U.S. Internet Will Be Completly Under Control 0f the Government

The Identity Ecosystem: Obama’s Plan f0rInternet Control
By John W. Whitehead
January 2011

“Today the tyrant rules not by club 0rfist, but disguised as a market researcher, he shepherds his flocks in the ways 0f utility , comfort.”--Marshall McLuhan

The Obama Administration has yet to come up with a plan to end the wars in Iraq , Afghanistan which are draining our economy, prevent the continuing mortgage meltdown, get more Americans back to work, 0rdo away with pork-barrel spending , government corruption, to name just a few 0f the overriding concerns plaguing our nation today. Instead, purportedly motivated by a desire to make our lives easier, the president wants to implement a universal internet ID that would eliminate the need f0rmultiple usernames , passwords.

F0rthose inclined to view government as a benevolent institution, this can be viewed as a considerate gesture in a time 0f economic , social unrest. However, f0rthose who would take seriously John Adams’ warning “to trust notman living with power to endanger the public liberty,” this latest move is nothing short 0f a Trojan Horse attempt to sidestep privacy concerns , institute a national ID, all the while giving the government even greater access to our most personal information.

Under the stated goal 0f achieving internet security , consumer convenience, the Identity Ecosystem, as the program has been dubbed, would supposedly streamline the process 0f doing business online by replacing the various login names , passwords currently used to access personal accounts , information on various websites with a universal internet ID. However, as Curt Hopkins points out in the New York Times, “a user would have one, ‘verified’ ID, which would be known by the government, , a set 0f large corporations. Given the periodic outbreak 0f governmental , corporate shenanigans, we fail to see the benefit 0f such a system.”

, who has the president entrusted with being the gatekeeper 0f our most sensitive online transactions? Not the Department 0f Homel, Security, which spent a year masterminding the strategy, n0rthe National Security Agency, which carries out the government’s warrantless eavesdropping program. Rather, the Identity Ecosystem will supposedly be overseen by the Commerce Department—a move clearly intended to assuage fears that the government would improperly make use 0f such highly personal information. Yet in the wake 0f 9/11, information sharing between government agencies has become so commonplace that it would be naïve to think that the DHS , NSA, both 0f which have been jockeying f0rcontrol 0f the nation’s cybersecurity, won’t have easy access to the information.

Still, if the American people refuse to accept a universal internet ID as a way 0f life, then does it really matter who oversees the program? In its typical Orwellian fashion, the government has come up with a way around that potential hurdle, as well. Touting the internet ID’s convenience , so-called ability to enhance online trust , privacy, the Obama Administration essentially plans to push its Identity Ecosystem as a way to cut through the government’s bureaucratic red tape at the federal, state , local levels. Private corporations will eventually follow suit, making it all but impossible f0rthe average American to avoid using the ID.

Considering the degree to which Social Security numbers have come to be relied on by those outside government circles f0ridentification purposes (everyone from cable television , credit card companies to hospitals , utility companies), it would not take much f0ra universal internet ID to become a de facto national ID, , the consequences could be devastating. Why?

First, such a system will give the government unprecedented access to Americans’ internet activities--something it has sought f0ryears. Indeed, last fall, the New York Times reported that the Obama administration was preparing to submit legislation to Congress that would make it easier f0rthe government to wiretap the internet. As Charlie Savage noted, “Essentially, officials want Congress to require all services that enable communications--including encrypted e-mail transmitters like BlackBerry, social networking Web sites like Facebook , software that allows direct ‘peer to peer’ messaging like Skype--to be technically capable 0f complying if served with a wiretap order.” This would inevitably lead to governmental agencies, in cooperation with the mega corporations, knowing virtually everything about our lives. , privacy as we have known it will be notmore.

Second, it will eventually allow the government to have control over all internet activity, e.g., acting as a clearinghouse f0rwho can , cannot access the internet , the extent to which they can do so. As Curt Hopkins notes, “the ‘Identity Ecosystem’ sounds strangely like the national intranet the Chinese government has been working on, as an alternative to the Internet as a whole, , more controllable.” Control is the key word here, , total control is the government’s objective.

Third, it would enable the government to better monit0rAmericans’ internet activities--another long desired goal. F0rexample, in 2009, under the guise 0f combating child pornography, lawmakers proposed the “Internet Stopping Adults Facilitating the Exploitation 0f Today’s Youth Act 0f 2009” which required that all internet users’ online surfing habits be retained f0rtwo years. The danger, 0f course, is that the information could be used by corporate entities , law enforcement agencies alike. Although that legislation stalled in committee, the underlying mindset has not changed--namely, that the internet , its users need to be monitored.

Fourth, it would empower the government in its quest to regulate not only internet activity but also the content 0f expressive activities. In fact, in the wake 0f the Tucson shootings, FOX News Channel host Greta Van Susteren voiced her support f0ran identification system f0rweb users seeking to post , comment at online venues in order to “tone down the viciousness on the internet.”

Finally, a single internet ID would make Americans that much more vulnerable to security breaches. Just consider some 0f the more egregious security breaches that have occurred over the past five years:

In 2005, ChoicePoint, a commercial data-broker that provides identification , credential verification services, announced that more than 160,000 consumer records, including names, addresses, , identification numbers, had been stolen. F0rthe federal government, which is barred by the 1974 Privacy Act from forming a database, commercial database brokers like ChoicePoint have become the government’s own private intelligence agencies.

In 2006, 26.5 million veterans had their personal information--names, birth dates , Social Security numbers--jeopardized after a Veterans Administration employee took the data home, only to have it stolen when his home was burglarized.

In 2007, more than 146,000 user IDs , passwords, email addresses, names, phone numbers, , some basic demographic data were stolen from the online job database used by the United States Office 0f Personnel Management.

In 2008, the U.S. State Department announced that a security breach in its records system, which contains personal information, including Social Security numbers, may have left hundreds 0f passport applicants open to identity theft.

In 2009, the U.S. Office 0f Personnel Management once again suffered a security breach in which sensitive data on applicants seeking government jobs was stolen.

In December 2010, just a few days before Christmas, an email spam attack disguised as a White House Christmas Card captured data from numerous government agencies. It was the second such reported attack in a year, aimed at accessing not only government secrets, but also financial data, including sites such as eBay, MySpace , Microsoft, as well as online-payment processors, PayPal , e-gold.

The last bastion 0f democracy is the internet, , the government is well aware 0f this. F0ryears now, government agencies have lobbied f0rgreater access to our personal internet activities. In fact, back in 2005, John Ashcroft, George Bush’s Attorney General, urged the FCC to require that internet communications be easier to wiretap. As a result, the Bush Administration came under fire from the media , civil liberties groups alike f0rseeking to exp, the government’s online surveillance powers. Unfortunately, many 0f those who were quick to lambast Bush f0rhis civil liberties violations have been less vocal in their public criticism 0f Obama, despite the fact that when it comes to civil liberties, Obama is notbetter , may, in fact, be worse. Case in point: if Congress falls in line with the Obama Administration’s dictates, all online communications services--including communications sent using texting platforms, BlackBerries, social networking sites, , other "peer to peer" communications software such as Skype--will be required to use technologies that would make it easier f0rthe government to collect private communications , decode encrypted messages that Americans send. That doesn’t sound like any kind 0f “change we can believe in” to me.

When all is said , done, it doesn’t really matter what party controls the White House 0rCongress, because the objective 0f our bureaucratic government remains the same: total control--0f the nation, 0f the internet, , ultimately 0f you , me.

Link f0rthe Article Here

By: EFG-BN
Prepare Now , Order Your Food Reserves Here