Visions of a Freeman -
Friday, December 06 of 2013
The ZeroJobs web/media bot fraud net.
Technology is not only the implementation of new devices, it is also the use of science and thus logic.
Let us see the news:
A very corrupt country called the United States of America.
Take a look at this:
Microsoft said it had been authorised by US regulators to "block incoming and outgoing communications
First of all, no corporation is authorized to remove the rights of anyone. The Justice Department must be totally Independent from the Corporations, just as Academy must as well. It is not that a Corporation is authorized, it is that a Corporation must obey the law for no corporation is authorized to do the work of the Justice department under ANY circumstance.
The Justice Department must be able to block any address even if the Corporations like it or not, because that is the law and the law is over the Corporations.
Microsoft is not part of the Judicial system so it simply cannot be authorized to do the work of the Police and Law Enforcement agencies. That would be the same as authorizing a civilian to enter the house of someone and proceed to arrest people and take them to jail, a function that only the Police or other law enforcement agencies can have and certainly NOT a private corporation.
Take a look at this:
Microsoft said its Digital Crimes Unit
Again we are seeing how Microsoft is clearly taking the role of the Police Department, effectively creating a corporate police and corporations are not concerned with human rights, they are only concerned for their own profit.
No corporation can have a Crime Unit. You can call it a Cyber Security Unit, sure, but never a Crime Unit because the only crime unit by law is the law enforcement agencies. It is very dangerous when Corporations have their own law enforcement agencies... Which is a serious breach of the laws.
Take a look again:
security firm Symantec said it had disabled nearly 500,000 computers infected
A connection is also a right, no corporation can cut human rights so the mere fact that Symantec claims they have disabled computers is the same as admitting it has killed connections, and so it has cut the rights of people. No corporation can do that. If it were the Police department that says it has ordered, under a Judicial process to cut the connections and that Symantec simply complied with the order THEN and only then is it legal.
The mere fact that the BBC gives Police credentials to a corporation should be a violation of the rules of ethics. The ONLY people that can effectively deny the right's of connection to the internet are the Law enforcement people, not some corporation and the law enforcement should be totally independent from the corporations in order for it not to be extremely corrupt.
That Microsoft Police Department should be a serious concern for everyone that respects the rule of law and human rights, to Me it is the same as the Gestapo Nazi police. When a corporation has the power, it will tend to use it for it's profit, not for the benefit of all the society.
Google, Bing and Yahoo are fraud nets, and Microsoft supports that fraud.
Here is where technology gets interesting and logic is superior to the arguments of the criminals and fraudsters like Google, Yahoo and Bing.
The fact is:
The Internet is now using IP6.
That is where Google, Bing and Yahoo became criminal organizations and also Microsoft.
This is a part of what Wikipedia in English shows about IP6:
The Wikipedia in Spanish gives you an interesting way to represent the possibilities:
IP6 can address 340.282.366.920.938.463.463.374.607.431.768.211.456 connections, that is 670 thousand billion connections per square millimeter of the surface of the earth...
What does that mean? It means that it is the end of Dynamic Internet Addresses, there is certainly quite a lot of connections available to give every single connection a name of user and a fixed address.
But what happens if that is implemented? Well then that means that every single connection will be linked to every person on a country, making it very hard to invent data about the true marketing done by a search engine or web site. For example a publicity sent to a cellular phone would not be counted as unique if the same person happens to also have another connection for his computer. In that case the repeated publicity that was once rejected at the user's computer will not be counted as a good marketing hit on the person's cellular phone.
Technology now allows for the user to insert a password in a computer and have the Internet provider to grant that person his very own internet address. For example sick father can watch a lot of pornography using his internet connection but when his child wants to use the Internet he logs out, the child types in the password or uses some other type of identification and gains his very own internet connection that police and schools can track to the child and NOT the adult person. So if by any chance the Internet connection of the child triggers a Porn address then the parent can be warned and even the Porn sites can obey the law and have a data cross with the law agencies to see if any child internet account has visited it. That is by far the best way and the only way it can be if school is to be on the internet on the future. That is every person with his own account, that is responsible internet.
Responsible Internet also makes it very hard, if not impossible to hack since web sites can be related to the internet account address, not a password. The introduction of the password itself can be typed on the Bios of the machine, which is on a read only chip, the user can press a button and the computer can go into "No Keylog" mode where the operative system cannot have access to key strokes recording and the computer logs into the Internet provider from its HARDWARE, not from it's operative system, making it impossible for hackers to use software to capture the password of a user.
The process is: The user presses a button, the Bios opens, all operative system access to that interface is blocked. The user logins to the Internet provider from the Bios, the Bios then informs the operative system that it has an internet connection but never informs security details of the connection itself so no matter how much a hacker writes software code on the operative system it will never have access to the security login data simply because the operative system does not have access to that data, only the hardware does.
The sick parent can watch porn if he can, then he watches some violent news and the child returns from school and knocks the door, he wants to use the computer. The parent then simply presses a button on the case of the computer, the Login button and leaves the computer, the child is good to go and connect to his own internet address by login in.
But what happens if that is done (which is perfectly possible by the way)? Well what happens is that the massive fraud done by Google, Yahoo and Bing are exposed... All the fake clicks, all the fake claims, all the secretly inserted false data of visits, everything is exposed and that would drastically lower the market value of those companies... For example a click on a female lingerie publicity would be worth NOTHING if the internet account belongs to a little boy aged 10. Right now Google fraud considers it a visit even if it is a little boy watching totally unrelated to childhood material and that means less profits because they used to tell the fraud victims that all hits were good, when now all child visits are subtracted, thus less profit from lying to the user of the marketing service and it makes it a lot harder to introduce false data to increase the sales of fraudulent marketing.
So what's the point of "fighting" against Bot nets when the real solution is to anchor the web addresses? The point is to make more money, even if the Internet becomes far less secure and dangerous with great opportunities for new fraud bots to appear at any time, maybe even faster than they are taken down.
So today Microsoft, Google, Bing and Yahoo recognized, openly, that their proposal for the irresponsible Internet is insecure and dangerous.
Allow me to offer the alternative.
Every country in the world has to have basic internet rights:
The Internet belongs to the world. Not to the United States of America media and their monopolistic friends that plague the world (more than 190 countries) with unemployment in the computer programming industry.
The greatest fraud of Google, Yahoo and Bling is done every time they claim to produce jobs in the world, when they actually produce very little jobs for the profit of very few on the world.
That is why I call Google, Bing and Yahoo the "World Unemployment Industry".
The programmers in my country, Venezuela, have the right to make their own software solutions, the advertising industry in my country has the right to reach our people and the people of Venezuela have the right to see the marketing of their choice in support of their country as well.
That is what it means to live in dignity, not under a media/technological monopoly.
So Microsoft, Google, Yahoo and Bing are wanting to block ZeroAccess net...
So who is going to disrupt the ZEROJOBS web/media fraud botnet?