Food for thought, theoretically speaking, of course...

Is it possible, theoretically speaking of course, for anyone - or even a group of anyones - to have the technological wherewithall to remove ("cleanse") virtually all SIGNIFICANT Internet references (one could always find countless Amazon.com references to media-hyped glossed-over popular 'who done it' books, by contrast) - both in English and Romanian, and including paid subscription data bases such as those avaiable through major institutions such as Johns Hopkins University, etc. - to a Romanian-born former Professor of Religion at the University of Chicago (such as Professor Ioan Culiano, for example) who was murdered execution-style (murder never solved) and whose library at the University of Chicago, where certain clues might have been found, also happened to be torched to the ground (that crime never solved either)? I'm just wondering what sort of privacy-threatening technology would have to be incorporated to pull off something like that. The TIA initiatives that John referenced in his post(s) are addressing things to be implemented somewhere down the road. By using the above theoretical example, I'm wondering what, if any, technologies already exist that could possibly, theoretically speaking of course, pull off something of that magnitude and that might, theoretically speaking, already be in place. Just some food for thought.

sk

 

Well, since no one seems to be hungry, I'll just toss this out as well. After experiencing the above hypothetical situation, I came to the following conclusioin: It's possible that while many of us think we 'discovered' the Internet all of a sudden one day (at least for those of us who, a few short years ago had never even HEARD of it and who now would find it difficult to even imagine a single day without it), maybe, just maybe, the Internet was waiting for us; beckoning to us; herding us not unlike cattle - or lemmings - towrads it - from the outset.

Imagine - whereas T.V. was a totally active-passive one-dimensional enterprise, the Internet provides an active two-way portal for each of us to reveal many things about ourselves, seemingly at least somewhat anonymously, which tends to convey an equally somewhat false sense of security, privacy, and anonymity. But as most of us here already know, unencrypted emails are about as private as post cards. The difference being, when we send a snail mail post card, one person gets it and, while anyone might have read it along the way, nobody keeps a record of it. There are so many records of our emails it's not even funny.

Also, since we must pay for our Internet service and must obtain an address, we HAVE TO identify ourselves to a certain extent to SOMEBODY along the way. The bill has to be paid via SOME credit card or check or money order. And then it's like any other defense, be it firewall, alarm system, or castle-mote-drawbridge: You have to trust SOMEBODY at SOME point. You have to let SOMEBODY in. You have to list SOME sites in youir 'trusted' site list, don't you? Otherwise, you might as well unplug your computer. So each of us then must make the critical decisioin: In whom or in which sites do we place our trust?

Now, don't get me wrong - I personally think "Paul" is a real person, and a real smart, nice person who runs a kick ass site, or else I wouldn't be here. But the fact of the matter is, I have never met Paul, and Paul has never met me either. But Paul knows a lot more about me than I do about him, by virtue of the fact of what is revealed about members to a webmaster as compared to the other way around. And similarly, while I DO really think that Paul is a tireless webmaster, and a genuine friend and guide along this vast expanse of Internet to many many people, I would NOT say the same thing about ALL webmasters, even ones who appear to be providing the same type of service in the same type of way. So that just brings me back to my main point: After seeing what appears to me to have been a purposeful, intentional 'cleansing' of what should have been very readily available resources regarding one dead Romanian professor of religion, it sobered me - to the possibility at least - that anyone or any group of anyones who could have that much control over something as vast as the Internet is most definitely something to take very seriously, to say the least.

sk

 

I'm afraid to post anything, because every time I do, I put my foot in my mouth. But here goes:

I think sk has hit it on the head. I've said it before, but my good friend runs an ISP and he told me there is no privacy on the internet; period.
The majority of surfers are not privacy and security inclined as they are here at Wilders(most of the people I know don't even run an av or a firewall).
So as America (I won't speak for the rest of the world) moves closer and closer to Police State USA, the data has already been collected and stored as to who we are and what we like.
I love my computer, but with a few modifications, it will be just like the telescreens in Orwell's book "1984".

Douglas

 

Thanks for your post, Douglas. That's pretty much exactly what I'm saying. And I honestly don't think it would take too much adjusting of the set at all to land us squarely in Orwel's 1984. I think you hit the nail right on the head on that one!