'Surveillance State: NSA Spying and more'
SURVEILLANCE STATE DOES NOT REFER TO A STATE IN THE US----IT REFERS TO A NATIONAL CORPORATE STATE FUNCTION AND IT IS DEFINITELY NOT LEFT-LEANING.
I will finish with national, state, and local sovereignty and protecting our US Constitution, Rule of Law, and and WE THE PEOPLE rights as citizens for now with a look at what is the next vital infrastructure under attack----our internet and our access to what everyone calls a utility as vital an infrastructure as our water, home energy, transportation, real estate.
From Clinton/Bush/Obama trillions of dollars have been spent on building NSA/Homeland Security/Wall Street global technology infrastructure pushing more and more ordinary businesses online----business transactions online----now they are pushing our education and health care online.
THIS IS A CONSOLIDATION OF ALL INDUSTRIES TOPPED WITH THE CONSOLIDATION OF ALL THIS ONTO THE INTERNET ALL CAPTURED TO TECHNOLOGY.
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see how this will kill the American people and all ability to rebuild local economies, for small businesses wanting an online business or compete globally to do so.
THE ENTIRE AMERICAN INTERNET AND TECHNOLOGY IS CAPTURED TO GLOBAL CORPORATIONS AND WE THE PEOPLE WILL BE PRICED OUT AND RELEGATED TO A LOW-TIER ACCESS THAT NO ONE WILL WANT.
Once again Obama and Clinton neo-liberals are simply doing kabuki theater over protecting citizens' interest on the internet. They have no intentions of doing so-----and they see an American population unable to communicate or advance their own business interests AS A PLUS. So, let's stop allowing them to pretend they are thinking of poor children in underserved communities and THEIR internet needs-----stop allowing them to pretend its all about building small business emerging technology structures because it is NOT.
THEY ARE POSING PROGRESSIVE YET AGAIN AS THEY SIMPLY BUILD A TECHNOLOGY AND INTERNET INFRASTRUCTURE FOR GLOBAL ONLINE BUSINESSES AND AN INCREASINGLY AUTOCRATIC NSA AND HOMELAND SECURITY-----
Digital Democracy vs. Corporate Dominance: R.I.P. Internet Neutrality?
By Stephen Lendman
Global Research, January 16, 2014
Theme: Law and Justice, Police State & Civil Rights
Candidate Obama promised to “support the principle of network neutrality to preserve the benefits of open competition on the Internet.”
President Obama did woefully little to do so. He’s waged war on free expression. He targets whistleblowers and journalists. He wants constitutional rights abolished.
He’s been more lawless than any of his predecessors. Except while campaigning, he’s been largely silent on preserving Net Neutrality.
It’s the last frontier of press freedom. It permits free and open communications. America’s First Amendment is its most important. Without it all other rights are at risk.
Net Neutrality is digital freedom. Mandating it is vital. Unrestricted online access is the only way to stay informed. It’s a vital source for real information.
It’s free from state or corporate control. It’s been this way so far. Public interest groups want it preserved. Everyone has the right to demand it.
It’s too precious to lose. Giant telecom and cable companies want control. They want toll roads established. They want higher priced premium lanes.
They want unrestricted pricing power. They want license to steal. They want content restricted. They want the right to censor.
They want dissent crushed. They want independent thought eliminated. They want digital democracy destroyed.
Net Neutrality denies them. They spent enormous amounts contesting. They want total Internet control.
Achieving it assures stifled innovation, oligopoly dominance, compromised free access to real information, and digital democracy denouement.
Imagine today’s Internet resembling cable TV. Imagining providers have sole control over content. Imagine consumers having no say.
At stake is digital democracy v. corporate dominance. Media scholar/critic Robert McChesney calls Net Neutrality the “defining issue” of our time.
It’s a “critical juncture (window of opportunity) to create a communication system that will be a powerful impetus (for) a more egalitarian, humane, sustainable, and creative (self-governing) society.”
It’s too precious to lose. It’s a battle that requires winning. On January 14, Free Press.net headlined “The Fight to Save Net Neutrality,” saying:
“(T)he US Court of Appeals (District of Columbia Circuit) struck down the Federal Communication Commission’s Open Internet Order.”
It balances corporate and consumer interests. It doesn’t go far enough. It needs improving. In includes provisions too important to lose.
Verizon sued to do so. Rules prohibit providers from slowing, blocking or prioritizing some content over others. Transparency is required. Digital First Amendment rights are protected.
FCC regulation imposed stricter regulations on wired Internet services than mobile ones. Verizon argued it had no legal authority to regulate providers under common carrier rules.
It omitted explaining its real agenda. It wants nothing interfering with bottom line interests. It wants unrestricted online control. It wants digital democracy destroyed. It wants First Amendment rights abolished.
Free Press called Net Neutrality “dead (for now.)” The battle is far from over. It won’t be easy going forward.
Columbia Circuit judges ruled unanimously for Verizon. FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler may appeal.
“I am committed to maintaining our networks as engines for economic growth, test beds for innovative services and products, and channels for all forms of speech protected by the First Amendment,” he said.
“We will consider all available options, including those for appeal, to ensure that these networks on which the Internet depends continue to provide a free and open platform for innovation and expression, and operate in the interest of all Americans,” he added.
Columbia Circuit judges ruled against FCC authority to enforce rules it implemented under what Free Press calls its “complicated legal framework.”
According to Judge David Tatel:
“Even though the commission has general authority to regulate in this area, it may not impose requirements that contravene express statutory mandates.”
Regulations imposed are important. They don’t go far enough. They need to be toughened, not weakened or eliminated.
Columbia Circuit judges oppose regulations impeding maximum profits. Corporate interests matter more than consumer ones. Digital democracy is irrelevant. Free expression doesn’t matter.
Last September, Verizon’s lawyer argued that FCC regulations compromise the company’s free speech rights. Claiming it is ludicrous on its face.
Verizon wants unrestricted online control. It wants censorship rights. It wants consumer free speech denied.
It wants whatever it’s against blocked. It wants sole power to decide. It wants consumers having no say.
Right-wing judges agreed. They did so disgracefully. Congressional action is required. Expect none without overwhelming public pressure.
Bipartisan complicity is deplorably anti-populist. Corporate interests alone matter. Obama is consistently hardline.
His policies belie his rhetoric. He says one thing. He does another. He’s done it throughout his tenure.
According to Free Press:
The Columbia Circuit “ruling means that just a few powerful phone and cable companies could control the Internet.”
“Without Net Neutrality, ISPs will be able to devise new schemes to charge users more for access and services, making it harder for us to communicate online – and easier for companies to censor our speech.”
Corporate gatekeepers will control “where you go and what you see.”
Verizon, AT&T, Comcast and Time Warner Cable “will be able to block content and speech they don’t like, reject apps that compete with their own offerings, and prioritize Web traffic…”
They’ll be able to “reserv(e) the fastest loading speeds for the highest bidders (while) sticking everyone else with the slowest.”
Doing so prohibits free and open communications. Censorship will become policy. Net Neutrality is too important to lose.
Free Press president and CEO Craig Aaron issued a statement, saying:
Tuesday’s “ruling means that Internet users will be pitted against the biggest phone and cable companies – and in the absence of any oversight, these companies can now block and discriminate against their customers’ communications at will.”
“Without prompt corrective action by the (FCC) to reclassify broadband, this awful ruling will serve as a sorry memorial to the corporate abrogation of free speech.”
Center for Media Justice director Amalia Deloney called Tuesday’s ruling a possible “end of the Internet as we know it. For freedom’s sake, we can’t let this happen.”
“The path forward is clear: The FCC can and must reassert its authority over this essential communications infrastructure and protect the millions of Internet users now left in the cold.”
On Tuesday, a White House statement pledged support for “a free and open Internet.” Obama did so years ago duplicitously.
Throughout his tenure, he waged war on freedom. He wants First Amendment rights compromised. The White House statement rings hollow, saying:
“The President remains committed to an open Internet, where consumers are free to choose the websites they want to visit and the online services they want to use, and where online innovators are allowed to compete on a level playing field based on the quality of their products.”
Hopefully the battle for Net Neutrality is far from over. Digital democracy depends on preserving it.
____________________________________________
Make no mistake----Wall Street and global banking controls all of the internet by being the financial backing for this global technology and NSA security ----the global online platforms----with the same kinds of Wall Street financial leverage and bond deals all our municipal debt is tied to.
Obama's job for Wall Street was to direct this global expansion and infrastructure while posing progressive so we saw Affordable Care Act filled with telemedicine policies and funding----we saw Race to the Top with all of its education corporations and online lesson structures-----we saw expansion of security around all of the Bush era NSA/Homeland Security/banking fire walls----all the while claiming this was to protect the consumer. Are you really a consumer if you are forced into telemedicine-----if you are forced onto online lessons and schools-----are you really a consumer if you are forced to allow SMART METERS track all of you moves around home energy, water, waste? Of course not----you are under global corporate rule.
NONE OF THIS IS ABOUT QUALITY AFFORDABLE SERVICES-----NONE OF THIS IS ABOUT BRINGING EQUITY UNLESS YOU SEE EQUITY AS EVERYONE IN DEEP POVERTY CONTROLLED BY GLOBAL CORPORATIONS AND THIS GLOBAL TECHNOLOGY.
Remember, almost none of this growing technology is necessary-------what started as convenience has taken over and morphed into global technology systems and trillions of taxpayer revenue spent protecting those global technology and corporate structures. Just as the trillions of dollars now spent on our US military globally mostly protecting these global corporations and their overseas business interests----now the American people are being soaked for revenue on the technology end of all this. THE JOBS, JOBS, JOBS, mantra has now become all about cyber-security, cyber-banking, cyber-high-speed infrastructure
Meanwhile, the American people are becoming unable to afford all these security downloads and upgrades----no longer able to afford ordinary data streaming ------and soon----they will not be able to afford ordinary high-speed internet needed for everything these days.
Cybersecurity Costs ‘To Soar 38 Percent’ Over The Next Decade
Michael Moore, June 10, 2015, 4:53 pm
Upgrade now or face being overrun by criminals with more advanced tools, RAND report warns businesses
The ever-increasing cost of keeping businesses safe online has been highlighted in a new report which advises companies not to wait too long to upgrade as the costs may be surprisingly high.
A study by RAND and Juniper Networks has warned that the current security tools many businesses have in place will not be able to keep up with the pace of cybercrminal advancement, leaving them open to attack.
Overall, RAND’s model projects that the cost to businesses in managing cybersecurity risk will increase 38 percent over the next 10 years.
Expensive
RAND’s report, entitled “The Defender’s Dilemma: Charting a Course Toward Cybersecurity”, found that chief information security officers (CISOs) often face a ‘chaotic and confusing landscape’ when trying to find the most efficient and cost-effective way to manage the risks posed by security to their business.
Most troubling, the research indicates that although many companies are spending increasing amounts on cybersecurity tools, most are not confident that these investments are making their infrastructure secure.
As attackers constantly develop workaround to new security technologies like threat intelligence feeds and next-generation detection systems, RAND’s model found that over time the effectiveness of these technologies could fall by an average of 65 percent over 10 years.
Surveying a number of CISOs from large multi-national organisations from Europe, North America and APAC with over $100m in revenue, the report also found that the number of software vulnerabilities that exist or go unpatched are a major issue for many businesses.
If if the frequency of such software vulnerabilities could be reduced by half, the overall cost of cybersecurity to companies would decrease by 25 percent, RAND believes.
“Cybersecurity is one of the biggest economic and national security challenges facing the world, and the UK is no exception,” said Steve Jacques, consulting engineer, security, Juniper Networks.
”As companies invest heavily in innovative connectivity technologies, giving rise to the Internet of Things (IoT), they also need to consider smart security investments to mitigate complex, dynamic cyber threats. According to recent Government research, the average cost of the most severe online security breaches for big business now starts at £1.46 million – up from £600,000 in 2014.
“What’s clear is that in order for organisations to turn the tables on attackers, they need to orient their thinking and investments toward managing risks in addition to threats.”
__________________________________________
Obama and Clinton neo-liberals and Bush neo-cons have installed what is called EMERGING TECHNOLOGY inside the structure of development corporations like Baltimore Development to move forward all those goals I just described. Citizens in Baltimore know if it is attached to Baltimore Development-----it is all about funding and building structures for global corporations---and not for communities and people. Indeed, this is MOVING FORWARD as Clinton neo-liberals use as their motto----of International Economic Zone technology structures for global online businesses----the 'emerging' is not viewed at creating small technology businesses----it is strictly to train citizens in the technology needed to be a cog in this huge global internet business.
I AM SHOUTING-----THE GOAL IS MAKING 99% OF AMERICANS COGS-----IN A 1% GLOBAL CORPORATE ONLINE BUSINESS STRUCTURE.
So, Baltimore is now filled with EMERGING TECHNOLOGY non-profits and centers all tied to Baltimore Development and all posing progressive in making it seem this is all about poor underserved communities and college grads having a small technology startup.
On the other hand-----there are REAL technology groups actually wanting to spur small technology businesses and include our public schools into all of this----AND THESE GROUPS KNOW THE DIFFERENCE.
If a technology group is not shouting against the Baltimore Development Emerging Technology goals driven only by global Johns Hopkins and UMMS global telemedicine and global health tourism and global education corporations----
THEY ARE NOT WORKING FOR EMERGING TECHNOLOGY FOR THE AVERAGE CITIZEN AND THEIR GOALS OF SMALL BUSINESS OR OUR PUBLIC SCHOOL CONNECTIONS IN PUBLIC INTEREST.
About the ETC
Simply put, the ETC mission is to help early-stage companies grow.
The ETC is the City of Baltimore’s award winning, technology innovation center focusing on Entrepreneurship, Technology and Connections. The ETC is a non-profit 501 ( c ) 3 venture of the Baltimore Development Corporation. ETC has two diverse locations in the city of Baltimore –ETC’s Haven Street Campus in Highlandtown and the JHU Eastern Campus on East 33rd Street.
The ETC offers three unique programs for entrepreneurs:
Beehive Baltimore, a coworking space
Incubation, the perfect environment to get serious about your big idea and the ideal support network of the ETC
AccelerateBaltimore, get there faster than you could on your own! A 13-week program for up to 6 startups with $25,000 in seed funding and the goal to launch an MVP
_____________________
Each state has its own 'emerging technology fund' that is being misappropriated to build global technology corporations like the BIOTECH PARKS in Baltimore tied to Johns Hopkins and UMMS. They have citizens toiling away at technology startups as they do in all fields with a few million thrown at the communities or schools with no sense of permanence---keeping them busy as they use all the funds to build structures for global corporations in Baltimore. Governors like Ehrlich and O'Malley did the same with all that ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Trust for these few decades that was simply moved to grow globally the larger corporations in Maryland. None of that revenue went to actually grow a local, small business economy in Baltimore. This 'emerging technology' trust is more of the same. Throwing a few millions at main street while using billions to build global technology structures for global corporations in Baltimore's International Economic Zone.
This is critical because it is our Baltimore public conduit for all this internet growth now being occupied by the good or the bad in this movement. The good is tying lots of small technology businesses to this conduit to assure competition and services aimed at individuals and small businesses. The bad that is advancing right now is using that conduit only for global technology corporations gearing service only to these global online businesses.
All of this is a huge sovereignty issue at all levels. Our internet has become involved in all avenues of our lives and we do not want to be held hostage by global corporations as to how it is developed and for whom.
Baltimore Development Corporations and their pols are advancing these policies for global Johns Hopkins et al------
WE NEED TO GET RID OF THESE GLOBAL WALL STREET POLS.
Texas Emerging Technology Fund Still Benefiting Life Sciences Startups
October 21, 2015 by lalorek 1 CommentBy EVA RUTH MORAVEC
Special Contributor to Silicon Hills News
Former Gov. Rick Perry’s pet project, the Texas Emerging Technology Fund, isn’t dead, it’s just been relocated.
Now under the management of the Texas Treasury Safekeeping Trust Company, there are about 100 active companies still in the fund, 60 percent of which focus on life sciences, said portfolio manager Jyoti Gupta at an Austin Technology Council seminar Wednesday.
This year, the Texas Legislature appropriated $12 million to help manage the fund, but also voted to abolish it and transfer it out of the governor’s office. Gupta said the fund was moved to her department Sept. 1 and added that the $12 million will be used to “add into the investments that we have made into these companies, as we see appropriate, as it makes sense for us.”
And, if any of the investments – in total, $400 million in Texas tax dollars were granted to companies and universities by the Texas Emerging Technology Fund – see profits, those dollars will also be “recycled back into the fund,” Gupta said. She estimates the remaining investments are worth about $145 million, but her office is currently undertaking a thorough inventory of the investments that will likely take months.
Starting in 2005, Perry began to offer grants for start up companies seeking seed stage money.
Last year, 19 Central Texas companies received $111.17 million in ETF funding, according to a report provided to the legislature, and promised to produce more than 15,000 new jobs.
In total, the fund has given 145 companies a financial boost, particularly important during the economic downturn, but faced criticism for its lack of transparency and investments in high-risk companies. Several grant recipients went bankrupt, and not all kept their promises to create jobs for Texans.
But there were also numerous success stories, which didn’t go unnoticed by Perry, who touted job creation and the “Texas Miracle” in failed presidential campaigns in 2012 and this year.
The turmoil was put to rest early this year, when Republican Gov. Greg Abbott abolished the fund – meaning it’s no longer accepting investment applications – less than two weeks after taking office. Since there were already companies in the fund, though, it had to be managed, and was reassigned to the Texas Treasury Safekeeping Trust Company, which manages state assets.
Meanwhile, Abbott also established the Governor’s University Research Initiative with $40 million and a mission to attract Nobel laureates and other major researchers to Texas universities.
AH-----THE WORLD'S ELITE WORKERS ONLY GOAL OPERATING IN BUSH NEO-CONSERVATIVE TEXAS!
“It is unfortunate that money doesn’t really exist anymore in its original form,” said Yash Sabharwal, COO of Xeris Pharmaceuticals Inc., which received $1.9 million in ETF money in 2012. “Those funds did have an impact.”
Xeris, which makes injectable treatments for diabetes, received ETF cash after promising to bring 12 jobs to the area. Sabharwal said the company now employs 13 Austinites and two people out of town. In January, Xeris announced it completed a $17.9 million capital raise to advance its diabetes treatment products.
“The money did help us bridge the gap,” during the economic downturn, Sabharwal said. But these days, the Central Texas life sciences tech market is hot. While it’s still “challenging to get money,” Sabharwal said, there are more options.
According to the council, the 206 life sciences companies in the greater Austin area comprise about 6,000 jobs and more than $1 billion in economic value. Austin’s life sciences community has grown organically, said Julie Huls, president and CEO of the Austin Technology Council, adding that the sector leans more towards technology because of Austin’s established tech ecosystem.
“Life science is the future of Central Texas technology,” Huls said to about 125 people at the opening of the council’s seminar.
Now, the council is pushing for more targeted growth in concert with other major Austin tech moves, including the future Dell Medical Center at The University of Texas at Austin and new wet labs at Austin Community Colleges. Sabharwal hopes the area will also soon attract major pharmaceutical companies to complete the life science tech supply chain.
Ottobock’s Regional President and CFO Andreas Schultz said his nearly-100-year-old prosthetics company, now worth more than $1 billion, relocated from Minnesota to Austin last year.
“We wanted to marry the tech that we bring from the medical device industry to the tech that exists in Austin,” Schultz said.
Ottobock was founded to meet the needs of veterans injured in World War I.
“We help people reclaim their lives after an incident, after an amputation, after coming back from wars, especially in the U.S., and we really help people regain their mobility,” he said.
Schultz joked that the one thing officials could do to help his business succeed was to have a direct flight from Austin to Frankfurt.
“We are working on a flight to Germany that should start in 2016,” said Charisse Bodisch, senior vice president of economic development for the Austin Chamber of Commerce.
_________________
Below you see a questionnaire from what I am sure is the Baltimore Development Emerging Technology group. You can see the control in how this questionnaire pulls the candidate to a YES and NO answer for a multi-tiered question. It wants a candidate to say----I WILL CONTINUE TO SUPPORT THE BALTIMORE DEVELOPMENT TECHNOLOGY PLAN INSTALLED UNDER RAWLINGS-BLAKE WITH ALL THE PUBLIC DATA CAPTURE.
They are clearly geared towards seeing schools are wired for job training----they refer to OPEN GOVERNMENT as global pols do----not public transparency but all public data available to be bought and/or used by corporations anytime they want it.....
This will include all of the SMART METER technology----the surveillance systems and all Baltimore Development wants is to create a job training path from K-career college for what will be the lowest paying jobs.
I am sure my responses will be shared without the general comment section at the end to explain and expand on the question. The point is this-----any new mayor will have to look at existing projects and redesign according to new goals. So, yes we want to look at Baltimore DATA STAT and the Emerging Technology model already in place under Rawlings-Blake AND MODIFY FOR NEW GOALS. There is no doubt some good policy mixed with much bad policy.
Technical.ly Baltimore: Mayoral Election Questionnaire
Please answer with a YES, NO or NOT DETERMINED.
I recognize the importance to the future of Baltimore that the local tech community has, featuring entrepreneurs, technologists, innovators and their supporters.
YES
I support the need for supplementary educational opportunities in STEM, like robotics, advanced manufacturing, and entrepreneurship for Baltimore school children to be better prepared for careers of the future.
YES
I support prioritizing computing centers and digital literacy training in the City of Baltimore budget for modern workforce development, leveraging the Enoch Pratt Free Library, Baltimore City Community College and other existing stakeholders to help develop a more inclusive and diverse innovation ecosystem.
YES
I support programs that aim to attract, retain and grow early stage businesses, like the Emerging Technology Center, and its Accelerate Baltimore program [MORE], in addition to private-sector incubators like Betamore, the University of Maryland BioPark, the Johns Hopkins University FastForward, Impact Hub Baltimore and others.
NO
I support introducing an Open Data Executive Order that would establish the regular release and maintenance of high-value city data and the use of an open data advisory council for outside guidance on modern standards for ethics and efficiency.
NO
I support retaining the Chief Data Officer position as an internal advocate for open data, transparency and efficiency and facilitating the position’s collaboration with pre-existing government agencies to do the same.
NO
I support using Data.Baltimore.Gov to effectively share and distribute city data resources.
NO
I support the development, maintenance and use of APIs to distribute and leverage city data whenever possible, rather than static snapshot data sets. When necessary to provide static snapshot data sets, I support the delivery of city data and information in machine readable formats, like .XLS, .XML and .JSON.
NO
I support city procurement reform to enable the City of Baltimore to more efficiently, transparently and modernly acquire the best goods and services, including the use of open source software when appropriate and preferring locally-based firms. YES
I support data-informed policy making, using programs like Baltimore CitiStat, OutcomeStat (and related departmental programs) to create an internal consumer ecosystem for the City’s open data activities and facilitate better governmental performance and efficiency.
YES
I support the role private investment, like venture capital, must play in growing local communities through social entrepreneurship and other civic-minded business growth.
NO
I support the retention of a Broadband Coordinator to solicit citizen and marketplace feedback on issues like broadband access, privatizing city conduit infrastructure and trends in 'dig once' policies, in which high-speed internet infrastructure must be installed whenever relevant city streets are uncovered for other maintenance, like on public water and gas infrastructure.
YES
I support the use of body cameras for on-duty Baltimore city police officers.
TO BE DETERMINED
I support publicly engaging and responding to citizen feedback using social media, as consumer-orientated private companies do.
YES
I support the recommendations of current Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake's A Connected City task force, including establishing high-speed Internet in city public schools and utilizing existing resources such as the city's transportation conduit system to strengthen Internet connectivity in the city
YES
Do you have any related comments, perspective or issues important to you?
First, allowing only Yes and No answers shows how a social Democrat like Cindy Walsh has some problems with the stance promoted by Baltimore Tech Co and I do not feel it represents the expectations of many citizens in Baltimore. Each question above had parts that could have been answered Yes and No but restrictions prohibited that. I would like to say this. I am the only candidate that WILL make sure that the Baltimore Conduit not only stays public but that the infrastructure for high-speed broadband is competitive by subsidizing small business high-speed technology companies geared towards individual citizen and small business access to high-speed at an affordable price. This is the most critical aspect of technology in Baltimore and you do not mention this. Currently, Baltimore is heading towards complete domination of our high-speed broadband by global corporations as in global health care and global education corporations and will push most small business and individuals out of access with every higher rates. There must be small business competition and infrastructure built to assure net neutrality and access for all.
Second, it is Johns Hopkins and the University of Maryland that will dominate that access and I do not support Baltimore City funding towards what are now essentially corporate entities. I do not support the structures of these BioTech labs because the health product patenting and marketing globally is NOT regulated and does not adhere to long-held clinical trial protocol. That said, I DO support and will fund all small businesses Baltimore citizens want to promote. I will fully fund technology labs in all public schools and libraries to be used as part of school curricula. I will not support taking apprenticeships into schools at elementary and middle-school levels because we do not need children learning these skills that early. Computer programming can be handled as a foreign language would in public schools.
Third, I do not support open access data as regards citizen’s data or data connected to city transactions with citizens. I do support open data as regards city agency transparency in public policy-making, in internal auditing of government operations, and in open door to all government discussions on future development policies. So, I do not share the enthusiasm of taking people’s private data---whether from SMART METERS or health care insurance, hospital data, et al protected under HIPAA. Baltimore Data Stat can be used for many purposes so I cannot say YES and include all that this questionnaire states. I will use Data Stat in operational analysis, implementation, and oversight. I will not use data strictly in what is being called---evidence-based policy because we are already seeing the bias in this towards corporate control and profit and away from social benefit. I am a social benefit candidate for Mayor of Baltimore.
Last, my administration will be very technology-friendly. It will include connectivity for all citizens and will make sure technology in classrooms are equal and appropriate for growing and changing corporate environments. I will not make K-college geared to job skills and vocational tracking with all of the teacher/student testing products. We have always had strong STEM curricula in our K-12 and community/4 year universities and I will stress this. We also have always had strong, broad curricula including liberal arts and humanities without Common Core which served our students well and that is what I will promote. I support having public schools with teachers hired permanently and not only corporate non-profits. I see a strong public school staff augmented by local non-profits and parents/communities. After-school program funding need to be sent to public schools with the ability for each administrator and parents to decide what this augmentation with community will look like.
My professional careers have been tied closely to data operations, collection, and analysis. I have extensive experience in medical research administration and education so I fit perfectly into the environment citizens of Baltimore want to create and hopefully your organization’s mem bers as well.
Thank you for this opportunity to discuss my views,
Cindy Walsh for Mayor of Baltimore.
______________________________________________
Whether you are Republican or Democrat everyone is shouting against what Bush installed in this drive to Homeland Security and global cyber-security protecting global corporations. Americans were SHOCKED at the Reagan nuclear arsenal buildup all called good strategy because Russia bankrupted itself trying to keep up. Now the world is filled with potential 'dirty bomb' threats costing the US and nations around the world more trillions of dollars to defend against. Well, this NSA technology infrastructure was Bush's Reagan moment as he used trillions of dollars to build a global spy network that would make Stalin and German SS green with envy-----
THIS IS TO WHERE OUR SOCIAL SECURITY TRUST AND MEDICARE TRUSTS WENT-----AND BUILDING THIS SYSTEM IS AGAIN FILLED WITH FRAUD AND CORRUPTION.
A Mayor of Baltimore has this choice---------do we continue to allow the growth of this SMART CITY technology which is simply a hyper-security state and VERY RIGHT-WING AUTOCRATIC------our does the new mayor stop and dismantle much of this surveillance and rebuild a sensible security approach to securing our Port of Baltimore and city from people with any bad intentions.
All of this is tied to the data collection -----the attack on privacy -----the complete loss of the American people to feel they can communicate with one another on any topic and not have a super-sensitive fear that ordinary words will be deemed revolutionary or a national security threat.
THIS IS AS LARGE A SOVEREIGNTY ISSUE AS ANY-----AND IT DOES ATTACK OUR US CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS AND OUR STATUS AS CITIZEN.
The desire towards global corporate rule and extreme wealth-----the desire towards taking away all voice in public policy and handing it to corporations----the desire to ignore privacy rights and build such systems of surveillance like NSA/SMART CITY/SMART METER technology IS A VERY FAR-RIGHT WING THING TO DO-----IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY AND DEMOCRATIC BASE OF LABOR AND JUSTICE.
Baltimore Development Corporation and a very, very, very neo-conservative Johns Hopkins is ground zero for all this and no amount of progressive posing from establishment pols and those connected to Baltimore Development running for Mayor of Baltimore will hide their commitment to moving all of this forward.
Surveillance State: NSA Spying and more
Author and Page information
At the start of June 2013, a large number of documents detailing surveillance by intelligence agencies such as the US’s NSA and UK’s GCHQ started to be revealed, based on information supplied by NSA whistle blower, Edward Snowden.
These leaks revealed a massive surveillance program that included interception of email and other Internet communications and phone call tapping. Some of it appears illegal, while other revelations show the US spying on friendly nations during various international summits.
Unsurprisingly, there has been a lot of furor. While some countries are no doubt using this to win some diplomatic points, there has been increased tensions between the US and other regions around the world.
Much of the US surveillance programs came from the aftermath of the 9-11 terrorist attacks on the US in 2001. Concerns about a crackdown on civil rights in the wake of the so-called “war on terror” have been expressed for a long time, and these revelations seem to be confirming some of those fears.
Given the widespread collection of information, apparently from central servers of major Internet companies and from other core servers that form part of the Internet backbone, activities of millions (if not billions) of citizens have been caught up in a dragnet style surveillance problem called PRISM, even when the communication has nothing to do with terrorism.
What impacts would such secretive mass surveillance have on democracy?
SURVEILLANCE STATE DOES NOT REFER TO A STATE IN THE US----IT REFERS TO A NATIONAL CORPORATE STATE FUNCTION AND IT IS DEFINITELY NOT LEFT-LEANING.
I will finish with national, state, and local sovereignty and protecting our US Constitution, Rule of Law, and and WE THE PEOPLE rights as citizens for now with a look at what is the next vital infrastructure under attack----our internet and our access to what everyone calls a utility as vital an infrastructure as our water, home energy, transportation, real estate.
From Clinton/Bush/Obama trillions of dollars have been spent on building NSA/Homeland Security/Wall Street global technology infrastructure pushing more and more ordinary businesses online----business transactions online----now they are pushing our education and health care online.
THIS IS A CONSOLIDATION OF ALL INDUSTRIES TOPPED WITH THE CONSOLIDATION OF ALL THIS ONTO THE INTERNET ALL CAPTURED TO TECHNOLOGY.
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see how this will kill the American people and all ability to rebuild local economies, for small businesses wanting an online business or compete globally to do so.
THE ENTIRE AMERICAN INTERNET AND TECHNOLOGY IS CAPTURED TO GLOBAL CORPORATIONS AND WE THE PEOPLE WILL BE PRICED OUT AND RELEGATED TO A LOW-TIER ACCESS THAT NO ONE WILL WANT.
Once again Obama and Clinton neo-liberals are simply doing kabuki theater over protecting citizens' interest on the internet. They have no intentions of doing so-----and they see an American population unable to communicate or advance their own business interests AS A PLUS. So, let's stop allowing them to pretend they are thinking of poor children in underserved communities and THEIR internet needs-----stop allowing them to pretend its all about building small business emerging technology structures because it is NOT.
THEY ARE POSING PROGRESSIVE YET AGAIN AS THEY SIMPLY BUILD A TECHNOLOGY AND INTERNET INFRASTRUCTURE FOR GLOBAL ONLINE BUSINESSES AND AN INCREASINGLY AUTOCRATIC NSA AND HOMELAND SECURITY-----
Digital Democracy vs. Corporate Dominance: R.I.P. Internet Neutrality?
By Stephen Lendman
Global Research, January 16, 2014
Theme: Law and Justice, Police State & Civil Rights
Candidate Obama promised to “support the principle of network neutrality to preserve the benefits of open competition on the Internet.”
President Obama did woefully little to do so. He’s waged war on free expression. He targets whistleblowers and journalists. He wants constitutional rights abolished.
He’s been more lawless than any of his predecessors. Except while campaigning, he’s been largely silent on preserving Net Neutrality.
It’s the last frontier of press freedom. It permits free and open communications. America’s First Amendment is its most important. Without it all other rights are at risk.
Net Neutrality is digital freedom. Mandating it is vital. Unrestricted online access is the only way to stay informed. It’s a vital source for real information.
It’s free from state or corporate control. It’s been this way so far. Public interest groups want it preserved. Everyone has the right to demand it.
It’s too precious to lose. Giant telecom and cable companies want control. They want toll roads established. They want higher priced premium lanes.
They want unrestricted pricing power. They want license to steal. They want content restricted. They want the right to censor.
They want dissent crushed. They want independent thought eliminated. They want digital democracy destroyed.
Net Neutrality denies them. They spent enormous amounts contesting. They want total Internet control.
Achieving it assures stifled innovation, oligopoly dominance, compromised free access to real information, and digital democracy denouement.
Imagine today’s Internet resembling cable TV. Imagining providers have sole control over content. Imagine consumers having no say.
At stake is digital democracy v. corporate dominance. Media scholar/critic Robert McChesney calls Net Neutrality the “defining issue” of our time.
It’s a “critical juncture (window of opportunity) to create a communication system that will be a powerful impetus (for) a more egalitarian, humane, sustainable, and creative (self-governing) society.”
It’s too precious to lose. It’s a battle that requires winning. On January 14, Free Press.net headlined “The Fight to Save Net Neutrality,” saying:
“(T)he US Court of Appeals (District of Columbia Circuit) struck down the Federal Communication Commission’s Open Internet Order.”
It balances corporate and consumer interests. It doesn’t go far enough. It needs improving. In includes provisions too important to lose.
Verizon sued to do so. Rules prohibit providers from slowing, blocking or prioritizing some content over others. Transparency is required. Digital First Amendment rights are protected.
FCC regulation imposed stricter regulations on wired Internet services than mobile ones. Verizon argued it had no legal authority to regulate providers under common carrier rules.
It omitted explaining its real agenda. It wants nothing interfering with bottom line interests. It wants unrestricted online control. It wants digital democracy destroyed. It wants First Amendment rights abolished.
Free Press called Net Neutrality “dead (for now.)” The battle is far from over. It won’t be easy going forward.
Columbia Circuit judges ruled unanimously for Verizon. FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler may appeal.
“I am committed to maintaining our networks as engines for economic growth, test beds for innovative services and products, and channels for all forms of speech protected by the First Amendment,” he said.
“We will consider all available options, including those for appeal, to ensure that these networks on which the Internet depends continue to provide a free and open platform for innovation and expression, and operate in the interest of all Americans,” he added.
Columbia Circuit judges ruled against FCC authority to enforce rules it implemented under what Free Press calls its “complicated legal framework.”
According to Judge David Tatel:
“Even though the commission has general authority to regulate in this area, it may not impose requirements that contravene express statutory mandates.”
Regulations imposed are important. They don’t go far enough. They need to be toughened, not weakened or eliminated.
Columbia Circuit judges oppose regulations impeding maximum profits. Corporate interests matter more than consumer ones. Digital democracy is irrelevant. Free expression doesn’t matter.
Last September, Verizon’s lawyer argued that FCC regulations compromise the company’s free speech rights. Claiming it is ludicrous on its face.
Verizon wants unrestricted online control. It wants censorship rights. It wants consumer free speech denied.
It wants whatever it’s against blocked. It wants sole power to decide. It wants consumers having no say.
Right-wing judges agreed. They did so disgracefully. Congressional action is required. Expect none without overwhelming public pressure.
Bipartisan complicity is deplorably anti-populist. Corporate interests alone matter. Obama is consistently hardline.
His policies belie his rhetoric. He says one thing. He does another. He’s done it throughout his tenure.
According to Free Press:
The Columbia Circuit “ruling means that just a few powerful phone and cable companies could control the Internet.”
“Without Net Neutrality, ISPs will be able to devise new schemes to charge users more for access and services, making it harder for us to communicate online – and easier for companies to censor our speech.”
Corporate gatekeepers will control “where you go and what you see.”
Verizon, AT&T, Comcast and Time Warner Cable “will be able to block content and speech they don’t like, reject apps that compete with their own offerings, and prioritize Web traffic…”
They’ll be able to “reserv(e) the fastest loading speeds for the highest bidders (while) sticking everyone else with the slowest.”
Doing so prohibits free and open communications. Censorship will become policy. Net Neutrality is too important to lose.
Free Press president and CEO Craig Aaron issued a statement, saying:
Tuesday’s “ruling means that Internet users will be pitted against the biggest phone and cable companies – and in the absence of any oversight, these companies can now block and discriminate against their customers’ communications at will.”
“Without prompt corrective action by the (FCC) to reclassify broadband, this awful ruling will serve as a sorry memorial to the corporate abrogation of free speech.”
Center for Media Justice director Amalia Deloney called Tuesday’s ruling a possible “end of the Internet as we know it. For freedom’s sake, we can’t let this happen.”
“The path forward is clear: The FCC can and must reassert its authority over this essential communications infrastructure and protect the millions of Internet users now left in the cold.”
On Tuesday, a White House statement pledged support for “a free and open Internet.” Obama did so years ago duplicitously.
Throughout his tenure, he waged war on freedom. He wants First Amendment rights compromised. The White House statement rings hollow, saying:
“The President remains committed to an open Internet, where consumers are free to choose the websites they want to visit and the online services they want to use, and where online innovators are allowed to compete on a level playing field based on the quality of their products.”
Hopefully the battle for Net Neutrality is far from over. Digital democracy depends on preserving it.
____________________________________________
Make no mistake----Wall Street and global banking controls all of the internet by being the financial backing for this global technology and NSA security ----the global online platforms----with the same kinds of Wall Street financial leverage and bond deals all our municipal debt is tied to.
Obama's job for Wall Street was to direct this global expansion and infrastructure while posing progressive so we saw Affordable Care Act filled with telemedicine policies and funding----we saw Race to the Top with all of its education corporations and online lesson structures-----we saw expansion of security around all of the Bush era NSA/Homeland Security/banking fire walls----all the while claiming this was to protect the consumer. Are you really a consumer if you are forced into telemedicine-----if you are forced onto online lessons and schools-----are you really a consumer if you are forced to allow SMART METERS track all of you moves around home energy, water, waste? Of course not----you are under global corporate rule.
NONE OF THIS IS ABOUT QUALITY AFFORDABLE SERVICES-----NONE OF THIS IS ABOUT BRINGING EQUITY UNLESS YOU SEE EQUITY AS EVERYONE IN DEEP POVERTY CONTROLLED BY GLOBAL CORPORATIONS AND THIS GLOBAL TECHNOLOGY.
Remember, almost none of this growing technology is necessary-------what started as convenience has taken over and morphed into global technology systems and trillions of taxpayer revenue spent protecting those global technology and corporate structures. Just as the trillions of dollars now spent on our US military globally mostly protecting these global corporations and their overseas business interests----now the American people are being soaked for revenue on the technology end of all this. THE JOBS, JOBS, JOBS, mantra has now become all about cyber-security, cyber-banking, cyber-high-speed infrastructure
Meanwhile, the American people are becoming unable to afford all these security downloads and upgrades----no longer able to afford ordinary data streaming ------and soon----they will not be able to afford ordinary high-speed internet needed for everything these days.
Cybersecurity Costs ‘To Soar 38 Percent’ Over The Next Decade
Michael Moore, June 10, 2015, 4:53 pm
Upgrade now or face being overrun by criminals with more advanced tools, RAND report warns businesses
The ever-increasing cost of keeping businesses safe online has been highlighted in a new report which advises companies not to wait too long to upgrade as the costs may be surprisingly high.
A study by RAND and Juniper Networks has warned that the current security tools many businesses have in place will not be able to keep up with the pace of cybercrminal advancement, leaving them open to attack.
Overall, RAND’s model projects that the cost to businesses in managing cybersecurity risk will increase 38 percent over the next 10 years.
Expensive
RAND’s report, entitled “The Defender’s Dilemma: Charting a Course Toward Cybersecurity”, found that chief information security officers (CISOs) often face a ‘chaotic and confusing landscape’ when trying to find the most efficient and cost-effective way to manage the risks posed by security to their business.
Most troubling, the research indicates that although many companies are spending increasing amounts on cybersecurity tools, most are not confident that these investments are making their infrastructure secure.
As attackers constantly develop workaround to new security technologies like threat intelligence feeds and next-generation detection systems, RAND’s model found that over time the effectiveness of these technologies could fall by an average of 65 percent over 10 years.
Surveying a number of CISOs from large multi-national organisations from Europe, North America and APAC with over $100m in revenue, the report also found that the number of software vulnerabilities that exist or go unpatched are a major issue for many businesses.
If if the frequency of such software vulnerabilities could be reduced by half, the overall cost of cybersecurity to companies would decrease by 25 percent, RAND believes.
“Cybersecurity is one of the biggest economic and national security challenges facing the world, and the UK is no exception,” said Steve Jacques, consulting engineer, security, Juniper Networks.
”As companies invest heavily in innovative connectivity technologies, giving rise to the Internet of Things (IoT), they also need to consider smart security investments to mitigate complex, dynamic cyber threats. According to recent Government research, the average cost of the most severe online security breaches for big business now starts at £1.46 million – up from £600,000 in 2014.
“What’s clear is that in order for organisations to turn the tables on attackers, they need to orient their thinking and investments toward managing risks in addition to threats.”
__________________________________________
Obama and Clinton neo-liberals and Bush neo-cons have installed what is called EMERGING TECHNOLOGY inside the structure of development corporations like Baltimore Development to move forward all those goals I just described. Citizens in Baltimore know if it is attached to Baltimore Development-----it is all about funding and building structures for global corporations---and not for communities and people. Indeed, this is MOVING FORWARD as Clinton neo-liberals use as their motto----of International Economic Zone technology structures for global online businesses----the 'emerging' is not viewed at creating small technology businesses----it is strictly to train citizens in the technology needed to be a cog in this huge global internet business.
I AM SHOUTING-----THE GOAL IS MAKING 99% OF AMERICANS COGS-----IN A 1% GLOBAL CORPORATE ONLINE BUSINESS STRUCTURE.
So, Baltimore is now filled with EMERGING TECHNOLOGY non-profits and centers all tied to Baltimore Development and all posing progressive in making it seem this is all about poor underserved communities and college grads having a small technology startup.
On the other hand-----there are REAL technology groups actually wanting to spur small technology businesses and include our public schools into all of this----AND THESE GROUPS KNOW THE DIFFERENCE.
If a technology group is not shouting against the Baltimore Development Emerging Technology goals driven only by global Johns Hopkins and UMMS global telemedicine and global health tourism and global education corporations----
THEY ARE NOT WORKING FOR EMERGING TECHNOLOGY FOR THE AVERAGE CITIZEN AND THEIR GOALS OF SMALL BUSINESS OR OUR PUBLIC SCHOOL CONNECTIONS IN PUBLIC INTEREST.
About the ETC
Simply put, the ETC mission is to help early-stage companies grow.
The ETC is the City of Baltimore’s award winning, technology innovation center focusing on Entrepreneurship, Technology and Connections. The ETC is a non-profit 501 ( c ) 3 venture of the Baltimore Development Corporation. ETC has two diverse locations in the city of Baltimore –ETC’s Haven Street Campus in Highlandtown and the JHU Eastern Campus on East 33rd Street.
The ETC offers three unique programs for entrepreneurs:
Beehive Baltimore, a coworking space
Incubation, the perfect environment to get serious about your big idea and the ideal support network of the ETC
AccelerateBaltimore, get there faster than you could on your own! A 13-week program for up to 6 startups with $25,000 in seed funding and the goal to launch an MVP
_____________________
Each state has its own 'emerging technology fund' that is being misappropriated to build global technology corporations like the BIOTECH PARKS in Baltimore tied to Johns Hopkins and UMMS. They have citizens toiling away at technology startups as they do in all fields with a few million thrown at the communities or schools with no sense of permanence---keeping them busy as they use all the funds to build structures for global corporations in Baltimore. Governors like Ehrlich and O'Malley did the same with all that ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Trust for these few decades that was simply moved to grow globally the larger corporations in Maryland. None of that revenue went to actually grow a local, small business economy in Baltimore. This 'emerging technology' trust is more of the same. Throwing a few millions at main street while using billions to build global technology structures for global corporations in Baltimore's International Economic Zone.
This is critical because it is our Baltimore public conduit for all this internet growth now being occupied by the good or the bad in this movement. The good is tying lots of small technology businesses to this conduit to assure competition and services aimed at individuals and small businesses. The bad that is advancing right now is using that conduit only for global technology corporations gearing service only to these global online businesses.
All of this is a huge sovereignty issue at all levels. Our internet has become involved in all avenues of our lives and we do not want to be held hostage by global corporations as to how it is developed and for whom.
Baltimore Development Corporations and their pols are advancing these policies for global Johns Hopkins et al------
WE NEED TO GET RID OF THESE GLOBAL WALL STREET POLS.
Texas Emerging Technology Fund Still Benefiting Life Sciences Startups
October 21, 2015 by lalorek 1 CommentBy EVA RUTH MORAVEC
Special Contributor to Silicon Hills News
Former Gov. Rick Perry’s pet project, the Texas Emerging Technology Fund, isn’t dead, it’s just been relocated.
Now under the management of the Texas Treasury Safekeeping Trust Company, there are about 100 active companies still in the fund, 60 percent of which focus on life sciences, said portfolio manager Jyoti Gupta at an Austin Technology Council seminar Wednesday.
This year, the Texas Legislature appropriated $12 million to help manage the fund, but also voted to abolish it and transfer it out of the governor’s office. Gupta said the fund was moved to her department Sept. 1 and added that the $12 million will be used to “add into the investments that we have made into these companies, as we see appropriate, as it makes sense for us.”
And, if any of the investments – in total, $400 million in Texas tax dollars were granted to companies and universities by the Texas Emerging Technology Fund – see profits, those dollars will also be “recycled back into the fund,” Gupta said. She estimates the remaining investments are worth about $145 million, but her office is currently undertaking a thorough inventory of the investments that will likely take months.
Starting in 2005, Perry began to offer grants for start up companies seeking seed stage money.
Last year, 19 Central Texas companies received $111.17 million in ETF funding, according to a report provided to the legislature, and promised to produce more than 15,000 new jobs.
In total, the fund has given 145 companies a financial boost, particularly important during the economic downturn, but faced criticism for its lack of transparency and investments in high-risk companies. Several grant recipients went bankrupt, and not all kept their promises to create jobs for Texans.
But there were also numerous success stories, which didn’t go unnoticed by Perry, who touted job creation and the “Texas Miracle” in failed presidential campaigns in 2012 and this year.
The turmoil was put to rest early this year, when Republican Gov. Greg Abbott abolished the fund – meaning it’s no longer accepting investment applications – less than two weeks after taking office. Since there were already companies in the fund, though, it had to be managed, and was reassigned to the Texas Treasury Safekeeping Trust Company, which manages state assets.
Meanwhile, Abbott also established the Governor’s University Research Initiative with $40 million and a mission to attract Nobel laureates and other major researchers to Texas universities.
AH-----THE WORLD'S ELITE WORKERS ONLY GOAL OPERATING IN BUSH NEO-CONSERVATIVE TEXAS!
“It is unfortunate that money doesn’t really exist anymore in its original form,” said Yash Sabharwal, COO of Xeris Pharmaceuticals Inc., which received $1.9 million in ETF money in 2012. “Those funds did have an impact.”
Xeris, which makes injectable treatments for diabetes, received ETF cash after promising to bring 12 jobs to the area. Sabharwal said the company now employs 13 Austinites and two people out of town. In January, Xeris announced it completed a $17.9 million capital raise to advance its diabetes treatment products.
“The money did help us bridge the gap,” during the economic downturn, Sabharwal said. But these days, the Central Texas life sciences tech market is hot. While it’s still “challenging to get money,” Sabharwal said, there are more options.
According to the council, the 206 life sciences companies in the greater Austin area comprise about 6,000 jobs and more than $1 billion in economic value. Austin’s life sciences community has grown organically, said Julie Huls, president and CEO of the Austin Technology Council, adding that the sector leans more towards technology because of Austin’s established tech ecosystem.
“Life science is the future of Central Texas technology,” Huls said to about 125 people at the opening of the council’s seminar.
Now, the council is pushing for more targeted growth in concert with other major Austin tech moves, including the future Dell Medical Center at The University of Texas at Austin and new wet labs at Austin Community Colleges. Sabharwal hopes the area will also soon attract major pharmaceutical companies to complete the life science tech supply chain.
Ottobock’s Regional President and CFO Andreas Schultz said his nearly-100-year-old prosthetics company, now worth more than $1 billion, relocated from Minnesota to Austin last year.
“We wanted to marry the tech that we bring from the medical device industry to the tech that exists in Austin,” Schultz said.
Ottobock was founded to meet the needs of veterans injured in World War I.
“We help people reclaim their lives after an incident, after an amputation, after coming back from wars, especially in the U.S., and we really help people regain their mobility,” he said.
Schultz joked that the one thing officials could do to help his business succeed was to have a direct flight from Austin to Frankfurt.
“We are working on a flight to Germany that should start in 2016,” said Charisse Bodisch, senior vice president of economic development for the Austin Chamber of Commerce.
_________________
Below you see a questionnaire from what I am sure is the Baltimore Development Emerging Technology group. You can see the control in how this questionnaire pulls the candidate to a YES and NO answer for a multi-tiered question. It wants a candidate to say----I WILL CONTINUE TO SUPPORT THE BALTIMORE DEVELOPMENT TECHNOLOGY PLAN INSTALLED UNDER RAWLINGS-BLAKE WITH ALL THE PUBLIC DATA CAPTURE.
They are clearly geared towards seeing schools are wired for job training----they refer to OPEN GOVERNMENT as global pols do----not public transparency but all public data available to be bought and/or used by corporations anytime they want it.....
This will include all of the SMART METER technology----the surveillance systems and all Baltimore Development wants is to create a job training path from K-career college for what will be the lowest paying jobs.
I am sure my responses will be shared without the general comment section at the end to explain and expand on the question. The point is this-----any new mayor will have to look at existing projects and redesign according to new goals. So, yes we want to look at Baltimore DATA STAT and the Emerging Technology model already in place under Rawlings-Blake AND MODIFY FOR NEW GOALS. There is no doubt some good policy mixed with much bad policy.
Technical.ly Baltimore: Mayoral Election Questionnaire
Please answer with a YES, NO or NOT DETERMINED.
I recognize the importance to the future of Baltimore that the local tech community has, featuring entrepreneurs, technologists, innovators and their supporters.
YES
I support the need for supplementary educational opportunities in STEM, like robotics, advanced manufacturing, and entrepreneurship for Baltimore school children to be better prepared for careers of the future.
YES
I support prioritizing computing centers and digital literacy training in the City of Baltimore budget for modern workforce development, leveraging the Enoch Pratt Free Library, Baltimore City Community College and other existing stakeholders to help develop a more inclusive and diverse innovation ecosystem.
YES
I support programs that aim to attract, retain and grow early stage businesses, like the Emerging Technology Center, and its Accelerate Baltimore program [MORE], in addition to private-sector incubators like Betamore, the University of Maryland BioPark, the Johns Hopkins University FastForward, Impact Hub Baltimore and others.
NO
I support introducing an Open Data Executive Order that would establish the regular release and maintenance of high-value city data and the use of an open data advisory council for outside guidance on modern standards for ethics and efficiency.
NO
I support retaining the Chief Data Officer position as an internal advocate for open data, transparency and efficiency and facilitating the position’s collaboration with pre-existing government agencies to do the same.
NO
I support using Data.Baltimore.Gov to effectively share and distribute city data resources.
NO
I support the development, maintenance and use of APIs to distribute and leverage city data whenever possible, rather than static snapshot data sets. When necessary to provide static snapshot data sets, I support the delivery of city data and information in machine readable formats, like .XLS, .XML and .JSON.
NO
I support city procurement reform to enable the City of Baltimore to more efficiently, transparently and modernly acquire the best goods and services, including the use of open source software when appropriate and preferring locally-based firms. YES
I support data-informed policy making, using programs like Baltimore CitiStat, OutcomeStat (and related departmental programs) to create an internal consumer ecosystem for the City’s open data activities and facilitate better governmental performance and efficiency.
YES
I support the role private investment, like venture capital, must play in growing local communities through social entrepreneurship and other civic-minded business growth.
NO
I support the retention of a Broadband Coordinator to solicit citizen and marketplace feedback on issues like broadband access, privatizing city conduit infrastructure and trends in 'dig once' policies, in which high-speed internet infrastructure must be installed whenever relevant city streets are uncovered for other maintenance, like on public water and gas infrastructure.
YES
I support the use of body cameras for on-duty Baltimore city police officers.
TO BE DETERMINED
I support publicly engaging and responding to citizen feedback using social media, as consumer-orientated private companies do.
YES
I support the recommendations of current Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake's A Connected City task force, including establishing high-speed Internet in city public schools and utilizing existing resources such as the city's transportation conduit system to strengthen Internet connectivity in the city
YES
Do you have any related comments, perspective or issues important to you?
First, allowing only Yes and No answers shows how a social Democrat like Cindy Walsh has some problems with the stance promoted by Baltimore Tech Co and I do not feel it represents the expectations of many citizens in Baltimore. Each question above had parts that could have been answered Yes and No but restrictions prohibited that. I would like to say this. I am the only candidate that WILL make sure that the Baltimore Conduit not only stays public but that the infrastructure for high-speed broadband is competitive by subsidizing small business high-speed technology companies geared towards individual citizen and small business access to high-speed at an affordable price. This is the most critical aspect of technology in Baltimore and you do not mention this. Currently, Baltimore is heading towards complete domination of our high-speed broadband by global corporations as in global health care and global education corporations and will push most small business and individuals out of access with every higher rates. There must be small business competition and infrastructure built to assure net neutrality and access for all.
Second, it is Johns Hopkins and the University of Maryland that will dominate that access and I do not support Baltimore City funding towards what are now essentially corporate entities. I do not support the structures of these BioTech labs because the health product patenting and marketing globally is NOT regulated and does not adhere to long-held clinical trial protocol. That said, I DO support and will fund all small businesses Baltimore citizens want to promote. I will fully fund technology labs in all public schools and libraries to be used as part of school curricula. I will not support taking apprenticeships into schools at elementary and middle-school levels because we do not need children learning these skills that early. Computer programming can be handled as a foreign language would in public schools.
Third, I do not support open access data as regards citizen’s data or data connected to city transactions with citizens. I do support open data as regards city agency transparency in public policy-making, in internal auditing of government operations, and in open door to all government discussions on future development policies. So, I do not share the enthusiasm of taking people’s private data---whether from SMART METERS or health care insurance, hospital data, et al protected under HIPAA. Baltimore Data Stat can be used for many purposes so I cannot say YES and include all that this questionnaire states. I will use Data Stat in operational analysis, implementation, and oversight. I will not use data strictly in what is being called---evidence-based policy because we are already seeing the bias in this towards corporate control and profit and away from social benefit. I am a social benefit candidate for Mayor of Baltimore.
Last, my administration will be very technology-friendly. It will include connectivity for all citizens and will make sure technology in classrooms are equal and appropriate for growing and changing corporate environments. I will not make K-college geared to job skills and vocational tracking with all of the teacher/student testing products. We have always had strong STEM curricula in our K-12 and community/4 year universities and I will stress this. We also have always had strong, broad curricula including liberal arts and humanities without Common Core which served our students well and that is what I will promote. I support having public schools with teachers hired permanently and not only corporate non-profits. I see a strong public school staff augmented by local non-profits and parents/communities. After-school program funding need to be sent to public schools with the ability for each administrator and parents to decide what this augmentation with community will look like.
My professional careers have been tied closely to data operations, collection, and analysis. I have extensive experience in medical research administration and education so I fit perfectly into the environment citizens of Baltimore want to create and hopefully your organization’s mem bers as well.
Thank you for this opportunity to discuss my views,
Cindy Walsh for Mayor of Baltimore.
______________________________________________
Whether you are Republican or Democrat everyone is shouting against what Bush installed in this drive to Homeland Security and global cyber-security protecting global corporations. Americans were SHOCKED at the Reagan nuclear arsenal buildup all called good strategy because Russia bankrupted itself trying to keep up. Now the world is filled with potential 'dirty bomb' threats costing the US and nations around the world more trillions of dollars to defend against. Well, this NSA technology infrastructure was Bush's Reagan moment as he used trillions of dollars to build a global spy network that would make Stalin and German SS green with envy-----
THIS IS TO WHERE OUR SOCIAL SECURITY TRUST AND MEDICARE TRUSTS WENT-----AND BUILDING THIS SYSTEM IS AGAIN FILLED WITH FRAUD AND CORRUPTION.
A Mayor of Baltimore has this choice---------do we continue to allow the growth of this SMART CITY technology which is simply a hyper-security state and VERY RIGHT-WING AUTOCRATIC------our does the new mayor stop and dismantle much of this surveillance and rebuild a sensible security approach to securing our Port of Baltimore and city from people with any bad intentions.
All of this is tied to the data collection -----the attack on privacy -----the complete loss of the American people to feel they can communicate with one another on any topic and not have a super-sensitive fear that ordinary words will be deemed revolutionary or a national security threat.
THIS IS AS LARGE A SOVEREIGNTY ISSUE AS ANY-----AND IT DOES ATTACK OUR US CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS AND OUR STATUS AS CITIZEN.
The desire towards global corporate rule and extreme wealth-----the desire towards taking away all voice in public policy and handing it to corporations----the desire to ignore privacy rights and build such systems of surveillance like NSA/SMART CITY/SMART METER technology IS A VERY FAR-RIGHT WING THING TO DO-----IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY AND DEMOCRATIC BASE OF LABOR AND JUSTICE.
Baltimore Development Corporation and a very, very, very neo-conservative Johns Hopkins is ground zero for all this and no amount of progressive posing from establishment pols and those connected to Baltimore Development running for Mayor of Baltimore will hide their commitment to moving all of this forward.
Surveillance State: NSA Spying and more
Author and Page information
- by Anup Shah
- This Page Created Monday, October 07, 2013
At the start of June 2013, a large number of documents detailing surveillance by intelligence agencies such as the US’s NSA and UK’s GCHQ started to be revealed, based on information supplied by NSA whistle blower, Edward Snowden.
These leaks revealed a massive surveillance program that included interception of email and other Internet communications and phone call tapping. Some of it appears illegal, while other revelations show the US spying on friendly nations during various international summits.
Unsurprisingly, there has been a lot of furor. While some countries are no doubt using this to win some diplomatic points, there has been increased tensions between the US and other regions around the world.
Much of the US surveillance programs came from the aftermath of the 9-11 terrorist attacks on the US in 2001. Concerns about a crackdown on civil rights in the wake of the so-called “war on terror” have been expressed for a long time, and these revelations seem to be confirming some of those fears.
Given the widespread collection of information, apparently from central servers of major Internet companies and from other core servers that form part of the Internet backbone, activities of millions (if not billions) of citizens have been caught up in a dragnet style surveillance problem called PRISM, even when the communication has nothing to do with terrorism.
What impacts would such secretive mass surveillance have on democracy?
RSS Feed
