incidents.
White House Released Bogus Scientific Report
A NOAA scientist, Dr. Bill Lehr, yesterday told a group of Congressional staff investigators on a conference call that a controversial National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) report claiming that nearly three-quarters of the oil from the Gulf oil spill has already been addressed was released by White House officials, and not scientists at NOAA.

The NOAA scientist told congressional investigators that the data backing up the assertions made in the report are still unavailable and that peer review of the report is still not complete.  Officials at an August 4th White House press briefing had said that the report had been thoroughly peer reviewed.

"This is yet another in a long line of examples where the White House’s pre-occupation with the public relations of the oil spill has superseded the realities on the ground.  It is deeply troubling that White House officials apparently preempted the completion and review of a scientific study on the oil spill by NOAA scientists in order to tout conclusions that many experts believe may be deeply flawed," said Rep. Issa, referring to an August 4th White House press briefing focused on the report.

"This irresponsible action only adds to the perception that the Obama White House is more concerned about appearing competent than actually making sure the massive oil spill in the Gulf gets cleaned-up as quickly as possible.  I will certainly be demanding the White House name those responsible for releasing this report, why it was released before it was complete, and whether its controversial conclusions have led to changes in Gulf clean-up efforts."


Google's auto-complete feature has the measure of Obama.  The only one Google missed is "obama is a homo."  Click the image and try it yourself.
New Cybersecurity Bill Gives Obama Power To Shut Down Companies
Paul Joseph Watson says that an amalgamated cybersecurity bill that lawmakers hope to pass before the end of the year includes new powers which would allow Obama to shut down not only entire areas of the Internet, but also businesses and industries that fail to comply with government orders following the declaration of a national emergency -- increasing fears that the legislation will be abused as a political tool.

The draft bill is a combination of two pieces of legislation originally crafted by Senators Lieberman and Rockefeller.  One of the differences between the new bill and the original Lieberman version is that the Internet "kill switch" power has been limited to 90 days without congressional oversight, rather than the original period of four months contained in the Lieberman bill.  In other words, Obama can issue an emergency declaration that lasts 30 days and he can renew it for a further 60 days before congress can step in to oversee the powers.

The new powers would give Obama a free hand to not only shut down entire areas of the Internet and block all Internet traffic from certain countries, but under the amalgamated bill he would also have the power to completely shut down industries that don’t follow government orders, according to a Reuters summary of the new bill.

"Industries, companies or portions of companies could be temporarily shut down, or be required to take other steps to address threats," states the report, citing concerns about an "imminent threat to the U.S. electrical grid or other critical infrastructure such as the water supply or financial network."

The only protection afforded to companies under the new laws is that they would have to be defined as "critical" in order to come under government regulation, but since the government itself would decide to what companies this label applies, it’s hardly a comforting layer of security.

"Even in the absence of an imminent threat, companies could face government scrutiny.  Company employees working in cybersecurity would need appropriate skills.  It also would require companies to report cyber threats to the government, and to have plans for responding to a cyber attack," states the report.

As we have highlighted, the threat from cyber-terrorists to the U.S. power grid or water supply is minimal.  The perpetrators of an attack on such infrastructure would have to have direct physical access to the systems that operate these plants to cause any damage.  The recent Stuxnet malware attack, for example, was introduced and spread through a physical USB device, not via the public Internet.

Any perceived threat from the public Internet to these systems is therefore completely contrived and strips bare what many fear is the real agenda behind cybersecurity -- to enable the government to regulate free speech on the Internet.
The Net Neutrality Coup
John Fund says the campaign to regulate the Internet was funded by a who's who of left-liberal foundations.

The Federal Communications Commission's new "net neutrality" rules, passed on a partisan 3-2 vote yesterday, represent a huge win for a slick lobbying campaign run by liberal activist groups and foundations.  The losers are likely to be consumers who will see innovation and investment chilled by regulations that treat the Internet like a public utility.

There's little evidence the public is demanding these rules, which purport to stop the non-problem of phone and cable companies blocking access to websites and interfering with Internet traffic.  Over 300 House and Senate members have signed a letter opposing FCC Internet regulation, and there will undoubtedly be even less support in the next Congress.

Yet Obama, long an ardent backer of net neutrality, is ignoring both Congress and adverse court rulings, especially by a federal appeals court in April that the agency doesn't have the power to enforce net neutrality.  He is seeking to impose his will on the Internet through the executive branch.  FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski, a former law school friend of Obama, has worked closely with the White House on the issue.  Official visitor logs show he's had at least 11 personal meetings with Obama.

The net neutrality vision for government regulation of the Internet began with the work of Robert McChesney, a University of Illinois communications professor who founded the liberal lobby Free Press in 2002.  McChesney's agenda?  "At the moment, the battle over network neutrality is not to completely eliminate the telephone and cable companies," he told the website SocialistProject in 2009.  "But the ultimate goal is to get rid of the media capitalists in the phone and cable companies and to divest them from control."

A year earlier, McChesney wrote in the Marxist journal Monthly Review that "any serious effort to reform the media system would have to necessarily be part of a revolutionary program to overthrow the capitalist system itself."  McChesney told me in an interview that some of his comments have been "taken out of context."  He acknowledged that he is a socialist and said he was "hesitant to say I'm not a Marxist."

For a man with such radical views, McChesney and his Free Press group have had astonishing influence.  Genachowski's press secretary at the FCC, Jen Howard, used to handle media relations at Free Press.  The FCC's chief diversity officer, Mark Lloyd, co-authored a Free Press report calling for regulation of political talk radio.

Free Press has been funded by a network of liberal foundations that helped the lobby invent the purported problem that net neutrality is supposed to solve.  They then fashioned a political strategy similar to the one employed by activists behind the political speech restrictions of the 2002 McCain-Feingold campaign-finance reform bill.  The methods of that earlier campaign were discussed in 2004 by Sean Treglia, a former program officer for the Pew Charitable Trusts, during a talk at the University of Southern California.  Far from being the efforts of genuine grass-roots activists, Treglia noted, the campaign-finance reform lobby was controlled and funded by foundations like Pew.

"The idea was to create an impression that a mass movement was afoot," he told his audience.  He noted that "If Congress thought this was a Pew effort, it'd be worthless."  A study by the Political Money Line, a nonpartisan website dealing with issues of campaign funding, found that of the $140 million spent to directly promote campaign-finance reform in the last decade, $123 million came from eight liberal foundations.

After McCain-Feingold passed, several of the foundations involved in the effort began shifting their attention to "media reform" -- a movement to impose government controls on Internet companies somewhat related to the long-defunct "Fairness Doctrine" that used to regulate TV and radio companies.

Continue reading here . . .

Related:  Sen. Jim DeMint vows to reverse FCC's "Internet takeover"

© Copyright  Beckwith  2010
All right reserved