Thursday, 23 April 2015, WASHINGTON, D.C. - It comes as no surprise to the Ninth Amendment and readers of its recent posts which include the "Internet 'Militarization' Threat" post here of last Sunday, 19 April 2015 that the U.S. Government right on schedule yesterday on the expected day of the full Congressional House on the so-called "cybersecurity" bill vote eagerly awaited by corporate U.S. business to be "immunized" and the U.S. civilian and military "intelligence" community potentially greatly (legally) to expand its surveillance of and amassing of untold further amounts of private consumer information already largely compromised as revealed by Edward Snowden and others as to the NSA, took the occasion to fan public hysteria over alleged "cyberthreats" including the apparently recently coined "cyberjihad" most directly through the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) yesterday posting on the FBI's previously unknown "private airliner notification" feature of its FBI website nevertheless available for all to see and dutifully picked up by the media as in the BBC Technology News article linked to below a warning that airliner onboard wi-fi systems "might theoretically" be compromised by a hacker. This is by no means even remotely breaking but more along the lines of archival "news" if that noun even is appropriate.
Any report of a notice from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) which regulates the airline industry also has been oddly absent from news reports. In any case the FBI notice advised airlines to perform reports and reviews concerning listed "suspicious activity" that airlines presumably already would be doing since "[a]irline experts have warned for years that airlines are a potential target for hackers". The reason for the notice and suspected apparent attempt to further fan immediate public hysteria about "cyberthreats" on the day of the Congressional "cybersecurity" bill vote was implied to be tied to a virtual non-incident concerning an onboard United Airlines "tweet" last week by private security expert Chris Roberts making a joke in which he "suggested that he might be able to deploy the oxygen masks on the flight".
The media dutifully has greatly expanded on this incident reported right on schedule that "[a] terrorist theoretically could take over systems that fly a plane by compromising equipment at their seat". However the report also notes that "[t]he FBI and the Transportation Safety Administration (TSA) (ed. note - which TSA perhaps is best known for its agents knowingly having allowed passengers to take guns and suitcases of illegal drugs aboard planes for cash and small gifts and more recently allegedly for 'groping' passengers) said they had no information to support claims a plane's information system could be interfered [sic] via its onboard wi-fi kit, but they were evaluating the evidence". Hopefully the FBI and TSA (not to mention the FAA and other federal agencies) have already been "evaluating" the hypothetical threat for some time as Mr. Roberts previously has given multiple public interviews including on CNN expressing his concerns (and presumably publicizing his private security company) in which he already "explained" weak points in airliners stating that one might conceivably hook up a computer under one's seat to "monitor" data from three of the onboard airline systems.
Whatever the case Mr. Roberts co-founder of private security company One World Labs following the perpetration of his "tweet" last week was questioned by the FBI which "seized" his laptop computer and unidentified other devices (see previous Ninth Amendment posts for information on the very remote chance of getting back any "seized" items and cash from the government). United Airlines subsequently denied Mr. Roberts boarding to his flight to Seattle and banned him from all United flights so he now in punishment will need to travel by air on another airline.
Following last week's Mr. Roberts "tweet" incident security expert Bruce Schneier had explained " [t]he risk is a hacker sitting in the back of a plane, or even one on the ground, could use the wi-fi connection to hack into the plane's avionics and then fly the plane". He went on the the explain that no vulnerabilities to hackers were "currently" known but noted that such an attack was "theoretically possible" as all networks were "inherently insecure". Most significantly news reports rather downplayed that Mr. Schneier finally "added" that "[i]n the scheme of internet risks I worry about, its not very high".
History would strongly suggest that the federal government (the State) here seized on the opportunity to take the occasion yesterday of the expected Congressional vote on the rushed through committee "cybersecurity" bill unconscionably to fan public fear and manipulate the People of this country over an apparent businessman's publicity stunt using an unjustified extraordinary action by the FBI and TSA (of all agencies) that could only serve needlessly to fan public hysteria over some specific remote act of "terrorism" when there undoubtedly are more pressing concerns at hand which this type of action can only serve dangerously to discount.
It is well worth and in fact extremely important to recall at such times that from likely centuries before the time of the "Gulf of Tonkin" Congressional resolution over a totally phony incident which nevertheless drew the U.S. into the years-long nightmarish quagmire of what the military officially terms the "Vietnam conflict" since no war ever constitutionally has been declared since WWII up to and doubtless even beyond the known exploitation of public and even lawmakers' hysteria over the more recent extraordinary horrors of the 9/11 attacks and complicating subsequent anthrax scares which even had extended to the Capitol building all of which lead directly to the surreal passage of the blatantly unconstitutional last-minute ink still wet on the page unreviewed by Congress dangerously rambling laundry wish list of the illegitimate Bush Administration's worst civil liberties nightmares come true cynically misnamed "Patriot Act" that the State will exploit public fears and even create them and fan subsequent hysteria to achieve approval of extraordinary powers for the State to which it is not entitled under the U.S. Constitution and which the People in more reasoned times would not even purport to grant to the State when under the existing text of the Constitution the powers are not legitimate and therefore invalid and void as a competent U.S. Supreme Court should recognize as its sacrosanct duty under our system of government.
In conclusion the so-called "cybersecurity" bill appears entirely objectionable on its face and in any case must be subjected to much more widespread public scrutiny than some behind-closed-doors deal between the Obama White House and Republican congresspersons before its passage by the Senate and signing into law by the President and as for the filthy piece of trash advanced by individuals who no longer even support its interpretations said to justify State abuses abhorrent to all founding principles of this republic the misnamed "Patriot Act" President Obama must not yet again betray his supporters who believed in and elected him by his once again routinely rubber-stamping out "sunset" provisions of this Bush Administration rotten legacy but on 1 June 2015 it is well past the time President Obama must allow the obviously unconstitutional and widely misused Section 215 and other provisions of the repulsive misnamed "Patriot Act" set to expire to lapse back into oblivion and most certainly not abdicate his duty only to relinquish this power to make such a critical decision to the following presidential administration.
Without editorial comment the Ninth Amendment directs readers interested in more information on the above to the link below.
Copyright 2015 Martin P. All World Rights Expressly Reserved
No comments:
Post a Comment