Internet Giants Delete Content of Alex Jones

EndGame HQ full length version, 5,475,101 views, Nov 13, 2009

August 6, 2018

[AFP] - Internet giants launched an offensive Monday against far-right conspiracy theorist Alex Jones, who is now banned from Apple, Facebook, Spotify and YouTube.

The move, described by Jones as a "coordinated communist-style crackdown," came after months of criticism against Facebook, Twitter and YouTube calling for them to do more to combat disinformation and hate discourse.

Jones, whose site InfoWars has accused victims of the 2012 Sandy Hook school shooting of being "actors" in a plot to discredit the gun lobby, violated Facebook's hate speech policies, the social network said.

Facebook said the pages were taken down for "glorifying violence, which violates our graphic violence policy, and using dehumanizing language to describe people who are transgender, Muslims and immigrants, which violates our hate speech policies."

Gunman Adam Lanza killed 26 people, including 20 children, when he launched his rampage in the Connecticut school.

Jones has repeatedly claimed the massacre was a hoax and that the parents of the murdered first graders were actors, an accusation that has sparked death threats against some of the bereaved mothers and fathers.

Several of the families have sued the 44-year-old Texan, accusing him of using their suffering to expand his audience. Jones has counter-sued, demanding in turn that they pay his court expenses.

Among the conspiracy theories Jones has peddled are charges that the US government was behind numerous terrorist attacks, including the September 11, 2001 strikes on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.

Several days ago, Facebook removed four videos Jones posted that the group said violated its policy on hate speech.

Jones responded by posting more content on other pages, prompting the social media giant to suspend his four main pages.

Facebook stressed that it was the violent language used by Jones, rather than his conspiracy theories, that prompted the move.

Spotify, the streaming music online service, had already removed a number of Jones's podcasts last week, accusing them of breaking its own hate-speech rules. On Monday, the Swedish company went a step further and banned his program altogether.

Apple removed most of Jones's podcasts, AFP confirmed, after the action was initially reported by Buzzfeed.

"Apple does not tolerate hate speech, and we have clear guidelines that creators and developers must follow to ensure we provide a safe environment for all of our users," an Apple spokesman told Buzzfeed.

In late July, YouTube took down videos posted by Jones and suspended him for 90 days. After Jones sought to skip the suspension by broadcasting live on other YouTube channels, the online video platform said it closed down all of his affiliated channels.

His main YouTube channel counted some 2.4 million subscribers.

Pinterest also removed the InfoWars account.

Twitter has so far held out on taking punitive action against Jones, saying his account and that of InfoWars did not violate the microblogging service's rules. The company did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

"Last night's purge was a coordinated effort and had nothing to do with enforcing hate speech rule," Jones said on his talkshow.

Several ultra-conservative websites showed support for Jones, publicly backing his claim that he was a victim of a plot by Big Tech companies.

"Are tech giants working together to censor conservatives"? asked Gateway Pundit.

A Breitbart headline read: "CNN, Democrats successfully lobby big tech to censor their critics."

U.S. Advises Avoiding Internet Explorer Until Bug Fixed

U.S. Government Suggests that You Switch from Internet Explorer

UPDATE: The U.S. Department of Homeland Security advised computer users to consider using alternatives to Microsoft Corp’s Internet Explorer browser until the company fixes a security flaw that hackers have used to launch attacks. The United States Computer Emergence Readiness Team said in an advisory released on Monday morning that the vulnerability in versions 6 to 11 of Internet Explorer “could lead to the complete compromise of an affected system.”

April 27, 2014

Reuters - Microsoft is rushing to fix a bug in its widely used Internet Explorer Web browser after a computer security firm disclosed a flaw over the weekend, saying hackers have already exploited it in attacks on some U.S. companies.

PCs running Windows XP will not receive any updates fixing that bug when they are released, however, because Microsoft stopped supporting the 13-year-old operating system earlier this month. Security firms estimate that between 15 and 25 percent of the world’s PCs still run Windows XP.

Microsoft disclosed on Saturday its plans to fix the bug in an advisory to its customers posted on its security website, which it said is present in Internet Explorer versions 6 to 11. Those versions dominate desktop browsing, accounting for 55 percent of the PC browser market, according to tech research firm NetMarketShare.

Cybersecurity software maker FireEye said that a sophisticated group of hackers have been exploiting the bug in a campaign dubbed “Operation Clandestine Fox.”

FireEye, whose Mandiant division helps companies respond to cyber attacks, declined to name specific victims or to identify the group of hackers, saying that an investigation into the matter is still active.

“It’s a campaign of targeted attacks seemingly against U.S.-based firms, currently tied to defense and financial sectors,” FireEye spokesman Vitor De Souza said via email. “It’s unclear what the motives of this attack group are, at this point. It appears to be broad-spectrum intel gathering.”

He declined to elaborate, though he said one way to protect against them would be to switch to another browser.

Microsoft said in the advisory that the vulnerability could allow a hacker to take complete control of an affected system, and then do things such as viewing, changing, or deleting data; installing malicious programs; or creating accounts that would give hackers full user rights.

FireEye and Microsoft have not provided much information about the security flaw or the approach that hackers could use to figure out how to exploit it, said Aviv Raff, chief technology officer of cybersecurity firm Seculert.

Yet other groups of hackers are now racing to learn more about it so they can launch similar attacks before Microsoft prepares a security update, Raff said.

“Microsoft should move fast,” he said. “This will snowball.”

Still, he cautioned that Windows XP users will not benefit from that update since Microsoft has just halted support for that product.

The software maker said in a statement to Reuters that it advises Windows XP owners to upgrade to one of two most recently versions of its operating system, Windows 7 or 8.

Editor's Note: I recommend you download the free internet browser Mozilla Firefox.

"Ah, yes. Another day, another hole in Windows. Don’t kid yourselves: this isn’t just IE. Thanks to the way that Microsoft integrated IE into the Windows operating application as part of their monopolistic business model back in the ’90s, they can’t just fix IE. That’s why people still using XP are in trouble – Microsoft won’t provide the OS fixes for XP, only their later versions of their operating application. If Windows was a real operating system, like Unix, you could just fix IE and everything would be fine." - majkmushrm, Reuters, April 28, 2014

Bilderberg Pushes Mandatory Internet ID for Europe

Bilderberg Demands Internet ID for all EU Citizens

May 23, 2012

Infowars.com - While the international ACTA treaty and United States’ CISPA legislation are setting the stage to clamp down on the world wide web, technocrats are working overtime to try to pin down your identity and make sure all your activities are thoroughly monitored and under control.

The European Union is now moving to create a mandatory electronic ID system for all EU citizens that would be implemented across Europe to standardize business both online and in person, authenticating users via a common ‘electronic signature.’ A single authenticating ID would guard access to the Internet, online data and most commerce. It is nothing short of an attempt to phase in a Mark of the Beast system, and a prominent Bilderberg attendee is behind the scheme.

Neelie Kroes is the EU’s Digital Agenda Commissioner, and is introducing legislation she hopes will force “the adoption of harmonised e-signatures, e-identities and electronic authentication services (eIAS) across EU member states.”

The extent of such a system would, of course, expand over time, particularly as many EU nations have resisted the big government encroachment of ID requirements on civil rights grounds, which even now smack of the Nazi regime’s draconian “papers please” policies that empowered their other avenues of tyranny. According to EurActiv.com, Neelie Kroes would later “widen the scope of the current Directive by including also ancillary authentication services that complement e-signatures, like electronic seals, time/date stamps, etc,” as the supra-national body attempts to corral more nations into participation.

This big brother system will be implemented in Europe first and later pushed in North America and the remainder of the globe, as the world is nudged step by step towards a total cashless control grid in the name of ‘safe, verifiable commerce,’ and of course, in the name of “security.” Nevermind that the plan would invite the hacking of identities and fast track forgeries. In the case of Europe, special emphasis is placed in part on “establishing a truly functioning single market” — part of the larger EU goal even now floundering.

Neelie Kroes has been a long term Bilderberg attendee, showing up annually since 2005. She was on the official list for the 2006 meeting in Ottawa, Canada, then the 2007 meeting in Istanbul, Turkey, 2008 in Chantilly, Virginia, 2009 in Vouliagmeni, Greece and 2010 in Sitges, Spain as a delegate from the European Commission.

But in 2011, Kroes came to the table in St. Moritz, Switzerland with a new title: the EU’s Commissioner for Digital Agenda, so obviously now seeing development on that agenda was not unexpected. Kroes latest effort will surely be bolstered during the 2012 meeting now just days away.

It dovetails with the creation of US CYBERCOM in recent years and the appointment of NSA head Gen. Keith Alexander, who also meets annually at Bilderberg, to wage offensive cyberwar across the globe. Further, technocrats from Silicon Valley and other locales have also converged around the secretive meetings to coordinate their developments with emerging regulations, new Internet laws and treaties, and to further the data mining efforts of the clandestine intelligence communities they work with.

New York Senate Bill Seeks to End Anonymous Internet Posting

New York Senate Bill Seeks to End Anonymous Internet Posting

May 23, 2012

Tecca - If the bill passes, get ready to hand over your full name and home address Anonymity is a double-edged sword. On the one hand, the United States was founded, in part, thanks to Thomas Paine's anonymously written, pro-revolution pamphlet Common Sense. On the other hand, 12-year-olds who post anonymously on the internet can be rather unpleasant and cause real problems by cyberbullying. Whether you think the good outweighs the bad, this news is troubling indeed: A far-reaching bill introduced in the New York State Senate could end the practice of posting online once and for all.

Sen. Thomas F. O'Mara / NY SenateIntroduced by New York State Sen. Thomas F. O'Mara (R—Big Flats), S6779 would require that any anonymous post online is subject to removal if the poster refuses to post — and verify — their legal name, their IP address, and their home address. From the (likely well intentioned) bill (from a senator who clearly does not "get" the internet):

"A web site administrator upon request shall remove any comments posted on his or her web site by an anonymous poster unless such anonymous poster agrees to attach his or her name to the post and confirms that his or her IP address, legal name, and home address are accurate. All web site administrators shall have a contact number or e-mail address posted for such removal requests, clearly visible in any sections where comments are posted."

Critics are quick to point out how dangerous and ineffective the anti-privacy bill would be in the off chance that it somehow passes. After all, IP addresses do nothing to verify a person's identity, and including your home address on a controversial internet post could open you up to real-life threats.

In effect, the bill is an online stalker's dream. Of course, the most likely result of the bill's passage would just be the full-scale elimination of all comment systems everywhere, because the system is an unworkable burden on both the poster and the "web site administrators" who would need to respond to ludicrous take down requests at all times of the day.

U.S. Government is Monitoring Social Media for Dissent

Homeland Security Manual Lists Government Key Words for Monitoring Social Media, News

February 25, 2012

Huffington Post - Ever complain on Facebook that you were feeling "sick?" Told your friends to "watch" a certain TV show? Left a comment on a media website about government "pork?"

If you did any of those things, or tweeted about your recent vacation in "Mexico" or a shopping trip to "Target," the Department of Homeland Security may have noticed.

In the latest revelation of how the federal government is monitoring social media and online news outlets, the Electronic Privacy Information Center has posted online a 2011 Department of Homeland Security manual that includes hundreds of key words (such as those above) and search terms used to detect possible terrorism, unfolding natural disasters and public health threats. The center, a privacy watchdog group, filed a Freedom of Information Act request and then sued to obtain the release of the documents.

The 39-page "Analyst's Desktop Binder" used by the department's National Operations Center includes no-brainer words like ""attack," "epidemic" and "Al Qaeda" (with various spellings). But the list also includes words that can be interpreted as either menacing or innocent depending on the context, such as "exercise," "drill," "wave," "initiative," "relief" and "organization."

These terms and others are "broad, vague and ambiguous" and include "vast amounts of First Amendment protected speech that is entirely unrelated to the Department of Homeland Security mission to protect the public against terrorism and disasters," stated the Electronic Privacy Information Center in letter to the House Homeland Security Subcommittee on Counterterrorism and Intelligence.

The manual was released by the center a week after Homeland Security officials were grilled at a House hearing over other documents obtained through a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit that revealed analysts were scrutinizing online comments that "reflect adversely" on the federal government.

Mary Ellen Callahan, the chief privacy officer for the Department of Homeland Security, and Richard Chavez, director for the National Operations Center, testified that the released documents were outdated and that social media was monitored strictly to provide situational awareness and not to police disparaging opinions about the federal government. On Friday, Homeland Security officials stuck by that testimony.

A senior Homeland Security official who spoke to The Huffington Post on Friday on condition of anonymity said the testimony of agency officials last week remains "accurate" and the manual "is a starting point, not the endgame" in maintaining situational awareness of natural and man-made threats. The official denied Electronic Privacy Information Center's charge that the government is monitoring dissent. The manual's instruction that analysts should identify "media reports that reflect adversely on DHS and response activities" was not aimed at silencing criticism but at spotting and addressing problems, she added.

Still, the agency agrees that the manual's language is vague and in need of updating. For instance, under terrorism watchwords, the manual lists "Hamas" and "Hezbollah" but also the "Palestinian Liberation Organization." The PLO was once considered a terrorist organization by the U.S. government but now that it has a diplomatic mission in Washington and its leader, Mahmoud Abbas, has met with presidents Bush and Obama, the inclusion of this term could be deemed questionable.

"To ensure clarity, as part of ... routine compliance review, DHS will review the language contained in all materials to clearly and accurately convey the parameters and intention of the program," agency spokesman Matthew Chandler told HuffPost.

The Huffington Post was given a sample of the social media nuggets and news reports picked up by Homeland Security analysts by using its watchword list. An internal report circulated by the agency on Feb. 17 to top officials indicated it had collected reports about everything from hotels in Nigeria increasing security as the terrorist group Boko Haram regroups to the arrest of a Bakersfield, Calif., teen in connection with a bomb plot. Other reports covered subjects including a multi-vehicle crash that resulted in the closing of I-85 in North Carolina, a norovirus outbreak at George Washington University, a suspicious package at an Alabama courthouse and an evacuation of a school in New York City's Bronx borough as a result of an unknown substance.

Read the Homeland Security manual here:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/82701103/Analyst-Desktop-Binder-REDACTED

Watch a video of Rep. Patrick Meehan (R-Pa.), chairing a hearing of the House Homeland Security Subcommittee on Counterterrorism and Intelligence about the Department of Homeland Security's monitoring of social media.

Google's Big Privacy Change: How to Remove Your Google Web History

How to Remove Your Google Web History

February 22, 2012

cnet.com - Do you know if Google is tracking your Web activity? If you have a Google account (for, say, Gmail) and have not specifically located and paused the Web History setting, then the search giant is keeping track of your searches and the sites you visited. This data has been separated from other Google products, but on March 1 it will be shared across all of the Google products you use when Google's new privacy policy goes into effect.

If you'd like to prevent Google from combining this potentially sensitive data with the information it has collected from your YouTube, Google+, and other Google accounts, you can remove your Web History and stop it from being recorded moving forward.

1. After signing into your Google account, type https://www.google.com/history into your browser. (Alternatively, you can choose Account Settings from the pull-down menu in the upper-right corner of a Google product such as Gmail, Google+, or Google.com.


2. From the Account Settings page, scroll down to the Services header and click on the "Go to web history" link.) If your Web History is enabled, you'll see a list of recent searches and sites visited.


3. Click the gray Remove all Web History button at the top of the page and a subsequent OK button to clear your Web History.
   
   Just the way I like it, empty and paused.

   This action also pauses the Web History feature so that it will no longer track your Web searches and whereabouts.
   

4. If you'd like to fire it back up, simply click the blue Resume button.

See: Google Requires All Users to Agree to Its New Privacy Policy
See: Google privacy policy changes March 1: How to clear your search history, account information

Privacy Group Pushing FTC to Punish Google for Violating Users Rights

February 9, 2012

Washington Post - Privacy advocates on Wednesday filed a federal lawsuit aimed at forcing government officials to punish Google over alleged privacy violations.

In the complaint, the Electronic Privacy and Information Center said Google’s plans to tie together data of users across services beginning March 1 violates a settlement agreement the company struck with the Federal Trade Commission last summer over a separate privacy controversy.

EPIC asked the U.S. District Court of the District of Columbia to force the FTC to take action against Google. If the FTC finds that the firm violated its June 2011 settlement terms, Google could be forced to pay fines of $10,000 for each violation — an amount that could explode because of the popularity of Google’s services, experts say.

“The imminent change in Google’s business practices threatens the same customer interests that the FTC’s consent decree sought to protect,” EPIC said in its suit. “If the FTC does not act to prevent the change, all Google users, including EPIC, face an imminent harm that is both certain and great.”

Read full report here

FBI Could Take Down Internet for Millions on March 8

FBI Could Take Down Internet for Millions on March 8

February 16, 2012

Digital Trends - The Federal Bureau of Investigation may soon be forced to shut down a number of key Domain Name System (DNS) servers, which would cut Internet access for millions of Web users around the world, reports BetaBeat. The DNS servers were installed by the FBI last year, in an effort to stop the spread of a piece of malware known as DNSCharger Trojan. But the court order that allowed the set up of the replacement servers expires on March 8.

In November of last year, authorities arrested six men in Estonia for the creation and spread of DNSCharger, which reconfigures infected computers’ Internet settings, and re-routes users to websites that contain malware, or other illegal sites. DNSCharger also blocks access to websites that might offer solutions for how to rid the computer of its worm, and often comes bundled with other types of malicious software.

By the time the FBI stepped in, DNSCharger had taken over computers in more than 100 countries, including half-a-million computers in the US alone. To help eradicate the widespread malware, the FBI replaced infected servers with new, clean servers, which gave companies and individuals with infected computers time to clean DNSCharger off their machines.

Unfortunately, DNSCharger is still running on computers “at half of the Fortune 500 companies,” and at “27 out of 55 major government entities,” reports cybersecurity journalist Brian Krebs. These computers rely on the FBI-installed DNS servers to access the Web. But if the court order is not extended, the FBI will be legally required to remove the clean servers, which would cut off the Internet for users still infected with DNSCharger.

Companies or other agencies that are unsure whether their systems are infected with DNSCharger can get free assistance here. And private users can find out if they are infected using instructions provided here.

Internet Censorship: ACTA is Worse Than SOPA

ACTA: The Corporate Usurpation of the Internet

January 28, 2012

Activist Post - In the wake of a public outcry against internet regulation bills such as SOPA and PIPA, representatives of the EU have signed a new and far more threatening legislation yesterday in Tokyo.

Spearheaded by the governments of the United States and Japan and constructed largely in the absence of public awareness, the measures of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) dramatically alter current international legal framework, while introducing the first substantial processes of global internet governance. With complete contempt towards the democratic process, the negotiations of the treaty were exclusively held between industry representatives and government officials, while excluding elected representatives and members of the press from their hearings.

Under the guise of protecting intellectual property rights, the treaty introduces measures that would allow the private sector to enforce sweeping central authority over internet content. The ACTA abolishes all legal oversight involving the removal of content and allows copyright holders to force ISPs to remove material from the internet, something that presently requires a court order. ISPs would then be faced with legal liabilities if they chose not to remove content. Theoretically, personal blogs can be removed for using company logos without permission or simply linking to copy written material; users could be criminalized, barred from accessing the internet and even imprisoned for sharing copyrighted material. Ultimately, these implications would be starkly detrimental toward the internet as a medium for free speech.

The Obama Administration subverted the legal necessity of allowing to US Senate to ratify the treaty by unconstitutionally declaring it an “executive agreement” before the President promptly signed it on October 1st, 2011.

As a touted constitutional lawyer, Barack Obama is fully aware that Article 1, Section 8 of the US Constitution, mandates Congress in dealing with issues of intellectual property, thus voiding the capacity for the President to issue an executive agreement.

The White House refused to even disclose details about the legislation to elected officials and civil libertarians over concern that doing so may incur “damage to the national security.” While some may hang off every word of his sorely insincere speeches and still be fixated by the promises of hope offered by brand-Obama, his administration has trampled the constitution and introduced the most comprehensive authoritarian legislation in America’s history.

Under the sweeping regulations of the Trans-Pacific Partnership, individual infringers will be criminalized and sentenced with the same severity as large-scale offenders.

Within the United States, the recently announced Online Protection and Enforcement of Digital Trade (OPEN) H.R. 3782 regulation seeks to install policies largely identical to SOPA and PIPA.

The Obama administration is also working towards an Internet ID program, which may be mandatory for American citizens and required when renewing passports, obtaining federal licenses, or applying for social security.

Spreading these dangerous measures to other countries participating in these treaties would necessitate a binding obligation on the US to retain these policies, averting any chance of reform.

The ACTA will become law once it is formally ratified and cleared by the European Parliament in June. By petitioning members of the European parliament and educating others about the potential dangers imposed by this legislation, there is a chance of the treaty being rejected.

Upon closer examination of the human condition with all of its inequalities, food insecurity and dire social issues, our governments have lost their legitimacy for giving such unwarranted priority to fighting copyright infringement on behalf of lobbyists from the pharmaceutical and entertainment industries. The existence of ACTA is a clear statement that surveillance, regulations and securing further corporate centralization dwarfs any constructive shift towards stimulating human innovation and self-sufficient technologies.

When former US National Security Advisor and Trilateral Commission co-founder, Zbigniew Brzezinski spoke before the Council on Foreign Relations in 2010, he warned of a global political awakening beginning to take place. Technology such as file sharing, blogging, and open source software has the potential to undermine the oligarchical governing interests seeking to centrally control our society and enforce the population into being entirely dependent on their commodities.

The following excerpt from Brzezinski’s book Between Two Ages: America’s Role in the Technetronic Era, provides invaluable insight into the world being brought in;

“The technetronic era involves the gradual appearance of a more controlled society. Such a society would be dominated by an elite, unrestrained by traditional values. Soon it will be possible to assert almost continuous surveillance over every citizen and maintain up-to-date complete files containing even the most personal information about the citizen. These files will be subject to instantaneous retrieval by the authorities.”

ACTA is worse than SOPA, here’s what you need to know

Google Requires All Users to Agree to Its New Privacy Policy

Google Announces Privacy Changes Across Products; Users Can’t Opt Out

January 24, 2012

Washington Post - Google will soon know far more about who you are and what you do on the Web.

The Web giant announced Tuesday that it plans to follow the activities of users across nearly all of its ubiquitous sites, including YouTube, Gmail and its leading search engine.

Google has already been collecting some of this information. But for the first time, it is combining data across its Web sites to stitch together a fuller portrait of users.

Consumers won’t be able to opt out of the changes, which take effect March 1. And experts say the policy shift will invite greater scrutiny from federal regulators of the company’s privacy and competitive practices.

The move will help Google better tailor its ads to people’s tastes. If someone watches an NBA clip online and lives in Washington, the firm could advertise Washington Wizards tickets in that person’s Gmail account.

Consumers could also benefit, the company said. When someone is searching for the word “jaguar,” Google would have a better idea of whether the person was interested in the animal or the car. Or the firm might suggest e-mailing contacts in New York when it learns you are planning a trip there.

But consumer advocates say the new policy might upset people who never expected their information would be shared across so many different Web sites.

A user signing up for Gmail, for instance, might never have imagined that the content of his or her messages could affect the experience on seemingly unrelated Web sites such as YouTube.

“Google’s new privacy announcement is frustrating and a little frightening,” said Common Sense Media chief executive James Steyer. “Even if the company believes that tracking users across all platforms improves their services, consumers should still have the option to opt out — especially the kids and teens who are avid users of YouTube, Gmail and Google Search.”

Google can collect information about users when they activate an Android mobile phone, sign into their accounts online or enter search terms. It can also store cookies on people’s computers to see which Web sites they visit or use its popular maps program to estimate their location. However, users who have not logged on to Google or one of its other sites, such as YouTube, are not affected by the new policy.

The change to its privacy policies come as Google is facing stiff competition for the fickle attention of Web surfers. It recently disappointed investors for the first time in several quarters, failing last week to meet earnings predictions. Apple, in contrast, reported record earnings Tuesday that blew past even the most optimistic expectations.

Some analysts said Google’s move is aimed squarely at Apple and Facebook — which have been successful in building unified ecosystems of products that capture people’s attention. Google, in contrast, has adopted a more scattered approach, but an executive said in an interview that the company wants to create a much more seamless environment across its various offerings.

“If you’re signed in, we may combine information you’ve provided from one service with information from other services,” Alma Whitten, Google’s director of privacy for product and engineering, wrote in a blog post.

“In short, we’ll treat you as a single user across all our products, which will mean a simpler, more intuitive Google experience,” she said.

Google said it would notify its hundreds of millions of users of the change through an e-mail and a message on its Web sites. It will apply to all of its services except for Google Wallet, the Chrome browser and Google Books.

The company said the change would simplify the company’s privacy policy — a move that regulators encouraged.

Still, some consumer advocates and lawmakers remained skeptical.

“There is no way anyone expected this,” said Jeffrey Chester, executive director of the Center for Digital Democracy, a privacy advocacy group. “There is no way a user can comprehend the implication of Google collecting across platforms for information about your health, political opinions and financial concerns.”

Added Rep. Edward J. Markey (D-Mass), co-chair of the Congressional Privacy Caucus:

“It is imperative that users will be able to decide whether they want their information shared across the spectrum of Google’s offerings.”

Google has increasingly been a focus of Washington regulators.

The company recently settled a privacy complaint by the Federal Trade Commission after it allowed users of its now-defunct social-networking tool Google Buzz to see contacts lists from its e-mail program.

And a previous decision to use its social network data in search results has been included in a broad FTC investigation, according to a person familiar with the matter who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the investigation is private.

Federal officials are also looking at whether Google is running afoul of antitrust rules by using its dominance in online searches to favor its other business lines.

Claudia Farrell, a spokeswoman for the FTC, declined to comment on any interaction between Google and regulators on its new privacy changes.

Pockets of Internet Go Dark to Protest Piracy Bills

Pockets of Internet Go Dark to Protest Piracy Bills

January 18, 2012

Reuters - Wikipedia, the world's free online encyclopedia, went dark on Wednesday and other Internet players including Google put black censorship bars on portions of their websites in protest of pending U.S. legislation designed to curb online piracy.

The unusual protest was visible across the Internet in many forms on Wednesday, with dozens of commercial and non-profit websites either closing down for the day or urging visitors to oppose what had until recently been a relatively obscure and technical legislative proposal.

Internet companies aim to get U.S. lawmakers to back off of bills designed to shut down access to overseas websites that traffic in stolen content or counterfeit goods.

The effort has gained traction. The White House over the weekend warned that overly broad legislation could harm free speech, and on Wednesday, House Speaker John Boehner acknowledged there was a lack of consensus on the bills.

Several members of Congress said the legislation appeared stalled, with some reversing earlier support for the measures.

The legislation, known as SOPA in the U.S. House of Representatives and PIPA in the Senate, has been a major priority for entertainment companies, publishers, pharmaceutical companies and many industry groups, who say it is critical to curbing online piracy that costs them billions of dollars a year.

But Internet players argue the bills would undermine innovation and free speech rights and compromise the functioning of the Internet.

"Something this big - which looks to be the largest and most prolific online protest ever in the short history of the Internet - that's bound to get the attention of lawmakers across the board," said Jeffrey Silva, an analyst at Medley Global Advisors.

Wikipedia mounted a 24-hour protest starting at midnight by converting their English page to shadowy black background and warning readers that "the U.S. Congress is considering legislation that could fatally damage the free and open Internet."

It included a link to help Internet users contact their representatives.

Craigslist, the free Internet classifieds site, also went black in protest, while Google's home search page included a black bar slapped over its logo, and asked readers:

"Tell Congress: Please don't censor the web!"

Smaller sites, such as Reddit.com and BoingBoing.net, were also dark, with BoingBoing noting that the proposed anti-piracy bills "would put us in legal jeopardy if we linked to a site anywhere online that had links to copyright infringement."

Bill Allison, editorial director at the Sunlight Foundation, a lobbying watchdog group, said the Internet companies' 24-hour boycott was an effective campaign.

"It's a way of engaging the public in something that had been a very much behind closed doors kind of business as usual in Washington thing. It's a way to get the public aware and alerted to it, and somewhat on their side," Allison said.

MOMENTUM COOLS

The bills were seemingly on track for approval by Congress, but sentiment has shifted in recent weeks and an implicit veto threat from the White House has cast doubt on whether legislation will pass.

Republican Representative Tom Price, head of the House Republican Policy Committee, said in a hallway interview,

"I don't think it is going anywhere."

"There is real confusion about it, number one, but number two, there are real concerns about whether or not it would it would shutdown the ability of entrepreneurs, new businesses and the like to utilize the Internet for their purposes," Price said.

When asked about the anti-piracy legislation at a news conference on Wednesday, Boehner said lawmakers will continue to try to find support for it, but that it's not there now.

"It's pretty clear to many of us that there is a lack of consensus at this point," Boehner said.

STAYING ON THE SIDELINES

Big tech names including Facebook and Twitter declined to participate in a boycott despite their opposition to the legislation.

The companies were not prepared to sacrifice a day's worth of revenue and risk the ire of users for a protest whose impact on lawmakers would be hard to gauge.

Google's solution allows the search engine giant to keep revenue attached to its searches, while still highlighting the issue.

All the Pieces are Now in Place for a Police State in America

The Foundations are Laid for a Police State in America

January 3, 2012

Don Koenig - Whether you know it or not, all the pieces are now in place for a police state in America. Some of it is already implemented and the rest is just waiting the command.

Obama has now signed the National Defense Authorization Act and it was Obama that insisted that it included the right for the military to incarcerate Americans without charge or legal recourse. The military can now hold American citizens for unlimited time in America without any charges being brought against them. I see no difference between this and what tyrannical nations do under a military dictatorship.

There is a knock on the door in the middle of the night and citizens just disappear (more likely they will break the door down). This act clearly violates the 6th, 7th, and 8th amendments to the Bill of Rights of the Constitution but they get away with it by saying it is an issues of national security.

The federal military forces were once not allowed to have police powers over civilians in America but now they do. By order of the President, the military can now detain and incarcerate anyone that they think is a threat to whatever that administration defines as a threat to security. That threat could be a terrorist attack, the next march on Washington or just some local effort to stop EPA or federal land grab tyranny. The threat will soon be whatever the administration wants it to be.

This act violates the Constitution with its Bill of Rights but few seem to care. This act was passed by over 80 percent of the Senate and House so you can blame most in both parties. Apparently your representatives are either willing to give up any of your rights in the name of national security or they only cared about getting themselves home before Christmas. Anyone who voted for this should be voted out of office.

When Obama signed this bill he clearly admitted the power it gave him to incarcerate Americans but he said he will not use that power. Of course, promises are not binding and we all know that Obama and politicians are really good at telling us one thing and then doing another. What Obama might of meant is that he has no plans to use it before the election.

Let’s face the facts. The Department of Homeland Security has grown to almost 1/4 million people and the head of Homeland Security thinks that terrorists are right-wing patriots and Bible believing Christians. The Transportation Security Administration is now at about 70,000 people irradiating or frisking everyone that flies, and they have big plans to expand all over the country anywhere that people gather. In addition, state and local police forces have been militarized and, in the final analysis, they will answer to Homeland Security. Only a few county sheriffs might not obey unconstitutional federal decrees when they are ordered.

FEMA camps are now being contracted for in every state of the Union, and those that get these contracts have to have these FEMA camps operational within days of the order. You might think the camps will be used by displaced persons in natural disasters; perhaps they will (at first), but all these camps are to be fenced and gated and all have separate fenced areas that will be off-limits to the other residents for some reason. That could mean the camps are being built for both temporary shelter and incarceration. In other words, they will be dual use facilities. After all, you cannot just build prison camps without raising eyebrows.

One would think that this new power given to the President to arrest people at will would be all over the news but with few exceptions nothing worthwhile is said. I see no occupying Washington movement developing over this unconstitutional action by government. The main people that are warning about this law are the ACLU, libertarian leaders and some Far Right alternate news sites. However, for the most part there has been little major reporting on this. For that matter, how much do you really know about the planned FEMA camps? Government actions that are done in secret does not exactly foster trust.

Meanwhile the Federal government is now monitoring all communication in the United States. That also was illegal. They are now trying to get the power to shut down websites based on copyright infringement which really can be expanded into shutting down any website that someone complains about. Your website could be shut down until you go to great expense to prove that you are innocent. Once government regulates control over the corporations that run domain name servers, site hosting and search engines, there will be no assurance that there will be any free speech on the Internet.

The expansions of police powers are coming through the out-of-control Executive Branch in our federal government. There are few checks or balances coming from the other two branches of government. Some laws are not being enforced by the Justice Department and others actions are being enforced that are actually against the law. Selectively enforcing and not enforcing is against the oath they took to enforce the Constitution. Also, just about all bureaucratic agencies, regulatory agencies and tax agencies are establishing or are expanding their police powers of enforcement.

Don’t expect this to change even if Obama is replaced. Not that I expect Obama to lose. Certain Obama supporters are already setting up a third-party called “Elect America”. There is no reason for this party to exist since they have no candidate or agenda. It seems to be an obvious effort by supporters of Obama to nominate a populist candidate like Trump, Bloomberg etc., to remove some of the 25 percent independent swing vote from the Republican equation. Removing many of the independents will insure a victory for the larger Democratic Party. Obama could then be reelected with only 40 percent of the vote.

It has happened before. Don’t be surprised when these third-party players show up. Don’t think that it was not planned and don’t get sucked into voting for one of these third-party candidates because they will never get more than 25 percent of the vote. That is because 40 percent of Americans are solid Democrats that would vote for Beelzebub if he were a Democrat (as we see) and 35 percent are Republicans that would vote for Nancy Reagan if she ran. Only 25 percent of voters might vote for a third party nominee.

Things are going to get even more nasty in the world and when that happens human rights go out the window. Our government is planning for the inevitable, but you will not like the end result because that will be a police state.

Comment by Chris:

RELAX!

I’m sleeping better these days. Ever since President Obama signed the National Defense Authorization Act (supported by 80% of the U.S. Congress) I know that we’re all safer from those who want to do us harm.

The fact that the act gives the government and the military the right to incarcerate American citizens without charge or legal recourse doesn’t bother me in the least. Why? Because I know they’ll never come for me.

I refuse to lose a wink of shut-eye fretting about those camps FEMA has set-up all over the country. Every right-thinking person knows the camps will only be used in case of natural disasters or population-displacing terrorist attacks. I mean, can anyone point to any time in American history when citizens were rounded up and interred for anything but damn good reasons? The incarceration of Japanese Americans during WWII and German Americans during WWI was needed to help save the world from the racist tyranny of oppressive forces that wanted to destroy our freedoms!

I completely trust our government and military to only use their new powers to root out the bad apples that lurk among us, waiting to inflcit great harm upon the Republic. They would NEVER arrest people and hold them indefinitely for purely political reasons. That only happens in weird dictatorships and in countries with hard-to-pronounce names. So I’m going to chill out and relax; If you’re one of those worry-warts, you need to do the same! Get a grip! We’re in safe hands!

I gotta go now. My dog is barking her head off; someone’s knocking really hard at my front door. REALLY hard. It almost sounds like someone is trying to kick it in.

Wow. They need to chill out. Like me.

Martial Law and Internet Warfare Coming to America

The Week That Changed America

December 16, 2011

Zen Gardner - It's not like no one saw this coming. People have been screaming for decades about the constant erosion of freedoms in the United Police States. But this takes the cake. 

Just this past week we've seen martial law virtually declared, while also authorizing the military to wage internet warfare at will. Then the proposed internet "copyright bill" ready to shut down anyone is now on the table.

Take me home, why don't you. This is ridiculous.

Those first two together spell the end of freedom, both personal and of expression, with the military being given a completely free hand to sabotage whom they will. It's just a matter of time before they mesh the two.

The last, so called "copyright" issues, is just the finishing touches. Probably finalized before their "break".
Merry Christmas, America.

Nice week, boys. But what's the hurry?

You getting nervous the people are waking up? You have something else up your wicked sleeves to further suppress mankind and move your agenda along you just can't wait to get to? We're watching, and we're not stupid. Just because you have succeeded in medicating the mushminded masses doesn't mean you've won.

Only 5% of Americans were for breaking ties with the Crown in 1760, and the revolutionary war still succeeded.

Besides, just one human voice with the Truth is a majority. Grok that. And hey, we are many.

As Plain As the Nose on your Face

Anyone with any intelligence sees what's happening. What's dumbfounding to me is the speed and brashness of this latest run on freedom by our bought-for whores in Congress and the Whitewash House. They've pulled out the stops as if someone upstairs in their illuminist agenda said, "Step on it!"

It's clearly designed, and the lower level perpetrators have obviously been promised sanctuary in the New World Order to come. Otherwise, if they believed in the inherent freedoms promised in the US Constitution, however tentative, they would have stood up for them. Instead they've opted to jump ship to the next phase of global control.

Therein is the key. Disgusting sell-out, self-serving bastards.

And 'we the people' are paying the price for their treachery.
 
Wake Up!

The FEMA internment camps are literally being staffed, the government has full power to not just detain, but incarcerate you on a whim, and they're busy confiscating everything you own and shutting down the internet. Might be a reason to get alarmed, angry and upset?

Duh.

No wonder, in a dumbed down world of deliberate ignorance--ignore-ance, not lack of information, a decision to ignore certain realities for whatever reason.

So for immediate expediency, as in the willingly-dumbed-down-for-their-next-hamburger world, the public has chosen the Reich. And then the self-serving hypno-entranced public claim "they made me do it!" 

Life will give you back what you deliver. The Universe empowers the conscious. It's available to all.
The rest of the mechanisms are at ground level. Stay there and be hamburger. It's your choice.

Flashback: Five Things We Should Worry About in 2011

Five Things We Should Worry About in 2011

January 14, 2011

International Liberty - The mid-term elections were a rejection of President Obama’s big-government agenda, but those results don’t necessarily mean better policy. We should not forget, after all, that Democrats rammed through Obamacare even after losing the special election to replace Ted Kennedy in Massachusetts -- much to my dismay, my prediction from last January was correct:

Democrats should ram through government-run healthcare. I hope they don’t, of course, but smart Democrats understand that Obamacare is not (and never has been) about health care, but rather about creating more dependency on government. Yes, Democrats will lose more seats in November if they move forward, but they presumably will strengthen their long-term political status by making more people rely on politicians. - January 20, 2010

Similarly, GOP control of the House of Representatives does not automatically mean less government and more freedom. Heck, it doesn’t even guarantee that things won’t continue to move in the wrong direction.

Here are five possible bad policies for 2011, most of which the Obama White House can implement by using executive power.

1. A back-door bailout of the states from the Federal Reserve – The new GOP Congress presumably wouldn’t be foolish enough to bail out profligate states such as California and Illinois, but that does not mean the battle is won. Ben Bernanke already has demonstrated that he is willing to curry favor with the White House by debasing the value of the dollar, so what’s to stop him from engineering a back-door bailout by having the Federal Reserve buy state bonds? The European Central Bank already is using this tactic to bail out Europe’s welfare states, so a precedent already exists for this type of misguided policy. To make matters worse, there’s nothing Congress can do – barring legislation that Obama presumably would veto – to stop the Fed from this awful policy.

2. A front-door bailout of Europe by the United States – Welfare states in Europe are teetering on the edge of insolvency. Decades of big government have crippled economic growth and generated mountains of debt. Ireland and Greece already have been bailed out, and Portugal and Spain are probably next on the list, to be followed by countries such as Italy and Belgium. So why should American taxpayers worry about European bailouts? The unfortunate answer is that American taxpayers will pick up a big chunk of the tab if the International Monetary Fund is involved. Indeed, this horse already has escaped the barn. The United States provides the largest amount of subsidies to the International Monetary Fund, and the IMF took part in the bailouts of Greece and Ireland. The Senate did vote against having American taxpayers take part in the bailout of Greece, but that turned out to be a symbolic exercise. Sadly, that’s probably what we can expect if and when there are bailouts of the bigger European welfare states.

3. Republicans getting duped by Obama and supporting a VAT – The Wall Street Journal is reporting that the Obama Administration is contemplating a reduction in the corporate income tax. This sounds like a great idea, particularly since America’s punitive corporate tax rate is undermining competitiveness and hindering job creation. But what happens if Obama demands that Congress approve a value-added tax to “pay for” the lower corporate tax rate? This would be a terrible deal, sort of like a football team trading a great young quarterback for a 35-year old lineman. The VAT would give statists a money machine that they need to turn the United States into a French-style welfare state. This type of national sales tax would only be acceptable if the personal and corporate income taxes were abolished – and the Constitution was amended to make sure the federal government never again could tax what we earn and produce. But that’s not the deal Obama would offer. My fingers are crossed that Obama doesn’t offer to swap a lower corporate income tax for a VAT, particularly since we already know that some Republicans are susceptible to the VAT.

4. Regulatory imposition of global warming policy – This actually is an issue we needed to start worrying about before this year. The Obama Administration already is in the process of trying to use regulatory edicts to impose Kyoto-style restrictions on energy use, and 2011 may be a pivotal year for this issue. This issue is troubling because of the potential impact on economic growth, but it also represents an assault on the rule of law since the White House and the Environmental Protection Agency are engaging in regulatory overreach because they did not have enough support to get so-called climate change legislation through Congress. The new GOP majority presumably will try to use the “power of the purse” to limit the EPA’s power grab, and the outcome of that fight could have dramatic implications for job creation and competitiveness.

5. U.N. control of the Internet – The Federal Communications Commission just engaged in an unprecedented power grab as part of its “Net Neutrality” initiative, so we already have bad news for both Internet consumers and America’s telecommunications industry. But it may get worse. The bureaucrats at the United Nations, conspiring with autocratic governments, have created an Internet Governance Forum in hopes of grabbing power over the online world. This has caused considerable angst, leading Vint Cerf, one of inventors of the Internet (sorry, Al Gore) to warn:

“We don’t believe governments should be allowed to grant themselves a monopoly on Internet governance. The current bottoms-up, open approach works — protecting users from vested interests and enabling rapid innovation. Let’s fight to keep it that way.”

International bureaucracies are very skilled at incrementally increasing their authority, so this won’t be a one-year fight. Stopping this power grab will require persistent oversight and a willingness to reject compromises that inevitably give bureaucracies more power and simply set the stage for further demands.

U.S. Government to 'Cull Intelligence' from Social Media Networks

Homeland Security Reviews Social Media Guidelines

October 31, 2011

AP - The wave of uprisings across North Africa and the Middle East that have overturned three governments in the past year have prompted the U.S. government to begin developing guidelines for culling intelligence from social media networks, a top Homeland Security official said Monday.

Department of Homeland Security Undersecretary Caryn Wagner said the use of such technology in uprisings that started in December in Tunisia shocked some officials into attention and prompted questions of whether the U.S. needs to do a better job of monitoring domestic social networking activity.

"We're still trying to figure out how you use things like Twitter as a source," she said. "How do you establish trends and how do you then capture that in an intelligence product?"

Wagner said the department is establishing guidelines on gleaning information from sites such as Twitter and Facebook for law enforcement purposes. Wagner says those protocols are being developed under strict laws meant to prevent spying on U.S. citizens and protect privacy, including rules dictating the length of time the information can be stored and differences between domestic and international surveillance.

Wagner said the Homeland Security department, established after the 9/11 attacks, is not actively monitoring any social networks. But when the department receives information about a potential threat, contractors are then asked to look for certain references within "open source" information, which is available to anyone on the Internet.

The challenge, she said, is to develop guidelines for collecting and analyzing information so that it provides law enforcement officials with meaningful intelligence.

"I can post anything on Facebook, is that valid? If 20 people are tweeting the same thing, then maybe that is valid," she said. "There are just a lot of questions that we are sort of struggling with because it's a newly emerging (issue)."

Wagner was in Colorado Springs to deliver a speech at the National Symposium on Homeland Security and Defense, a conference that included defense contractors and the military.

Aside from discussing the use of technology in unrest that has led to regime changes in Tunisia, Egypt and Libya, she delivered a speech that addressed the way the department operates, saying that its crucial elements include a nationwide network of 72 fusion centers that gather and analyze reports of suspicious activity, a new National Terrorism Advisory System that replaces the color coded alert system with one that provides more information about a threat, and a "See Something, Say Something" campaign that encourages citizens to report suspicious activity.

She also said another key program involves training hundreds of thousands of law enforcement officers across the country in filling out suspicious activity reports.

How Researchers Are Studying You on Facebook

Google Erases Popular Alternative News Source

Activist Post Deleted! Google Erases Popular Alternative News Source

September 24, 2011

Zen Gardner, Before It’s News - At mid-day on Friday, September 23, 2011, the popular alternative news blog, ActivistPost.com, was taken offline. Activist Post receives over one million views per month and has been hosted by Google’s Blogger since its founding in June 2010.

“We remain puzzled as to why Activist Post was erased completely by Google,” said chief editor and co-founder Michael Edwards. “When we tried to load our back-up file into our secondary Blogger account, that was blocked as well,” he added.

It remains unclear whether Google has acted to censor ActivistPost.com for their controversial reporting. Google is becoming somewhat notorious for clamping down on truth and liberty activists, of which Activist Post is known for.

“Clearly, this is a huge set back for us and the work we do,” said co-founder Eric Blair. “Our entire crew is working on resolving the issue and restoring the website. We certainly look forward to an explanation from Google.”

Activist Post will file an appeal with Google to restore the site in full, and asks their loyal supporters to make their voices heard as well. However, they also are seeking other hosting services to avoid these types of censorship issues in the future.

“We want to thank our loyal readers, contributors, and advertisers for being patient while we work this out. We plan to come on even stronger in face of this adversity,” Edwards said

Until Activist Post is back in action, you can find their work at Before It’s News HERE.

Recent Rhetoric About Cyber War is a Smokescreen to Limit Freedom of Speech on the Internet

China and the U.S.: Sizing Up for Cyber War? (Excerpt)

Senior US officials call cyber attacks 'acts of war', but critics think the tough talk is a smokescreen for censorship.

Although there were strong reactions after Google's Gmail accounts were phished, some analysts say that similar occurrences happen all the time, and US government chest-thumping is code for internet censorship.

June 9, 2011

Al Jazeera -...There is nothing new or impressive about recent cyber attacks, even though the international media has focused on them, says Bruce Schneier, a technology expert and author of several books who The Economist magazine describes as a "security guru".

"Millions of these kinds of attacks happen all the time," he says.

To him, recent phishing operations against Google are not even worthy of a blog post, as such events happen so frequently.

Chris Palmer, the technology director with the Electronic Frontier Foundation advocacy group, thinks recent rhetoric about cyber war is a "smokescreen to limit freedom of speech on the internet".

"If I was being cynical, this campaign [about cyber security] is being launched by defence contractors to drum up a threat and get money from it," Palmer told Al Jazeera.

The US state department's tough talk about physical reprisals is not the way to defend American infrastructure from attacks, he says. The solution is much simpler: Taking sensitive data off the internet entirely.

Gaining access to military documents or networks controlling physical infrastructure like water treatment plants and nuclear facilities "should be like Mission Impossible, requiring a physical presence". In the film, Tom Cruise has to sneak into a heavily guarded room to physically access a computer with secret information.

In the 1980s and early 1990s, power plants, for example, ran on private networks where the censors would talk to the controllers, Palmer says.

"Now things that are supposed to be private have become virtually private, going over the same lines as internet traffic."

As getting online became cheaper, and operating private networks became more costly and cumbersome compared to using the standard internet, companies began using the regular net.

"Not being on the internet costs more for dollars and opportunity cost," he says. "The design and the reality don't match anymore, but the design was supposed to be private."

And this semi-public link to the broader net leaves vital systems potentially open to attack.

While military contractors propose new products to defend against online threats, commercial cyber crime - where companies seek data on competitors and rivals try to steal industrial secrets - may be a bigger issue than fears of nation to nation conflicts spilling onto the internet.

"The [US] defence department, just like everyone else, is struggling with the rapid rise of cyber threats," says Richard Stiennon, the security analyst. "It is all new. They don't have a basis in international law or jurisdictional avenues from which to build a cyber response"...

Citigroup Says Hackers Accessed Credit Card Data

June 9, 2011

Reuters - Citigroup Inc (C.N) said computer hackers breached the bank's network and accessed the data of about 200,000 bank card holders in North America, the latest of a string of cyber attacks on high-profile companies.

Citi said the names of customers, account numbers and contact information, including email addresses, were viewed in the breach, which the Financial Times said was discovered by the bank in early May.

However, Citi said other information such as birth dates, social security numbers, card expiration dates and card security codes CVV.L were not compromised.

"We are contacting customers whose information was impacted. Citi has implemented enhanced procedures to prevent a recurrence of this type of event," Sean Kevelighan, a U.S.-based spokesman, said by email.

"For the security of these customers, we are not disclosing further details."

In the brief email statement, Citi did not say how the breach had occurred.

Another Citi spokesman, James Griffiths in Hong Kong, said the breach had affected 1 percent of North American card customers, which the bank's annual report says total 21 million.

But like Japanese electronics and entertainment group Sony, which has declared several security breaches of its networks this year, Citi could come under fire for not telling customers sooner.

"It may be the bank's business, but it's the consumer's personal information so consumers deserve to be told about security breaches immediately," said Dan Simpson, a spokesman for Australia's Consumer Action Law Centre, an advocacy group.

"It's hard to see any reason why this sort of breach couldn't have been disclosed much sooner."

GROWING CONCERN

Citigroup joins a growing list of companies that have suffered cyber attacks.

Data storage firm EMC Ltd (EMC.N) this week offered to replace millions of electronic keys after hackers used data from its RSA security division to break into the network of arms supplier and information technology provider Lockheed Martin (LMT.N).

Sony has reported several attacks, including one in which hackers accessed the personal information on 77 million PlayStation Network and Qriocity accounts.

Sony was criticised for a delay in telling account holders that their information had been stolen by hackers.

Google Inc (GOOG.O) last week revealed a major attack on its Gmail accounts targeting, among others, senior U.S. government officials that it said appeared to originate in China. Washington has scrambled to assess if security had been compromised by the raid on Google's Gmail system, reflecting increasing concerns among global policymakers about cyber security.

Citi said it had discovered the unauthorized access at Citi Account Online, an online banking service, through routine monitoring.

"It's definitely a serious security breach when that amount of data's been stolen from a bank," said Sydney-based Ty Miller, chief technology officer of Pure Hacking, a network security company.

Citigroup global enterprise payments head Paul Galant, who previously ran the bank's credit card unit, said in April that security breaches are a fact of life for financial institutions.

"Security breaches happen, they're going to continue to happen ... the mission of the banking industry is to keep the customer base safe and customers feeling secure about their financial transactions and payments," he told Reuters in an interview.

Google: Hundreds of Gmail Accounts Hacked, Including Some Senior U.S. Government Officials

June 1, 2011

Washington Post - Google said Wednesday a hacker in China obtained access to hundreds of Gmail accounts, including those of senior U.S. government officials, military personnel, Chinese political activists and journalists.

The company said it recently detected the security breach and stopped what it described as “a campaign to take users’ passwords and monitor their emails, with the perpetrators apparently using stolen passwords to change peoples’ forwarding and delegating settings.”

Google’s email service enables users to forward messages automatically and grant others access to their accounts.

In a blog post, Google said it has notified victims of the attack. It has also notified relevant government authorities, the company said. Other world leaders affected include government officials from South Korea, Google said.

A spokesman declined to comment on who the victims were and how long the hacker had access to their Gmail accounts.

The episode comes amid a flurry of cyber attacks in recent weeks, including one hacker’s access to Sony’s online video game accounts. Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y.) this week said he was a “victim of a prank,” referring to what he has called a hacker’s access to his Twitter account and a tweet to a woman in Seattle with a picture of a groin.

It didn’t immediately appear that the incidents were connected.

Google said in its post that its affected Gmail users were victims of a “phishing” scheme. That tactic allows hackers to obtain user names and passwords by asking for the information under the guise of providing security for online accounts.

“It’s important to stress that our internal systems have not been affected—these account hijackings were not the result of a security problem with Gmail itself,” Google said in the blog. “But we believe that being open about these security issues helps users better protect their information online.”

CIA website goes down, hackers claim responsibility