Rockefeller Discusses Shut Down of the Internet

[lyonspotter]

Run time: 02:45 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F2YrZ2LxHbs   Posted on YouTube: March 22, 2009 By YouTube Member: Views on YouTube: 0   Posted on DU: March 23, 2009 By DU Member: lyonspotter Views on DU: 3733

 
Pardon the low resolution. Rockefeller discusses the potential for attack.

[Sebass1271]

1. what? is he crazy or what? without the internet, we,

Democrats are doomed!.. The media is not on our side, The internet is the only tool we have to get some news and get organized.

[lyonspotter]

2. Could...

this be a yet another move to shut down dissent and further control the populace?

[Sebastian Doyle]

3. His name is Rockefeller, isn't it?

You think he wants people organized?

[lyonspotter]

5. touché / nt

[LakeSamish706]

9. Makes one wonder why he has a D behind his name instead of an R!

[LiberalLovinLug]

26. He's a mole

Keeps the Blue Dogs in line.

[Hubert Flottz]

38. He had an R before he came to West Virginia where he...

knew he couldn't be elected if he didn't have a D. He is a DINO!

[Sebass1271]

4. He is a D (Democrat)???????????

[trthnd4jstc]

8. I have always wondered why the Rockefellers are democrats. Do they not want us to die?

Did not David Rockefeller call for 2/3's of humanity to die? Isn't causing death and destruction, primarily, a Republican position?

[goforit]

34. No...He's just another Illuminati/Rothchild(wanabe) ASSHOLE!!!

Congress is looking really bad lately...Almost Anti- Democratic!!!

They are the Privilaged upper crust monarchy that prefers to rule
with a tyrrannical hand.

And WE Pions ae not worthy of the internet.

[LakeSamish706]

6. How the hell would you shut down the Internet when most countries in the world...

rely on it to do business?

[leftchick]

7. no.1 he does not know wtf he is talking about

no.2 this whole idea is full of shit

no.3 he has no credibility left

no.4 He is a fucking Rockefeller for God's sakes :eyes:



He Does Not Live On Our Planet!

[winyanstaz]

21. I think I may have found a solution to shutting down the internets ..

Instead of shutting down the internets and controlling millions of people's lives and disrupting a new way of doing business...lets just have the military and the banks stay off the internets :)
Wallah! Now they are not vulnerable to attacks!
David Rockefeller is a registered Democrat because that way the Rockefeller's can play both sides of the board. They hear all the strategies, all the plans, and look like they give a shit while doing so.
There is only One party with two heads.
The trouble is, most Americans are just waking up and thinking this is a game of checkers, when the neocon have been playing and planning these chess moves for years.
This has been war people. War on the economy, war on the constitution, war on the working class, a war on poverty (read that as war on the poor), endless wars of occupation to control all the fuel supplies, a war on drugs ( read that..control all the drug profits) and now war on terror..(read that as...war on freedom) and lets not forget the war on health care by the drug companies and the war on our food supplies. All of which is designed to force the world into The New World Order.
And guess what? Its still being waged.

[grofys]

10. whom does he think he's addressing?

this isn't rural 1930's. he sounds like another bumbling old, elitist geezer who just wishes most of us were dead. and if his intent were not to kill 90% of us, it would be funny.

[monmouth]

11. They hate the transparency, they hate us questioning their actions, and

they hate the exposure of their lies. The internet is their enemy....

[Hubert Flottz]

39. You nailed it...

The internet in lighting up all the dark corners that need looking into. The "LEADERS" are really the ones that "CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH"

[Grinchie]

12. I guess nobody took the time to listen to what he said...

He said that the Internet is a wipe open portal allowing millions of cyber attacks against the Military, Infrastructe, communications and energy system a day, and that it represents a real threat to security due to inadequate security. His remark, perhaps we shouldn't have created the Internet was hypothetical, meaning the critical system would not be as exposed as they are now. He also said after that that it would be ridiculous at this point.

Did reading and comprehension become not important in High School recently?

[BartMang]

13. LOL.

Shutting down the internet would be a tough job that would destroy thousands of businesses and ruin the lives of plenty. So what if its attacked or there is attacks, the internet, like the world, is not perfect. Once you learn to deal with it you find out the internet is a great way to conduct business and to interact with people.

[Frisbee]

14. ...a great way to conduct business and to interact with people

Actually, I find it a great way to AVOID interacting with people. :-)

[grofys]

15. hmmm

the objective was to plant the seed of doubt. for me, there is a big difference between what he says and what he means. but that's just me.

[lyonspotter]

16. but is not...

an integral part of reading and comprehension the task to 'read' between the lines and ascertain meanings one finds there?

After the efforts the Bush Administration took to assault the Constitution and demonize free speech of the dissent variety, I'd have to echo 'Monmouth' above that the meaning between the lines here eerily points to their hatred of "the exposure of their lies. The internet is their enemy."

[Tx4obama]

19. I listened to what he said

and he said NOTHING about shutting it down.

[pauldg0]

30. Absolutely...

...Everyone is off on a tangent here!

[Butch350]

20. How about spelling - wasn't that a high school subject too?

[Demoiselle]

23. Thank you Grinchie.

I honestly thought this thread was a joke.

[elleng]

24. Thanks. Does anyone remember

what Richard Clarke said about similar things, lo those many years ago? (5?)

[Name removed]

25. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[pauldg0]

29. Touche'...........

...I was wondering as I read each of the prior entries to yours if they read it too.

This is pretty important. I'm sure Obama is checking into it very closely. We need some kind of counter measure to protect our internet from enemies.

[dkofos]

17. With the alleged 3 million attacks a day you would think they would have

found a way to counter attack.

Thank bush for 8 years of ineptitude.

[bertman]

28. Of course they've found ways to counterrattack. If they had not found them we would

be having massive disruptions of every system of commerce, transportation, energy, banking, policing, etc. etc.

Do you think they're going to give out to the public the details on how they are preempting, preventing, and attacking the hackers who are doing this stuff? That would be insane.

For those of you who are skeptical of Senator Rockefeller's characterization, stop and think about the fact that our military is now developing--and may already be operating on--a new internet system that is strictly for military and government use.

Why in the world would they continue to depend upon a system that has been shown to be vulnerable to attack? There are thousands of brilliant people who work on these types of projects for our government and our military. We will not even know about these systems until they are tested and proven through actual use. That's the way most technologically-advanced, security-sensitive systems are developed.

The government does not want its communications and coordination apparatus shut down in time of national emergency. OUR system--the internet--WILL be shut down if it ever comes to some major internal/domestic strife. At that point all communications systems will be monitored by the government but only the secure (government/military) systems will be able to function.

These people are not naive or stupid. They plan and plan and plan and plan for every eventuality. And spend BILLIONS on getting their plans implemented.

[dkofos]

40. You r'e right about them spending billions.

BTIAA

[onethatcares]

18. what the hell do his comments have to do with military suicides?

other than he's probably getting alot of email saying 'STOP THE WAR NOW'.

[liberal N proud]

22. I am so scared

They are coming to attack us through the internets.

Please save us from the internet goblins

[cooolandrew]

27. ...

...

[goforit]

31. Its OK for the Military to use the internet but not anyone else , eh? WTF???

The military if it needs secretcy shoud use paper and crayon then not the internet!!!!

[underpants]

32. Genies out of the bottle buddy. You want globalization, commerce, and security...there are two sides

plus we have the boobie pics

[lyonspotter]

33. Jones and many others have discussed how they will shut things down...

here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B42bxQcp5rA

youtube, via Google, has already started censoring videos and 'algorithmically demoting' video content they deem to be inappropriate.
See here: http://www.youtube.com/blog?entry=AEX3_7h40mk

They also freeze the quantity of clicks on youtube that a video gets, so as to suppress it from scaling the ladder on searches for key search terms.

I've suffered this a bit on my youtube channel, because there is too much profanity in a feature length movie I made: http://www.youtube.com/user/LYONSPOTTER

Each video I put up usually gets shut off after approximately 200 views, stuck at 201 for example...

Ahh, free speech, if only...

[demwing]

44. You are free to create your own website, and post your own video.

Youtube can do nothing to prevent your free speech.

[lyonspotter]

46. Did you even review

the youtube link referrals?

So in other words, you think it is perfectly ok to impose a puritanical ethic upon the entire community of youtube such that anyone's vids that use the "F" word and the "SH" word and all these other bad, bad, bad, bad words should get one's videos algorithmically demoted? To me, that seems a deplorable hindrance to free speech "in that particular community and arena", a far cry from what youtube used to be prior to the Google takeover. It used to be a space for the free exchange of ideas, and sometimes those ideas happened to included the F word. Bwah ha ha.

You seem to have a bone to pick with me personally demwing. Calling my title of this thread "sly" elsewhere. Many here have agreed with the inference my title suggests. What gives?

[demwing]

47. Freedom of speech isn't absolute.

Youtube is not a public forum. It is a private forum, much the way DU is a private forum. As such, your comments there, and the media you post, are subject to the rules put in place by the owners.

To expect free speech on Youtube is unreasonable. To say Youtube restricts free speech is purposefully ignoring this concept. It is also untrue. As I pointed out, Youtube does not interfere with your ability to speak your mind on your own website. Youtube / Google does not control the Internet - yet. ;)

On your second point, all I can say is that it ain't personal, and "sly" is not pejorative. I kind of enjoyed the way you created a mood, without actually misrepresenting the truth. You never wrote that Rockefeller would shut down the Internet, just that he discussed it. Perfectly true, yet - clearly - most walked away from your subject line with exactly that understanding. They comprehended only what they wanted to hear. Very interesting.

[lyonspotter]

48. Is not the truth ever so reverberant?

Meaning, locating it can be a "B" word sometimes... (try that sentence for sly)

...which leads me back to the youtube / free speech issue...

The overall temperament in my comment is to bemoan the changes youtube imposed. The space of youtube, factually speaking, was a place where free speech and free exchange of ideas occurred, and now it does not. I think any progressive should find this deplorable. And as long as we are talking about facts, a video is either most viewed or it is not. To algorithmically demote a video that has the most views, and to turn off its clicks is a step against truth. I, for one, believe the truth to contain the capacity to set one free, not something to censor and run from and "protect our kids from" in the name of censoring dissent, which is what many hypothesize is behind these new youtube change in policies. Again, read between some lines...the truth is ever reverberant.

Thanks for the clarification and that your comments have not been dealt with a pejorative air...

[scentopine]

35. I bet he can't read his own email without a staffer printing it for him

I bet they lump a simple "ping" as one of those 3 million attacks. For sure they are counting something like a port scan - something which is well known and easy to defend against. I would like to see a quantified description of these 3 million attacks so we can tell if he is cooking the data for a purely political motive.

It isn't enough to say internet security is the main threat to America - you need to talk about specifics. The internet is a distributed network, open countries will have a less serious threat than those authoritarian states that filter all traffic through a handful of monitoring and censoring nodes. As network consolidation continues, the threat of monopoly increases as does the threat of serious damage from a coordinated malicious attack.

Telcos are fighting hard for complete content control and it wouldn't surprise me if they play the security card to clamp down on what you see and what you pay to see it. The open internet is a threat to politicians and a cash cow to be sucked dry by telco executives. For the rest of humanity it is empowering change at the grass roots level. In the absurdly wrongheaded focus on "working with republicans" it is certainly possible that Obama will throw the telcos a bone as he has done with Wall Street by letting the culprits "fix" things rather than taking charge.

Keep in mind our aggressive war on drugs has increased demand for drugs while lining the pockets of anyone in the business of fighting the war on drugs, our war on terrorism has fueled demand for terrorism and lined the pockets of any company in the business of fighting terrorism. I promise our war on cyperspace will create new revenue opportunities for law enforcement and "security" experts while motivating more powerful internet attacks and making life hell for the rest of us.

Finally - he should be talking to the chairman of Microsoft and demand that Microsoft stop making their software so convoluted and vulnerable to attack. Now that would be a hearing worth watching.

[Brucie Kibbutz]

36. His comments remind me of...

Tom DeLay:

"We've got Justice (Anthony) Kennedy writing decisions based upon international law, not the Constitution of the United States?" DeLay told Fox News Radio. "That's just outrageous. And not only that, but he said in session that he does his own research on the Internet? That is just incredibly outrageous."

[Reform]

37. Basically what they wanna do

Is bring in Internet 2, pretty much turning your internet experience into an interactive cable experience where you would subscribe to a package of up to only 1000 websites i believe.
Ive been watching some CPAC the Canadian version of CSPAN and its being lobbied pretty hard
From what i understand the internet as you know it wont be shut down right away, it will be a slow progressive thing, internet 2 will be offered to customers using the new amazing speeds as the carrot, the older slower internet they believe will just die out eventually with the gradual taking down of older slower conventional hubs, the speed is suppose to be 10 times as fast as the internet as you know it now.
Just my understanding of whats being said of it

[lyonspotter]

41. Ha, nearly 2000 views, 41 comments, and not a single rec...

(just sayin')

[vanbean]

42. It's all those tubes hooked together that is the problem.

[demwing]

43. This thread is an amazing social experiment

Whereby DUers post kneejerk reactions based on a perception created by a sly thread title, without first ever having viewed the video within which Rockefeller is supposed to have made said controversial comments!

SURPRISE!

Rockefeller does not call for the shut down of the Internet, and in fact, declares such thinking as "Stupid"

The results are almost as much fun as watching Comedy Central.

[scentopine]

45. Not so fast...

Here we have a man whose awkward statements can be used to make a reasonable assessment that he knows less about the "internet" than the average lay person. None withstanding, he is discussing the threat to the West Virginia Homeland (really strange way to put it) and, he claims, perhaps the most significant threat to the United States. He offers no data, gives no references and mentions no hard research reports as he says our nations entire electrical grid is at risk using his claim of 3 million internet attacks a day on our military as evidence.

Squirrel and/or crows are perhaps the most serious threat to our electrical grid - for anecdotal evidence type squirrel blackout into google. Another serious threat is Enron style real-time trading on energy futures. Its 30 or 40 billion so far to taxpayers. It is still being added up. Then there is our dependence on oil, a business which directly and indirectly filters into groups of people who want to kill all of us.

Software manufacturer's and one in particular only make matters worse with sloppy software that leaves your computer vulnerable to attack and leaves them indemnified from any liability. How's that for a sweet deal? Oh yes, and they'll sell you anti-virus software as "insurance" against attacks. How organized crime-like of them.

Whenever a politician is in territory far outside their area of expertise arguing about vague but grave threats we should be *extremely* skeptical and first assume this is a political ploy - in this case I'm claiming he is being fed by the telcos and this is greasing the skids for new and exciting revenue opportunities for AT&T and others and a clamp down on what you can view on the internet (our nation's security is at stake after all). It is coming, I promise.