Is Bitcoin the Road to Financial Freedom?

On November 18, 2013, the first Congressional hearings on virtual currency --technology-based currency--took place before the Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee, chaired by Sen. Tom Carper.  According to the Washington Post, the hearings were lovefests, with it being stated that Bitcoin was a "legal means of exchange" and that "online payment systems, both centralized and decentralized, offer legitimate financial services".

The big questions should be: Why is Bitcoin so acceptable to the Feds? Why, all of a sudden, is it being promoted by mainstream media, and powerful 0.01% financial elites--Forbes, Fox Business, Time Magazine, MasterCard, Warren Buffet, Bill Gates, the CFR, DHS, etc? If that doesn't make you nervous, nothing will. So, is there a strategic plan for the replacement of the US dollar, and/or the debt-based fiat money system, with a global reserve currency? And will that currency be Bitcoin?

Bitcoin, to quickly explain, is a pseudo-anonymous protocol, a decentralized digital currency based on software by "Satoshi Nakamoto" (a pseudonym for the unknown person or people who designed the original Bitcoin protocol in 2008) where the transactions (entries on some type of global ledger) require a peer-to-peer network. The original amount of Bitcoins mined--involves solving complex mathematical problems that require a lot of computer power--is said to be 21 million, therefore limited, but that's easy to change with a few clicks of a mouse I would think, not to mention, the controllers do not have to account to anyone for any additional amount of Bitcoins created. Bitcoin can be subdivided into 100 million smaller units called satoshis and is also created by a process called mining. The difficulty of mining ranges depending on the systems being used, and that--the difficulty-- in addition to the market, decide it's worth, which is about $801.80 per bitcoin today at 12:54 AM EST. Now, the total crypto currency market--Litecoin, Peercoin, Quark, Namecoin, Primecoin, etc.--including Bitcoin is worth approximately $13 billion in total.

Now, keep in mind that DARPA created the Internet--which Bitcoin is totally dependent on--initially promoting it as an open, innovative information infrastructure. Fast forward to today and Verizon beat the FCC (Verizon v. FCC) where net neutrality regulations were vacated by all three DC Circuit judges. This marks the second time in four years the FCC had its net neutrality enforcement struck down.  Then there is the software that supposedly hides user identities on the Internet, the TOR Project, which was developed by the US Naval Research laboratory and endorsed by Senator Hillary Clinton. According to the Tor Project Annual Report 2010, the U.S. Government supplied over 80% of its funding.

Gavin Andresen, the Lead Core Bitcoin Developer and founder of The Bitcoin Foundation is slated to address the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) on Thursday, February 16, 2014, as he did the C.I.A. a couple of years ago when Bitcoin wasn't as big as it is now. This, in and of itself, may not be a big deal, but it's apparent to anyone with eyes to see that this foundation is seeking government acceptance to insure  a seat of power in what might become the new highly globalized Bitcoin economy.



And then there is the potential Bitcoin Greenlist that will determine the people who are allowed to conduct trade online.  While the Greenlist predates Bitcoin, this patent filing incorporates Bitcoin into its features. Think about it. If the U.S. government acquires access to the owners of even ten percent of Bitcoin addresses, they'll gain a large amount of financial data about the entire world!

Links:

Obama Initiative Spawns Identity Based Bitcoin Greenlist

“In April 2011, President Obama signed (PDF) the NSTIC or the National Strategy For Trusted Identities In Cyberspace where public and private players are collaborating on the creation of an “Identity Ecosystem” to address “(1) the insecurity and inconvenience of static passwords and (2) the cost of transactional risks that arise from the inability of individuals to prove their true identity online.”

BitLegal is the easiest way to explore the evolving legal and regulatory status of Bitcoin and virtual currencies around the globe.

MasterCard tracks global 'cashless journey'

“The study focuses on the value of all consumer payments ($63 trillion in total spend), including those that happen beyond retail point-of-sale. In 2011, 34 percent ($21 trillion) of total global consumer spend was done with cash, with cashless payments accounting for 66 percent ($42 trillion)[...]Countries such as the United States (where an estimated 80% of the value of consumer spend was cashless) and Singapore (69%) are approaching the "tipping point" to becoming nearly cashless, and remaining cash use is largely a product of consumer habit.

HOW TO MAKE A MINT: THE CRYPTOGRAPHY OF ANONYMOUS ELECTRONIC CASH by Laurie Law, Susan Sabett, Jerry Solinas, National Security Agency Office of Information Security Research and Technology, Cryptology Division, 18 June 1996

Read more...

SOPA Supporters Distribute and Encourage File-Sharing Software Use for Pirating Copyrighted Material

Mike Mozart (see video below) of Jeepers Media discovered that the very same people who are complaining about copyright infringement, who want to impose SOPA, establishing gestapo like powers over the Internet, are the very same people who distribute file-sharing software! Why? So, they can sue you, of course.

Not only that, Hollywood is inflating piracy figures to push SOPA, and the lesser known PIPA, to censor "we the people" without due process, while cutting President Obama off from further funding, for supposedly refusing to pander. It's an election year after all.

Then there is Orin Hatch, whose INDUCE Act of 2004 set out to "illegalize anything that might make you more likely to infringe copyright. It's written in such overly broad language that you can't tell whether it would outlaw the iPod, tape recorders, libraries, the Internet, or just technology in general. After all, one could argue that all of these have made people more likely to commit copyright infringement".

The bottom line is that, per usual, We the People are made out to be the enemy, when, in reality, it's the infinitely rapacious elite - in this case, the Hollywood moguls and media corporations - employing the Hegelian Dialectic, once again. Problem, reaction, solution.

MGM vs Grokster Copyright Ruling: "We hold that one who "DISTRIBUTES" a "DEVICE" with the object of "PROMOTING" its use to infringe copyright, as shown by clear expression or other affirmative steps taken to foster infringement, is "LIABLE" for the resulting acts of infringement by third parties." . . . . . . . Regardless of the device's non-infringing uses.

Related Links:


Government hits MEGAUPLOAD with mega piracy indictment


Hollywood Moguls Stop Funding Obama for not supporting SOPA

Read more...

White House and Big Corporations Want to Destroy the Internet as We Know It.

Until very recently, most of us could only passively consume our media. We could listen. We could watch. But we couldn’t touch, enter into, or even respond to the media. The Internet has changed all of that, leveling the playing field in such a way that anyone with a connection can participate. The powers that be are not happy.

The other day, Sen. Al Franken claimed that big corporations are "hoping to destroy" the Internet, by destroying "the very thing that makes it such an important [medium] for independent artists and entrepreneurs: its openness and freedom." He then claimed, "Net neutrality is the First Amendment issue of our time."

However, it appears the Obama administration wants to crackdown on the Internet, and eliminate this new emergent participatory media production that depends on "fair use", by policing the Internet, making copyright infringement a felony.  He wants to tighten many forms of intellectual property law, increase existing criminal penalties, and expand wiretap laws to include copyright and trademark infringement, ultimately giving even more authority to Homeland Security.   He has proposed sweeping revisions to U.S. copyright law, including making "illegal streaming" of audio or video a federal felony and allowing FBI agents to wiretap suspects.

Turning to the specific recommendations, the Administration recommends increasing the statutory maxima for the following offenses:

1. Increase the statutory maximum for economic espionage (18 U.S.C. § 1831) from 15 years in prison to at least 20 years in prison.

2. Increase the statutory maxima for drug offenses under the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), particularly for counterfeit drug offenses.

The Administration recommends that Congress: (1)  direct the U.S. Sentencing Commission to increase the U.S. Sentencing Guideline range for intellectual property offenses; (2) require the U.S. Sentencing Commission to consider five specific categories of changes to the Guidelines; and (3) require the U.S. Sentencing Commission to act within 180 days of such legislation being adopted (including issuing a report explaining why it has not adopted any of the specific recommendations). The five categories of specific recommendations for the U.S. Sentencing Commission are:

1. Increase the U.S. Sentencing Guideline range for the theft of trade secrets and economic espionage,
including trade secrets transferred or attempted to be transferred outside of the U.S.

2. Increase the U.S. Sentencing Guideline range for trademark and copyright offenses when infringing products are knowingly sold for use in national defense, national security, critical infrastructure, or by law enforcement.

3. Increase the U.S. Sentencing Guideline range for intellectual property offenses committed by organized criminal enterprises/gangs;

4. Increase the U.S. Sentencing Guideline range for intellectual property offenses that risk death or serious bodily injury and for those offenses involving counterfeit drugs (even when those offenses do not present that risk); and

5. Increase the U.S. Sentencing Guideline range for repeat intellectual property offenders.

The Administration recommends three legislative changes to give enforcement agencies the tools they need to combat infringement:

1. Clarify that, in appropriate circumstances, infringement by streaming, or by means of other similar new technology, is a felony;

2. Authorize DHS, and its component U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), to share pre-seizure information about, and samples of, products and devices with rightholders to help DHS to determine whether the products are infringing or the devices are circumvention devices; and

3. Give law enforcement authority to seek a wiretap for criminal copyright and trademark offenses.

The Administration recommends two legislative changes to allow DHS to share information about enforcement activities with rightholders:

1. Give DHS authority to notify rightholders that infringing goods have been excluded or seized pursuant to a U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) order; and

2. Give DHS authority to share information about, and samples of, circumvention devices with rightholders post-seizure.

The Administration recommends six legislative changes to improve U.S. enforcement efforts involving pharmaceuticals, including counterfeit drugs:

1. Require importers and manufacturers to notify the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and other relevant agencies when they discover counterfeit drugs or medical devices, including the known potential health risks associated with those products;

2. Extend the Ryan Haight Act’s definition of “valid prescription” (and its telemedicine exemption) to the FFDCA to drugs that do not contain controlled substances;

3. Adopt a track-and-trace system for pharmaceuticals and related products;

4. Provide for civil and criminal forfeiture under the FFDCA, particularly for counterfeit drug offenses;

5. As noted above, increase the statutory maxima for drug offenses under the FFDCA, particularly for counterfeit drug offenses; and

6. As noted above, recommend that the U.S. Sentencing Commission increase the U.S. Sentencing Guideline range for intellectual property offenses that risk death and serious bodily injury, and for those offenses involving counterfeit drugs (even when those offenses do not present that risk).

What's more is that with all of the important unresolved issues, not to mention, the banksters and  major Wall Street criminals basking in their billions and still in charge, you have to wonder why the Obama administration chooses to focus, in comparison, on what seems like such a trivial matter.  Well, one can only conclude that it's much more than that. It's an underhanded power grab, to control the distribution of information, communication, ultimately providing Big Brother with the power to wiretap anyone for any reason.

It all boils down to who benefits and who pays.   As always, it's the elite who benefit the most - the prison industrial complex, big corporations, Hollywood, the banksters - while we, the taxpayers, continue to pay through the nose. As someone once said, "who gets prosecuted for what has always been and always will be political and decided by those with wealth and power".

Read more...

Fake Net Neutrality & Keeping the Illusion of Democracy Alive and Well.

FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski is bringing new, "industry-written" "net neutrality" rules, that he's kept secret until the last possible moment, to a five-member panel, tomorrow, for a vote.  Are we supposed to believe that these rules - supposedly aimed at preventing the nation’s cable and Internet service providers from interfering with the empowering, open-to-innovation, leveling-the-playing-field nature of the internet - are real?   

Are we supposed to believe that FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski's "compromise", kept from the knowledge of any but the privileged isn't just another pretense to freedom of expression and freedom of thought? Pretense to "democracy"?

Well, since the nation's cable and telecommunications companies are pleased by the new rules, and they are signaling their support for Genachowski’s compromise deal,  the answers to the aforementioned questions should be fairly clear.

Sen. Al Franken from Minnesota, called this issue "the most important free speech issue of our time", and, along with many other public interest and free speech groups, "slammed the rules as woefully inadquate to protect the public from the privations of an industry keen on turning the internet into a cyber-version of cable TV, with tiers and premium packages affordable by the wealthy."

This Tuesday is an important day in the fight to save the Internet.

As a source of innovation, an engine of our economy, and a forum for our political discourse, the Internet can only work if it's a truly level playing field. Small businesses should have the same ability to reach customers as powerful corporations. A blogger should have the same ability to find an audience as a media conglomerate.

This principle is called "net neutrality" -- and it's under attack. Internet service giants like Comcast and Verizon want to offer premium and privileged access to the Internet for corporations who can afford to pay for it.

The good news is that the Federal Communications Commission has the power to issue regulations that protect net neutrality. The bad news is that draft regulations written by FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski don't do that at all. They're worse than nothing.

That's why Tuesday is such an important day. The FCC will be meeting to discuss those regulations, and we must make sure that its members understand that allowing corporations to control the Internet is simply unacceptable.

Once again, the government is intervening in ways that redistribute income, wealth, and opportunity upward. However, once that starts to become apparent, their actions will be cleverly disguised as the natural working of the free market, therefore, in our best interest.

Read more...

Wi-Spy: Is Google Watching You?

37 state Attorneys General are demanding answers from Google after the company sucked up 600 gigabytes of data from open Wi-Fi networks as it snapped pictures for Google Maps. Google claims it was just an accident. Well then, as Google contracts more extensively with the federal government, why are the FBI and the DEA making extensive use of Google Earth? What are Google’s ties with the intelligence agencies?

Apparently, fairly significant.

From Wired: Exclusive: Google, CIA Invest in ‘Future’ of Web Monitoring

The investment arms of the CIA and Google are both backing a company that monitors the web in real time — and says it uses that information to predict the future.

The company is called Recorded Future, and it scours tens of thousands of websites, blogs and Twitter accounts to find the relationships between people, organizations, actions and incidents — both present and still-to-come. In a white paper, the company says its temporal analytics engine “goes beyond search” by “looking at the ‘invisible links’ between documents that talk about the same, or related, entities and events.”

The idea is to figure out for each incident who was involved, where it happened and when it might go down. Recorded Future then plots that chatter, showing online “momentum” for any given event.

So let FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski know you want the FCC to take action on net neutrality. His e-mail is Julius.Genachowski@fcc.gov.

His views on Net Neutrality:

During the 2008 presidential campaign, Genachowski showed his support for net neutrality, which basically means equal access to the Internet for all Web site providers. In a blog post, Genachowski wrote “Open Government. Open Networks. Open Markets.”Genachowski, Julius, "The Obama Tech & Innovation Plan," Change.gov blog, Dec. 8, 2007

The net neutrality debate centers on the Internet providers wanting to charge fees for use of their cable lines. Such fees would determine how fast a Web site downloads and could significantly affect the user experience. While content providers fiercely oppose these fees, Internet providers argue that the fees would actually give consumers better services like easier and crisper Internet telephone calls.http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,188930,00.html

Genachowski said very little else on net neutrality during the campaign, but he quickly let his feelings be known once he joined the FCC. In Sept. 2009, Genachowski proposed two rules that would solidify the stance that Internet providers can't charge or discriminate by using download speeds. The rules are:

1. Broad band providers can't discriminate against any Internet content or application.
2. Internet providers must be open about their network-managment.Richman, Dan, "Wireless carriers uneasy about ‘Net neutrality,’" MSNBC, Oct. 6, 2009

These rules would apply, even if the consumer was accessing the Internet through a wireless device.

Links:
 
Google WIFI snafu

Google can be trusted to respect the privacy

Recorded Futures 

Read more...

Is Google Worse than the Banksters?

Don't be evil?  Really?

How is making a deal with the devil itself, (Verizon) to take over the Internet so they can get special privileges on Verizon's network considered not evil?

How is drastically tilting the playing field so far toward yourself - prioritizing Google's traffic, giving them an advantage over any other content online - that no one else  has a chance to succeed, not evil?

How is stripping the FCC of its powers to act as a watchdog for consumers and regulate violations of network neutrality not evil?

How is helping Verizon protect its ability to profit over the control of its pipes (advanced network services) not evil?

How is threatening to close the Internet off - for all practical purposes - to future innovators and creators not evil?

So, Google's pledge not to be evil didn't last long, if it ever began. Gee, what a surprise. As if they haven't advanced their own interests enough already. Let's see... expanding and taking over every market that is not 100% nailed down; threatening the livelihood of people and small businesses as they take and provide all their creative content for free;  exposing people's private information, etc.  Now, of course, all the while, Google continues to profit immensely by establishing themselves as the gatekeepers of the greatest amount of information ever collected in the history of the world.

Yep. Google is acting just like the banksters. In fact, Google is worse than the banksters.  Google promised to do no harm. Yet here they are, helping to set up an infrastructure that will devastate competition at a time when the unemployment rate is higher than it's been in 70 years. 

Isn't it time we put the corporate behemoths in their place? Isn't it time to guarantee an open Internet from this day forward? And finally, isn't it time to put the interests of we, the people ahead of the interests of big money and the corporate elite?

“Google and Verizon can try all they want to disguise this deal as a reasonable path forward, but the simple fact is this framework, if embraced by Congress and the Federal Communications Commission, would transform the free and open Internet into a closed platform like cable television. This is much worse than a business arrangement between two companies. It’s a signed-sealed-and-delivered policy framework with giant loopholes that blesses the carving up of the Internet for a few deep-pocketed Internet companies and carriers.” -- Joel Kelsey, political advisor for media watchdog Free Press

Click here to take action. Tell the FCC they work for you, not AT&T and Verizon.
The Google-Verizon deal will kill the open Internet as we know it.

Google: Don't Be Evil from MoveOn.org Official Channel on Vimeo.

Read more...

Why Net Neutrality is Important

"Full Internet availability upon request. Prices subject to change at any time. (Full access does not include access to illegal material)"


Sound familiar?

Read more...

Please Don't Hand the Internet Over to the Gatekeepers

The Department Of Justice says it is opposed to Net Neutrality because

"it could hamper development of the Internet and prevent service providers from upgrading or expanding their networks."

The problem with this is that now instead of the internet being open, these companies now get to discriminate who gets online, who gets to use their services and at what speed. Gatekeepers (large corporations) will stifle innovations because they will control flow of information to benefit their bottom line. Sound familiar?

The Internet should remain decentralized and an open platform where people can access and search any content they opt for; download services and applications they want, and use devices of their choosing.

Everything from the ideas involved in the creation of the Internet to the software, hardware and the pipes and wires that go to people’s homes is the result of public enterprise, designed to promote equality and level the playing field. We have the same networks that the cable companies have, yet our President and the Department of Justice want to hand it over to the big corporations because the future is going toward the internet and these companies want to profit and gain the extra revenue that does not belong to them.

In addition, Net Neutrality interferes with the Bush agenda.

"“It would seem that the president and the Justice Department cannot do enough for AT&T and the other companies that agreed to spy on the American people. Without network neutrality, companies are free to turn over user information without a warrant or to block users from desired content,­ as AT&T recently did ‘accidentally’ by blocking Pearl Jam’s criticism of the president during a concert performance carried on AT&T’s broadband service." -- Harold Feld, senior vice president of Media Access Project

Read more...

8 Days Left To Save the Internet!

Net Neutrality, which is the principle that all content on the Internet should be accessed equally and without having to pay service providers extra money, is at stake.

In a nutshell, the future of all media is going toward the internet and big profit driven corporations such as Verizon, Comcast and Time Warner, to name a few, do not want to miss out on cashing in on this huge shift taking place right now, or as someone on the internet said, "they're afraid someone is going to spend a nickel and they're not going to get 4 cents of it." ...the way things seem to work more and more these days.

The pipes and the wires responsible for allowing us to enjoy the Internet in the comfort of our homes are the very same pipes and wires the networks and the cable companies have as well.

So, the main question is “Who provides the service?”

Will the internet become a centralized entity much like cable TV or phone service? In other words a 'vast wasteland'. Or will it remain decentralized and a valuable source of knowledge and venue for the free exchange of ideas. Will it remain a medium where diversity of thought and discourse flow freely without the interference of big business or big government?

We all know the internet is also full of infantile, vanity-driven garbage which makes it difficult to evaluate or discriminate between what's good or bad, to separate the wheat from the chaff, but the answer is not to hand it over to big business...that will guarantee all of the content on the Internet will be nothing but trash!

As Harold Feld, MAP (Media Access Projects)'s Senior Vice President, said,

"The FTC explicitly sidesteps what should be the central issue in our Network Neutrality policy debate: What will happen to the current vibrant civic and political discussions on the Internet if the cable and phone companies get to decide which speakers deserve faster speed? The Supreme Court has called the Internet a medium ‘as diverse as human thought.’ Without Network Neutrality, it threatens to follow the path of radio, television and cable and become instead a ‘vast wasteland’ where the ability to pay vast sums for premium treatment trumps the power of ideas."

The problem with the Federal Trade Commission’s new report on Broadband Connectivity Competition Policy is that now instead of the internet being an open source of information, thought, and political discourse, these greedy companies will get to discriminate content for us and who gets online, who gets to use their services and at what speed. The Gatekeepers (large corporations) will stifle innovations, as well as many other components important to leveling the playing field, which is now contributing to cultivating a grassroots revival of public participation in political life.

Read more...