Data encryption: Double-edge sword ~ By Phil Elmore

Phil Elmore notes everyday Net users want info secured ... but so do terrorists

Phil Elmore

The question about the Apple vs FBI controversy, being that the FBI wants to know what is on one of the terrorists' phones who was involved in the terror attack in San Bernadino, California, has focused on a desire to keep our government from interfering with our privacy rights. Phil Elmore explains in this column why data security through end-to-end encryption does have it's own troubling issues of it's own, with the primary concern being that any kind of surveillance of their communications will be extremely difficult, if not impossible, for our government agencies attempting to keep us safe.

Should we be worried that terrorists will use end-to-end encryption to safeguard their plots? If encryption becomes the rule rather than the exception across our Internet infrastructure, are we locking ourselves out from the very data on which our security personnel should be keeping an eye? Maybe … and then again, maybe not.

RELATED VIDEO

• February 26, 2016 ~ VIDEO: Sacrificing Security for the byte off of the Apple?

Data encryption: Double-edge sword

Do you use Skype? Do you use Gmail? Do you use any of several other commonly employed data transfer, data storage, or communications systems on the Internet? If you do, your data are vulnerable to attack. You already know this. Companies are working to encrypt your data for greater safety, and you already know that, too.…

VIDEO: It could amount to giving up our freedom of internet access!

This segment raised many more questions than it answered. I know the Mystery of the Missing Flight MH370 is still the big news, but this story must not be dismissed. Our freedom is at stake.

Of course, we should definitely take action, like maybe yell and scream about it, because Obama's plan to shed our control of the internet is a very bad idea. And this is not just one of those plans with noble intentions that lead to unintended consequences. This is much more like an evil intention with consequences that are very much intended.

What I haven't come close to figuring out is why Bill Clinton is against the internet transition plan. Look up the definition of "Globalist" and Bill Clinton's picture will appear. Is Bill Clinton just trying to protect his legacy of having the Vice-President that invented the internet?  I really don't know. 

For more information about the "internet transition," see this recently posted story: "Internet transition triggers GOP backlash"

Please note:  To see the following video, you must be logged in to Facebook.

Post by Johnny2k's America.

*    *    *    *

As an additional feature here on Blogging In Our Time 2 Escape, this blog will be including videos that have been posted on the johnny2k's America Facebook page! Videos can sometimes say more than what can be expressed in text.  Be sure to visit the archive with hundreds of videos to peruse!

Please note:  To see the johnny2k’s America videos on this blog, you must be logged in to Facebook.

*     *     *     *

Don't be afraid!

WE the PEOPLE

are the MOB
ONE NATION UNDER GOD

YOU ARE NOT ALONE!
johnny2k's Tea Party Gear

*     *     *     *

Is Facebook inherently dangerous? ~ By Phil Elmore

So. Should you join Facebook or not? Should you leave if you have? Is the site inherently dangerous to you and yours?

Social technology necessarily moves apace with society. As citizens, criminals, political activists and bored teenagers alike take to the same virtual space for varying reasons, they will, alone together, experience the benefits, the risks, the fun and the consequences of social networking. If we join these networks, we must do so fully cognizant of what we wager. If we opt out, we must acknowledge the losses we incur in social connectivity and convenience. Every one of us must make this decision – not from fear, not from worry and not with casual disregard for the dangers ... but with honesty and awareness.

In this edition of his weekly TECHNOCRACY column, Phil brings up a lot of great information about the possible dangers of being on Facebook or any other social-networking site. To me, perhaps the most intriguing point is the possibility that various sites like Facebook or twitter can be shut off by a government that is afraid of civil unrest. And, yes, that did happen in Egypt, at least for a few days. Any government that is afraid of their own people will always have that option, and what can we do about it?

Video provided by TheREALjohnny2k

RELATED STORIES:
Facebook as the new public square ~ By Phil Elmore
Obama's Internet tyranny ~ By Phil Elmore


Is Facebook inherently dangerous?

PHIL ELMORE

By Phil Elmore

February 10, 2011 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2011

Yesterday I saw an ad for a car whose primary selling point seems to be that it offers real-time Facebook updates. In the spot (voiced by Tim Allen), a young man uses the feature to see if his new lady love has posted to Facebook about their date.

What is extraordinary about the popularity of Facebook, the social networking site that has arguably expanded the public square while redefining the nature of "friendship," is that the site has become so deeply enmeshed in popular culture after only a few short years. Facebook recently turned just seven years old.

The benefits of social networking are obvious. Setting aside their entertainment value (Facebook offers videos, addicting games, time-wasting quiz applications, real-time chat and so on), such sites allow friends, family and old acquaintances to stay in touch and share their daily lives. Brief updates and uploaded photos make such a large volume of information manageable and digestible. Facebook is also a cost-effective way to promote businesses and social causes, used by everyone from politicians and talk-show hosts to retailers and hobby clubs.

The powerful influence of social networking as a catalyst, communications tool and rallying point for agitation has come to the fore as the world watches Egypt's social upheaval. The very Internet kill switch about which I have previously warned you in Technocracy has been used by Egypt's government in an attempt to silence Twitter and Facebook updates concerning the protests there. It was no surprise when the totalitarian nation of thieves that is China blocked its population's searches for information on Egypt. It is also not a surprise that Obama's regime continues to press for the same oversight.

Facebook is so powerful, in fact, that college newspapers have dubbed it and sites like it a "worldwide weapon" that has been "instrumental in sparking protests that may oust powerful government forces." This is occurring despite Facebook's inflexible policy insisting that users sign up with their real, full names. Joe Fay of the U.K.'s Register writes that this "is great when it comes to stopping cyberbullying or harassment, but not so good when it comes to expounding political views that your government doesn't like."

READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com

Be sure to check out
johnny2k's Tea Party Gear!

Your data: Increasingly under attack ~ By Phil Elmore

I have explored different facets of these security issues in past Technocracy columns. The common thread among all of these articles is a single, merciless and implacable truth: You and your data are under attack from all sides and on all fronts by individuals, governmental entities and even your own fallibility.

~ Phil Elmore, in this column; emphasis my own.

When deciding which part of Phil Elmore's column to reproduce in order to provide the major essence of the column, I decided on going with the last three paragraphs. The first part of the column covers data theft, the illegal use of email accounts, and user ignorance of protecting data. But it was in the last paragraphs where Phil expounds on the threat of people - or the government - that could potentially misuse something called the Patriot App in order to help the government spy on you. I figured that it sounded Orwellian enough to get your attention!

Your data: Increasingly under attack

PHIL ELMORE

By Phil Elmore

December 30, 2010 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2010

And what of smartphones themselves? It isn't just your own phone and the applications installed on it that must concern you. Now you have to worry about the applications on everybody else's phones, too. Earlier this month, news broke concerning the new "Patriot App" for the iPhone. Intended to "help fight terrorism," the application "taps into federal tip lines," allowing the user to "make reports, using pre-loaded forms, in any of several categories." Users can even include photographs and video with their upload. The software is obviously an extension of the "If you see something, say something" campaign designed to encourage awareness of suspicious activity. But in making snitching on your neighbors so convenient, so quick, so technologically enabled, are we creating the culture of pervasive, pernicious surveillance about which Orwell warned us?

Video provided by FoxBusinessNetwork ~ December 15, 2010

Even the application's creators acknowledge that the Patriot App could be misused by individuals hoping to harass or otherwise take revenge on others. The Atlanta Journal-Constitution's Bob Barr sneered that being "a snitch" used to be thought of as "cowardly and craven" (qualities with which, presumably, Barr still associates the reporting of suspicious activity). He derided the "tattletale app" as a means of "squealing on a fellow citizen" while condemning the marketing that associates the application with patriotism.

Attacks on you, your data, your reputation and your civil liberties come from all sides and at all hours. The vigilance you must maintain is, at times, wearying. Everyone from your government to common thieves to your neighbors to your own family could represent a threat. Your only choice is to persevere with your eyes open and your mind active.

READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com

Be sure to check out
johnny2k's Tea Party Gear!

Today's Net: There's nowhere to hide ~ By Phil Elmore

There is a good thing about being as old (and I won't elaborate on the exact age) as I am. I was in college long before there was anything like the internet. Actually, only a small percentage of my life would be covered by the years of the world wide web existence. While I did some online communication via the computer in the late 1980's and early '90's, it was by AOL or CompuServe, and direct dial-up connections to Apple user groups using an Apple II computer with a 300 baud modem in the1980's. I would only have to consider myself as having a "web presence" from the mid-1990's and on. And, I really don't think that anything I had done would be a threat to my reputation. Well, not unless you were checking out my political views, and even then, it probably wouldn't hurt me unless I was applying for a job with National Public Radio (NPR), who just fired Juan Williams this week.

However, there is one thing that Phil didn't cover in this column. Even if we live a clean life and have nothing to be ashamed of doing, there is one other factor to consider in our online footprint. It may not be just what we say or do online that could hurt us somewhere down the road. There is something very frightening that has been happening to even the most innocent people. We can all be victims of cyber-bullying or cyber-stalking. We could have enemies out in cyber-space we may not even be aware of. It is what you may find that other people have said about you that could hurt you somewhere along the way. Though in some cases legal action could be warranted, it can still be a huge hassle trying to clear your name if you are smeared by somebody online. Keep in mind, that "it has the longest and most impersonal of memories," even if those memories about you are fabricated by enemies known or unknown. Just sayin'...

For the sake of the theme I've concentrated on the martial arts, which seem to draw no end of bizarre claims and claimants, but we could be speaking of any field of human endeavor. There is nothing we as humans do that does not invite us to say that which is not true; there will always be those who claim to be men and women they are not. We can accept another's words at face value, or we can turn to annals of electrons that betray any human being's public contradictions.

The Internet is part of our lives. As I've written previously, it is now our public square. It is neither friend nor enemy, but it is a constant companion ... and it has the longest and most impersonal of memories.

Today's Net: There's nowhere to hide

By Phil Elmore

Posted: October 21, 2010 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2010



When I was in college, there was no Internet. Well, I suppose there had to have been, after a fashion, but there was no World Wide Web, no network of websites, easily accessible to me as we envision the Internet today. (I know I'm playing fast and loose with the terminology here, so please, no angry e-mails about the difference between the Internet and the Web.) My point is simply that the network of networks we now take for granted as part of the work, communications, entertainment and social infrastructure of our daily lives was then in its infancy.

I could, sitting before a monochrome computer lab terminal or using the 2400-baud modem in my then state-of-the-art 386sx Packard-Bell computer, dial into the university's VAX system – equipment that the often-wrong Wikipedia defines as "an instruction set architecture (ISA) developed by Digital Equipment Corporation (DEC) in the mid-1970s." I could use that VAX system for what I then called "electronic mail," if I sent that mail only to fellow students. (I resisted the verbal shorthand, "e-mail," for months, because it sounded silly to me.) With the addition of a complicated text string it was even possible to send messages to fellow students at other schools.

Through the VAX I could also read the Usenet, which opened up whole new worlds of discussion and access to information. Why, I could even play interactive, multi-user games called "Multi-User Dungeons" – MUDs, the forerunners to today's Internet-linked MMORPGs (Massively Multiplayer Online Roleplaying Games). Today, instead of glowing amber text on a screen telling you that there are four obvious exits found at the compass points, you can play immersive first-person shooting games using simulations of real-life firearms ... and listen to the voices of teenagers in other countries laughing at how easily they've "killed" you.

In college, something happened that probably changed the course of my interests and career for the rest of my life. I encountered a fellow we'll call "Dirk." Dirk was, to borrow the movie phrase, an international man of mystery – to hear him tell it. He had led a fascinating life interacting with gypsies, solving occult mysteries and mastering the martial arts. He was such a highly talented and sought-after man, in fact, that he roamed the campus heavily armed, existing in a constant state of paranoia concerning the various faceless, nameless enemies who surrounded him. Occasionally, he would give those forces names, and when he did, those who sought his harm were invariably people who didn't like him or with whom he'd otherwise come into perfectly benign conflict.

As a kid of 19 years old, I had few reasons to doubt Dirk's tales. It wasn't until a year or more passed by that I realized he was, well, a liar. He wasn't the martial artist he claimed to be, nor had he led the life of adventure he was always describing so vividly. His stories simply did not add up. However, back then, there was no way to check on those stories. There was no way to look into Dirk's life, no record of his past words that wasn't on paper scribbled in notebooks under the bed in his dorm.

Today, all that has changed. Today, you are only an Internet search away from being held accountable for everything you've ever said publicly. Human nature being what it is, most of us tend to use the same usernames and pseudonyms. More and more commonly, we use our own names, especially when social networking sites like Facebook encourage us to do so. A few hours or even a few minutes of searching is all it takes to tie most of us to years of history. If you said it on the Web, chances are it can be traced to you – and it's never going to go away.

A popular martial-arts aggregator – a website that archives and shares a variety of information on its chosen topic, including instructional articles from contributors – uses me as their ad hoc background checker. When a new contributor wants to submit articles to the service, the owners ask me to check and see if I can find any reason why that person should not be trusted to do so. I have no special tools; I use only the Internet. You would be amazed what a person's Internet footprint can reveal about him. There is no need to hire a private investigator or pay some online service for public records. Everything you could ever want to know about someone can conceivably be found online.

READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com

Be sure to check out
johnny2k's Tea Party Gear!

The tangled Web of lies ~ By Phil Elmore

Well, I was sitting here, wondering if I would be able to write the always brilliant introduction segue to Phil's column. My mind was wondering along as I read the column over and over again, not sure with where I would go with this. But then, the idea popped into my head as I read these words once again: "Speak out against anyone or anything online and it is only a matter of time before someone at least threatens to sue you." Or... uh, worse. Read the first few words again: "Speak out against anyone or anything online...."

That DID get me thinking, and probably not about what Phil was really trying to get across, but it still fits. There's plenty of evidence available to what I have said, and what many columnists and bloggers said, about the President, Congress, and the government in general. And now, as Phil mentions, trying to scrub anything I've ever said in the past would probably be futile. Surely, no liberal woman that researches my internet activity would marry me... Not a problem for me. But, something else could be, as you'll see in the video below. Just sayin'...

THE OBAMA SECRET POLICE

Video brilliantly provided by FleetwoodFactor

Speak out against anyone or anything online and it is only a matter of time before someone at least threatens to sue you. As expensive as legal action can become, this is no idle threat, even if it comes from someone who has no real case. You can be bludgeoned into silence by our legal system simply because our technologically saturated society, overall, tolerates falsity. Even as it confronts us with our words from years ago, casting our opinions and our contradictions in stark relief, it shields us from the rightful consequences thereof by allowing us to bully any who might attempt to use that information.

Every one of us must take responsibility for what we say online. We must choose our words with care, and we must understand the stakes. Ultimately, what you choose to believe is a function of your ability to reason. What you choose to support as true or decry as false, however, must and always will be a function of your courage.

By Phil Elmore

Posted: August 12, 2010 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2010

The radio ads chill the soul of any small businessperson. A fictional dentist, describing a billing dispute between his practice and a single customer, bemoans his fate after discovering that his disgruntled patient has posted a negative "review" of the dentist online. Paid Actor, DDS, doesn't know what he's going to do: His referrals have stopped, his word of mouth has gone silent, and his phone has stopped ringing. When all seems lost, the listener is told that there is hope, in the form of something called "Reputation Defender."

The site claims that it can help you "remove, at your request, inaccurate, inappropriate, hurtful, and slanderous information about you and your family using our proprietary in-house methodology." Just what that "in-house methodology" might be is not clear. When confronted with slander or libel online, one's recourse is pretty much to sue or don't. This isn't so much a methodology as a legal reality. The problem described in the advertisements, however, is a real one. Anyone can say anything about anybody online.

The proliferation of online reviews is both blessing and curse. Product reviews at Amazon.com can help you decide if you wish to buy a book you've never read – but those same reviews often become platforms for arguing personal agendas, as ratings for material the readers haven't even seen are posted as protest (or support) for the work of the author. If you take to the Internet to research the purchase of a piece of new electronic equipment – perhaps a new DVD player – you'll find yourself confronted with negative reviews for every single product you consider, while balancing these against some postings that directly contradict the others. In the process, you'll learn a great deal about which companies "suck," which authors don't know what they're talking about and which consumer goods you simply can't live without. Some of this information will even be true.

What's more, there are sites online that present reviews as if they represent professional pronouncements rather than random and anonymous (to you) opinions. Take, for example, Ripoff Report. The site apes the appearance of a consumer-reporting watchdog site. Read the fine print, however, and you'll discover that Ripoff Report makes absolutely no attempt to verify its content, which is posted by random Web denizens. Those who register with the site simply click an acknowledgment that what they are saying is supposed to be true. They can then post whatever they like, for whatever reason, and no verification of their statements will be attempted. In looking for information on Ripoff Report, I found another site declaring the first one an elaborate extortion scheme. We are, all of us, only a search term away from public defamation.

Google CEO Eric Schmidt knows only too well that you have no privacy in an age when the Internet pervades and informs everything you do and everyone you know. According to Network World, the head of the Web's most potentially evil, intergalactic, all-seeing Eye of Sauron search engine (still reeling from ongoing accusations concerning its illegal collection of wifi data during its invasive Google Earth trawling) said "many creepy things about privacy" at something called the "Techonomy Conference." Specifically, Schmidt proclaimed that the future of the Web is the complete lack of the anonymity. It's simply too dangerous for you to be anonymous, he says, and governments will "demand" you be identifiable.

Schmidt upset a lot of people with his remarks, as he so often does when he speaks in public. This man, who has no regard for your privacy, previously blackballed reporters from CNet after CNet used Google to publish personal information about Schmidt. The popular technology site was making a point – and so was Schmidt. In the latter's case, Eric Schmidt was haughtily declaring, "Do as I say, not as I do." He was also reminding us that technology today exposes everything we do and say, for good or for ill.

READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com

Be sure to check out
johnny2k's Tea Party Gear!

'Controversial opinions' make for bad TSA employees ~ By Brad O'Leary

Brad O'Leary contemplates on the new TSA internet use policy that was instituted back on July 1, 2010, and quickly revised less than a week later. This commentary, combined with Phil Elmore's column (see in the RELATED STORIES list below), leads me to one certain conclusion: The Democrats will attempt to silence their critics, however they can, in order to stay in power. We should all be aware by now that the Obama power structure, pretty much a blueprint of the tactics used in Chicago-style politics, is based on silencing any critics, or at the very least, attempting to discredit them (as Obama learned in Saul Alinsky's "Rules for Radicals.").

But the last thing the Obama minions would want to happen is rebellion against what the administration is attempting to do, as Brad points out very well. They can't have the government employees accessing information that may lead them to question what they are being told to do (and I probably just made this blog banned on most government-run websites!).

I know, some of my readers will probably say that I'm just beating a dead horse, being that the less-than-one-week-old TSA policy has already been rescinded. But as I pointed out in my intro to Elmore's column, we have to stay vigilant whenever we encounter a government attempt to control information. Just sayin'...

RELATED STORIES:
Democrats' petty tyrannies ~ By Phil Elmore
Big Sis blowing off ban on 'controversial opinion'

Upon taking office, President Obama famously promised that his would be the most "transparent" administration in history. Here's yet another opportunity for him to make good on this promise. He should simply make public a list of all the websites TSA blocked its employees from viewing.

Wise readers won't hold their breath waiting for this list to materialize.

By Brad O'Leary

Posted: July 08, 2010 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2010

It's true that many private companies and federal agencies block employee access to websites deemed either inappropriate or unnecessary for conducting business. Such policies often make sense, as the Internet, for all its time-saving capabilities, can also be a huge temptation and time-waster.

So, what to make of the recent news that employees at the Transportation Security Administration were blocked, as of July 1, from accessing any websites that fall into the following categories: "Chat/messaging; Criminal activity; Extreme violence (including cartoon violence) and gruesome content; Gaming; and Controversial opinion."

You can certainly make the case that siphons of our hard-earned tax dollars shouldn't be frittering away the day instant-messaging friends, learning how to make bombs, viewing celebrity autopsy photos or playing Pac-Man … but what is "controversial opinion"? What falls into that category? The Drudge Report? Fox News? WorldNetDaily? Any website that dares question or publish criticism of the logic behind the Obama administration's policy decisions?

It's worth pointing out that pornography doesn't make the list of banned websites. This is perhaps due to sensitivity on the part of Homeland Security chief Janet Napolitano, showing deference to the well-known favorite pastime of federal "workers."

Yesterday, TSA announced that it's backing off the plan to block "controversial opinion" sites, no doubt because of intense media scrutiny. But still, why did TSA venture down this road in the first place? Lacking a detailed explanation from Napolitano or anyone at TSA, we're left to speculate as to what "controversial opinion" websites they wanted to blacklist – and why.

In my book, "Shut Up, America! The End of Free Speech," I chronicle episodes where President Obama displayed incredibly thin skin at the slightest criticism – such as when his campaign tried to bully Chicago radio station WGN in barring two authors, who were Obama critics, from receiving any airtime.

In her short tenure, Obama's hand-picked security chief has displayed a similar penchant for using power to silence critics – most notably when her Homeland Security Department released a report labeling gun owners, Christians and limited-government advocates "right-wing extremists" and "potential terrorists" who ought to be closely monitored.

And just a few weeks ago, Napolitano declared that the federal government needs the ability to monitor Americans' Internet communications to fight homegrown terrorism.

"We can significantly advance security without having a deleterious impact on individual rights in most instances," she said. "At the same time, there are situations where trade-offs are inevitable." Ben Franklin, arguably a deeper thinker than Napolitano, warned of just such a foolish trade-off.

READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com

Be sure to check out
johnny2k's Tea Party Gear!

Will bill give Obama control of Internet? ~ By Drew Zahn

Proposed new powers called 'drastic federal intervention' By Drew Zahn © 2009 WorldNetDaily A pair of bills introduced in the U.S. Senate would grant the White House sweeping new powers to access private online data, regulate the cybersecurity industry and even shut down Internet traffic during a declared "cyber emergency." Senate bills No. 773 and 778, introduced by Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.V., are both part of what's being called the Cybersecurity Act of 2009, which would create a new Office of the National Cybersecurity Advisor, reportable directly to the president and charged with defending the country from cyber attack. A working draft of the legislation obtained by an Internet privacy group also spells out plans to grant the Secretary of Commerce access to all privately owned information networks deemed to be critical to the nation's infrastructure "without regard to any provision of law, regulation, rule or policy restricting such access." Privacy advocates and Internet experts have been quick to sound the alarm over the act's broadly drawn government powers. "The cybersecurity threat is real," says Leslie Harris, president of the Center for Democracy and Technology, which obtained the draft of S.773, "but such a drastic federal intervention in private communications technology and networks could harm both security and privacy." "The whole thing smells bad to me," writes Larry Seltzer in eWeek, an Internet and print news source on technology issues. "I don't like the chances of the government improving this situation by taking it over generally, and I definitely don't like the idea of politicizing this authority by putting it in the direct control of the president." [Continue reading]

digg story ~ Submitted by notasmartasU

Obama Administration May Seek Power to Monitor Contents of Private Computer Hard Drives Connected to the Internet

By Brandon Martin EXCERPT:

While we understand that enforcing American intellectual property rights in places like China may require some kind of treaty with sharp teeth for enforcement, we don’t want the administration to have the power to take a quick peek at our private data and we certainly don’t want a multinational treaty organization a la the organizations created by GATT and NAFTA to be able to play super cyber-snoop, either.

[Continue reading]

digg story ~ Submitted by heatherwight