is the Clinton and Bush Wall Street global corporate tribunal party slogan for coming elections------since this is very repressive, regressive, and autocratic they will make this talking point HEALTH CARE FOR ALL as Donna Edwards and Chris Van Hollen neo-liberals who voted for all of this policy and funding are saying now! Donna Edwards and Chris Van Hollen are proud NEW DEMOCRATS----Clinton neo-liberals!
THAT WILL HAPPEN TO 'THEM', NOT 'US'.
Van Hollen said the message in the Democratic caucus is “don’t run away from the Affordable Care Act.”
“Be strong about Obamacare
Donna Edwards | Single Payer Action www.singlepayeraction.org/2009/11/17/donna-edwards single payer health care for
Continuing the talk on information systems and placing all Federal, state, and local information online-----as well as Google scanning the libraries of the world----centralizing information in databases in super computers controlled by global corporations like Johns Hopkins. I pick on Hopkins because it is Baltimore---but this is happening at all Ivy League university corporations as that is to where Obama and Clinton neo-liberals sent all of this research and infrastructure funding.
If you read the novel by Eco called IN THE NAME OF THE ROSE----you saw the medieval times where books with knowledge were all kept in chambers of Catholic Monasteries. The wealthy merchant-class as Johns Hopkins fancies itself to be====only the public owns Johns Hopkins====were the ones allowed to learn the wisdom of liberal arts, humanities, and read of the research done by the rich families. The masses were kept in the dark====AGES=====with only the church feeding the masses the things needed to know.
ALL THEY NEED TO KNOW IS HOW TO DO A JOB!
THAT IS WHAT THE EUROPEAN AND AMERICAN REVOLUTIONS ENDED---WITH 'WE THE PEOPLE' WRITTEN INTO CONSTITUTIONS. This is what Clinton and Bush neo-liberals and neo-cons are trying to end.
One of the major tenets of Trans Pacific Trade Pact that gets the most dissent around the world is the US push on patent protections at a time when every avenue of corporate, government, and non-profit are involved in the patent process....that is called a corporate state. So, when Johns Hopkins calls itself a private university partnered with a Federal NSA or NIH, and a corporate funding foundation----all avenues are tied to the patents Hopkins creates AND ALL OF IT IS CALLED PROPRIETARY BECAUSE IT IS PATENTED.
So, when Clinton and Obama neo-liberals----like O'Malley and Bush neo-cons like Larry Hogan claim they are working on open government and transparency -----it means handing public data to corporations----not citizens accessing Federal, state, and local documents about government operations. When I say that Hopkins seeks to control all information in a Medici-style city state of their own building---these supercomputers will have all of the data produced from all of the Federal and state funding with all of the Federal data systems outsourced and dismantled. Think in a near future when the only people accessing what is on Hopkins databases regardless of all the public funding are people approved/working for or with Hopkins. THAT ACTUALLY HAPPENS NOW----BUT THIS INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY RESTRUCTURING IS SUPER-SIZING THIS.
In Maryland where all government policy is written behind closed doors with corporate partners much information cannot be accessed because it is called proprietary. Now, our public and private universities using tons of taxpayer money are calling their research proprietary.
HAVING FEDERAL AND STATE GOVERNMENTS THAT HAVE STRONG PUBLIC SECTOR EMPLOYMENTS WITH EMPLOYEES WORKING FOR THE PUBLIC PRODUCING WORK THAT THE CITIZENS CAN ACCESS AND CONTROL-----THAT IS A DEMOCRACY FOLKS!
Republican voters who relish the downsizing and dismantling of Federal agencies are the ones shouting the loudest in Maryland about not being able to access any public policy. NO ONE WANTS THIS YET WE ALLOW CLINTON AND BUSH WALL STREET GLOBAL CORPORATE TRIBUNAL CANDIDATES TO WIN EVERY ELECTION.
Transparency and Intellectual Property Protection in
Michelangelo Temmerman and Thomas Cottier
University of Bern
NCCR Trade Regulation
Thun, 19 January 2012
• Specific angle: Transparency and
– Patents (transparency/disclosure in return of
exclusion) v. trade secrecy (exclusion only)
• Both options are legitimate and anchored in
• Question is which is the best for global innovation
– Answer is not available yet; (too?) many factors
– Importance differs from sector to sector and along the
levels of economic development
– From ‘public’ to ’private’ transparency
– Access to knowledge v. access to information
As this article below shows----all of this classification and proprietary information leads to levels of security taking all of our Federal, state, and local revenue. Think how much money is being spent to make these Johns Hopkins super computers secure over decades. IT'S A RACKET FOLKS!
WHO IS IN THE SECURITY AND SURVEILLANCE BUSINESS? JOHNS HOPKINS----SO THE GOVERNMENT PAYS JOHNS HOPKINS FOR RESEARCH, PAYS THEM TO SECURE IT, PAYS THEM FOR THE FACILITIES TO DO THE RESEARCH AND THEN HOPKINS PATENTS THE PRODUCTS AND PROFITS FROM THEM.
Is The Government Drinking Too Much Booz?
Jonathan Galaviz Forbes
The seal of the U.S. National Security Agency. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
With annual revenues exceeding $5.7 billion Booz Allen Hamilton Holding Corporation is one of America’s largest government contractors. The company now finds itself in the middle of an emerging debate on the role that large corporations play in the U.S. national intelligence structure.
Booz Allen Hamilton (Booz Allen) contracts staff to U.S. government intelligence agencies such as the National Security Agency (NSA), the National Reconnaissance Office, and many unnamed others. At the end of March 2013, the company had around 24,500 employees.
Until recently, one of those Booz Allen employees was Edward Snowden, the NSA whistleblower that leaked the existence of the now infamous PRISM program. Mr. Snowden, before becoming a whistleblower, was an employee of Booz Allen and was contracted by the NSA as an embedded staff member.
Many in Congress are now being asked what kind of role, if any, should large corporations like Booz Allen have in America’s global intelligence apparatus.
Others are asking whether the U.S. government intelligence agencies are simply addicted to companies like Booz Allen.
The reality is there may be no practical way for the U.S. government to lose its addiction to companies like Booz Allen, even if it wanted to.
To understand the addiction, one must understand the dynamics between the structure of employment in the U.S. intelligence field and how the complex world of federal government contracting interacts with it.
According to Booz Allen company reports, slightly over 26% of their employees held what is known as Top Secret / Sensitive Compartmented Information (TS/SCI) clearances. The TS/SCI clearance is one of the highest levels that can be given to any government employee or government contractor.
The best way to think of a TS/SCI clearance is that it provides individuals with some of the highest levels of access to intelligence but without exposing them to the entire national intelligence framework.
To put it in raw numbers – slightly over 6,500 Booz Allen employees hold TS/SCI clearances. To illustrate the magnitude of that number, Booz Allen (as a private corporation) has more employees on staff that hold TS/SCI clearance than the U.S. Department of Education has in total employees.
The standards and background checks by which a TS/SCI clearance is granted are generally the same for both outside contractors and government employees. Many of the similarities stop there however – that is where the complexities of government contracting begin.
When U.S. government intelligence agencies have a need for people they can hire employees on their own payroll (known as insourcing) or they contract those employees from private-sector companies such as Booz Allen (outsourcing). While this process might seem pretty straightforward in the commercial sector, it’s not so simple in the government sector.
Firms like Booz Allen charge the government what is casually known in the world of U.S. government contracting as the ‘loaded-rate’. This rate is essentially the total price that the government must pay to Booze Allen to retain the services of its employees on either short or long-term contracts.
The loaded-rate includes costs such as fringe benefits, general costs, administrative support, and fees (profits) for the company- all of which are made transparent to the government. To be clear, the U.S. federal government knows upfront how much profit (fee) companies like Booz Allen make from the contracts it awards them.
Global corporations like SAIC are the face of all of this outsourcing of information systems, the security and surveillance behind it and in this case SAIC is a Hopkins' corporation. When we elect global corporate pols they are moving as fast as they can to create the infrastructure making the US simply a colonial economic outpost for this global corporate tribunal.
Now, don't you think that would be the conversation in the Democratic Party? Since the Democratic base of labor and justice was all about labor, civil, women's rights and civil liberties-----since Democrats are the party tied to public justice and power to the people----
WHY IS THERE SILENCE ABOUT THIS CORPORATE COUP FROM THE DEMOCRATIC BASE? THE REPUBLICAN VOTERS ARE SHOUTING AGAINST THIS----AND YET, NONE OF THE SUPPOSED LABOR AND JUSTICE ORGANIZATION LEADERSHIP MENTION THIS.
If you are silent on TPP-----if you do not educate on the policies that make TPP and what Clinton neo-liberal policies have as a goal---then that labor and justice organization is working FOR THE GLOBAL CORPORATE TRIBUNAL PARTY!
Centralized data and information control in the hands of a global corporation and not a US government at Federal, state, or local level? THAT WAS WHAT WORLD WAR 2 WAS ABOUT! If you think state's rights are more important and want death to the Federal government---then you need to get ready for lost national sovereignty and global corporate rule....which will be 1,000,000,000,000 times worse.
THIS IS WHAT THE JOHNS HOPKINS SUPER-COMPUTER IS ABOUT.
Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC)
is a leading technology integrator that provides full lifecycle services and solutions in the technical, engineering, and enterprise IT markets. SAIC has approximately 15,000 employees worldwide.
Innovative Applications of Technology and Expertise
We design, develop, and sustain offerings that empower diplomatic missions, support warfighter requirements, and advance exploration from the ocean floor to outer space. We maintain leadership positions in supply chain management, hardware integration, and global network integration. Our diversified contract base enables us to provide end-to-end capabilities and solutions across mission and enterprise lifecycles.
We do all this with the constant and deliberate commitment to ethical performance and integrity that has marked SAIC since its founding.
Supporting Programs of National Importance SAIC has a strong commitment to supporting programs of national importance—helping to solve or undertake our country’s most significant problems. We offer a broad range of services and solutions to address our customers' most complex and critical technology-related needs.
As someone who reads journals all day long and posts some of what I read I can tell you it is getting harder and harder to find progressive criticism of anything happening today. Whether dialog about research and development, public policy dissent, or movements away from this 21st Century GLOBAL CORPORATE TRIBUNAL society----internet servers are being programmed to select out certain words that will keep articles from appearing in searches----or Google and the global providers are selling priority spots in searches so that I find a progressive criticism of policy on page 30-50 of the Google search.
Johns Hopkins has an internal server that it programs to stop the ability to open certain kinds of articles claiming the need to protect its databases from viral attacks from left-leaning groups I suppose. I find today I cannot open as many search sites in Hopkins that I can open. When data collection and production narrows to certain universities that then become able to program what information the public can see----we have a great big problem.
The American people have always taken a newpaper or journal article and shared it with friends----cut it out=====made copies of it to send and share information. Today, journals and newspapers are starting to claim that copyright allows them to claw-back articles shared....almost like a DVD movie being copied and shared. I spoke of rising costs for subscriptions and the ever exclusivity of being a well-read American citizen.....
The centralization of information and data to these super-computers controlled by a FOXCONN - like global merchant-class is the return to the medieval days -----
WE DO NOT WANT TO WAIT TO FIGHT A REVOLUTION WHEN ALL WE HAVE TO DO IS ENGAGE AS CITIZENS ----RUN FOR OFFICE---BE THE CANDIDATES THAT DO NOT SELL OUT----RUNNING AGAINST ALL CLINTON WALL STREET GLOBAL CORPORATE NEO-LIBERALS AND BUSH NEO-CONS.
December 3, 2014 | By Maira Sutton
Copyright Law as a Tool for State Censorship of the Internet
When state officials seek to censor online speech, they're going to use the quickest and easiest method available. For many, copyright takedown notices do the trick. After years of lobbying and increasing pressure from content industries on policymakers and tech companies, sending copyright notices to take media offline is easier than ever.
The copyright law that state actors most often invoke is the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). The DMCA was the first major digital copyright law passed in the United States, creating strict procedural rules for how and when a copyright holder can claim that uploaded content infringes on their copyright. US-based tech companies that receive these infringement notices must comply with these rules to receive their safe harbor—the protection they have from being liable for hosting unlawful user content.
The DMCA has become a global tool for censorship, precisely because it was designed to facilitate the removal of online media. The law carries provisions on intermediary liability, among many other strict copyright enforcement rules, which induce websites, Internet service providers, and other such "intermediaries" to remove content that is alleged to be a copyright infringement.
If the DMCA is US law, how can governments around the world use it to censor speech? The DMCA has become the default template for tech companies to respond to copyright infringement notices. Since many major tech companies have offices in the US, they must comply with US law. But even if they don't operate in this jurisdiction, most major companies have implemented a DMCA-style takedown procedure anyway because it has become a de facto legal norm.
It's a norm that is reinforced and exported abroad by dozens of trade agreements that carry provisions that mirror, and further entrench, restrictive interpretations of the DMCA. The South Korea-US free trade agreement (aka KORUS) and the Australia-US free trade agreement (aka AUSFTA) are just two examples. The language in those agreements were actually a lot like the DMCA. But the negotiators abstracted the language just enough so that US law could still be compliant with it, while the other countries could be pressured to enact even harsher domestic restrictions. Following their trade agreements with the US, South Korea enacted a three-strikes takedown regime, and Australia was pushed into enacting policies requiring intermediaries to terminate the accounts of repeat infringers. The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and the Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) are two multilateral trade agreements that may contain similarly expansive copyright terms.
Now we're seeing a disturbing trend where governments and state-friendly agencies are abusing DMCA takedowns to silence political criticism. Here are the cases we know about where governments have misused US copyright law to censor the Internet.
DMCA and State Censorship Around the World: A Timeline of Case Studies
- UNITED STATES: YouTube removed a 30-second Air Force recruitment ad after lawyers for the Air Force's Cyber Command sent a DMCA notice demanding it take it down. The notice was likely invalid, since US government works are in the public domain. (March 2008)
- CANADA: The House of Commons sent takedown notices to Friends of Canadian Broadcasting for posting videos and podcasts of Parliamentary committee proceedings on their website. (May 2009)
- CANADA: The Auditor General issued a takedown to both The Globe and Mail and Scribd, for posting one section of the Auditor General's report on immigration, claiming that crown copyright applies. (November 2009)
- CANADA: Transport Canada issued a takedown notice to Scribd over an on-the-record response to a journalist. (February 2012)
- CANADA: Department of National Defense demanded the removal of a widely discussed leaked copy of the Canadian Land Force Counter-Insurgency Operations Manual from the site PublicIntelligence.net. It is unknown if other websites that published the document received similar notices. (April 2012)
- UNITED STATES: The Department of Homeland Security reportedly issued copyright takedowns to YouTube over some conspiracy theory videos, when federal agencies themselves cannot own copyrights—unless it has been assigned to them, which seems unlikely in this case. (August 2012)
- ECUADOR: A law firm, Ares Rights, has been sending DMCA takedown notices to dozens of websites, companies and individuals over tweets, documentaries, and search results on behalf several Ecuadorian state officials. (2014 and ongoing)
- SAUDI ARABIA: A satirical show on Youtube called "Fitnah" was censored when the primary, state-funded Saudi TV channel, Rotana, sent DCMA notices to take down several of their videos. Later, a Lebanese TV show did a report about the takedown, and then another DMCA notice was sent and it was also removed from Youtube. All of the videos were later restored. (September 2014)
- BRAZIL: Videos critical of 2014 presidential candidate and former governor, Aécio Neves, have been targeted by copyright takedowns. Although the identity of the sender cannot be confirmed, there is much speculation that Neves himself is behind the takedowns. (October 2014)
If you know of any cases of state-mandated Internet censorship carried out through the DMCA or other copyright laws' takedown procedures, please send them to firstname.lastname@example.org. We already track general DMCA takedowns with our Takedown Hall of Shame. Now we're looking for more cases where governments and their agencies have directly sought to censor the Internet via their own takedown requests.
Blocked websites are only becoming more common, with governments like the UK’s pushing ISPs to start filtering the Internet connections they provide to subscribers by default and laws like SOPA in the US demonstrating the kind of harsh blocking governments want to put into place.
When corporations like Johns Hopkins become the public sector as they have in Baltimore----as they are extending to state and Federal levels they have the power of using their servers to block information anyway they want. Think how many workers in Baltimore connected to Hopkins' computers and you see how large a sector this is becoming. We already have Hopkins filtering all of our public radio and media----
Maryland gives itself high marks for what would be progressive policy if these policies actually worked or were implemented-----as I talk about information technology and the dismantling of all our Federal databases to global corporate outsourcing---we look at state and local government information not yet outsourced and/or classified as proprietary----and we see procedures meant to deter the public from submitting Freedom of Information Requests. Whether long waits-----huge charges----or claims to being unable to correlate the information because it is in too many places----'the complex financial instrument model for public recordkeeping'.....the citizens of Maryland and especially Baltimore are actively thwarted by these corporate pols by policies and outright illegal actions in getting public information. So, O'Malley will run for President as an Open Government candidate using headlines like this while Maryland is the most captured of public policy information access in the nation. The cost of $20,000 the City of Baltimore wanted to charge for documents surrounding a development question----THIS IS NOT HOW DEMOCRACY WORKS----
THESE ARE NOT DEMOCRATS----PLEASE JUST RUN FOR OFFICE AT ALL LEVELS IN PRIMARIES AGAINST CLINTON WALL STREET GLOBAL CORPORATE NEO-LIBERALS AND IN BALTIMORE----BUSH NEO-CONSERVATIVES SERVING AS DEMOCRATS!
The idea of pushing all US citizens to poverty so they cannot consume and fuel the economy domestically ----but rather declare that the world's rich will fuel consumption and enrich these global corporations leads this downsizing of government into the hands of corporations. We simply need to return to a domestic economy-----a Baltimore small business economy----a Maryland regional business economy ----and get away from this global economy hold Clinton neo-liberals and Bush neo-cons are placing on American citizens. It is easy to do----we have the power to be citizens and engage in politics-----JUST DO IT----
Maryland legislature revamps public information
law By Doug Donovan The Baltimore Sun
Seeking government documents in Maryland? New law may help. Obtaining documents from government agencies in Maryland is no simple task. The process typically involves filing a written request under the state's Public Information Act and waiting up to 30 days — but can also lead to disputes over photocopying fees, redacted details or outright denials.
Reporters, lawyers, nonprofits and others have long had only one way to resolve disputes: in the courts.
Senate OKs rewrite of public information law Until now. The General Assembly, which ended Monday, approved legislation that establishes a public information compliance board and an ombudsman position to mediate complaints. The board will primarily handle complaints when government agencies charge fees above $350. The ombudsman will attempt to resolve disputes about redacted information, untimely responses, overly broad requests and denials.
A separate piece of legislation requires government agencies to post contact information for their public information officers.
"This is the first comprehensive update of the Public Information Act laws in 45 years," said Jennifer Bevan-Dangel, executive director of the government watchdog group Common Cause Maryland. "For the first time under this law we'll finally have oversight, which has been sorely missing in the past."
Last summer, Common Cause Maryland helped organize a coalition of more than 30 nonprofit and labor groups to form Marylanders for Open Government, which pressed for changes.
The Maryland, Delaware, D.C. Press Association, which represents 114 member publications, including The Baltimore Sun, also supported the reforms.
Public salaries archive Changes to the law shift Maryland from a "presumption of closure with public information" to a "presumption of openness," said Rebecca Snyder, executive director of the press association.
Having to go to court to fight for public information prevents media outlets from reporting on important issues in a timely manner, she said. "I hear from members all the time about how hard it is to get information. Now there is someone to complain to."
The cost for the Maryland attorney general's office to staff the Public Information Act Compliance Board and the office of public access ombudsman is projected to be $199,900 the first year, according to the Department of Legislative Services' fiscal note on the legislation introduced by Sen. Jamie Raskin and Del. Bonnie Cullison, Montgomery County Democrats.
"The bill could also have a significant operational and/or fiscal impact on state agencies, although the actual impact depends on the number of MPIA requests and related complaints filed as a result of the bill," the note states.