A Pitful Example of Citizen Apathy

I’m still upset about the Siege of Boston where various paramilitary organizations suspended the Constitution. They claim “special circumstances.” The last I looked, there was no “special circumstance” that allowed for the suspension of the Bill of Rights.

Some Presidents have violated the Bill of Rights. Lincoln suspended Habeas Corpus during the Civil War. Roosevelt did likewise and more during World War II. The FBI, under Hoover and later Directors, has spied on American and violated numerous civil rights as well. All those examples of pass behavior and their acceptance at the time, does NOT make it right nor in many cases, legal.

The Constitution, in the 1st Amendment, provides for the freedom to assemble—to gather in groups to express political grievances. Freedom of movement, the right to travel about at will without restriction, is not in the Constitution although it was in the Articles of Confederation, Article 4. Freedom of Movement was not included in the Constitution because the authors felt it wasn’t needed but was a fundamental right recognized by all.

As early as the Articles of Confederation the Congress recognized freedom of movement (Article 4), though the right was thought to be so fundamental during the drafting of the Constitution as not needing explicit enumeration.[4] Wiki

The US Constitution provided for Freedom of Travel between states via the Privileges and Immunities Clause. However, the authority to regulate that travel was granted to the states rather than the Federal Government. Travel within the states was deemed to be a state issue according to several SCOTUS decisions.

[T]he Supreme Court did not invest the federal government with the authority to protect freedom of movement. Under the “privileges and immunities” clause, this authority was given to the states, a position the Court held consistently through the years in cases such as Ward v. Maryland, 79 U.S. 418 (1871), the Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. 36 (1873) and United States v. Harris, 106 U.S. 629 (1883).[2][3]Wiki

The result of this ambiguity is Boston on April 19, 2013. The rights of the people to assemble, to move about, to openly travel for whatever reason, is limited, according to law. Whatever government grants, the government can take away. We saw this last week in Boston. People were ordered to return to their homes and to remain there. Those who ventured outside risked being detained, restrained at gunpoint as the photos below testify.


Boston-No_breaking_arrest_at_homeHowever, the Constitution, in the 4th Amendment, does say that people have the right to be secure in their homes. That right can only be suspended by a search warrant showing probable cause and to state specifically what is expected to be found.

The government forces in Boston did not acquire search warrants. One spokesman said there weren’t sufficient judges available and since they were in “hot pursuit” (four days later!?), a warrant wasn’t required. People were evicted from their homes, at gun point and without warrants—a violation of the 4th Amendment.

Boston-Alles_Geauf-2The tragedy of these acts is that the people of Boston accepted this violation of their rights. Some of us laughingly call Massachusetts as a “People’s Republic”, a reminiscence of the Communist governments of East Europe.

We’re not laughing now.

Welcome to the new “progressive” disunited states where the government decides what rights, if any, you may have. Mayor Bloomberg made this statement.

Mayor Bloomberg: Interpretation of U.S. Constitution Will ‘Have to Change’ Following Boston Bombings

Apr. 23, 2013 8:16am

New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg believes that the Boston Marathon bombings have created a unique scenario — one in which traditional interpretations of the U.S. Constitution must change. Rather than shying away from cameras and other security mechanisms that some view as infringements upon individual privacy, the politician claims that the most recent attack calls for a new paradigm.

As for those who fear government intrusion and express serious concerns about how these technologies and other policies could impede privacy, Bloomberg is sympathetic — but only to a point.

As the Observer’s Politicker notes, Bloomberg also invoked gun control while making his point about the Constitution and security. In connecting what he said is the Supreme Court’s recognition that there are some interpretations of the Second Amendment that give way to “reasonable gun laws,” the mayor said that the nation will also need to “live with reasonable levels of security.”

That—is the view of the left. Whenever the Constitution prohibits some act or desire of government, whether it is freedom to travel, to be secure in our homes, or to our right of privacy, the needs of government must prevail and the Constitution be damned.

I’m still waiting for the citizens of Boston and Massachusetts to protest these arbitrary acts by their governments. It’s been nearly a week. I’m still waiting.

Cyber Attack!

And it wasn’t from the NorKs nor the ChiComs. It originated from the territory of one of our NATO allies, the Netherlands.

I operate my own mail and web-servers. My systems are probed daily, usually from WesPac or North Korea. I was hit with a DoS attack Monday of this week. It wasn’t a strong attack. I did notice some slowdown of my servers but the real hit came from my Domain Servers. That was a direct attack. My firewalls resisted and foiled the attack as designed.

But there is another method that is popular by cyber-criminals that I cannot block. I don’t have a domain server. I contract with another company to host my domain names and to point callers to my home servers.

The larger attack occurred two weeks ago. It wasn’t to my systems but it affected the domain servers that I used—me and thousands of others. For a period of time, I couldn’t reach google.com, comcast.net, drudgereport.com and numerous other sites. When I tried to connect to them, my browser timed out. My query to the domain servers for the numerical address of those sites, was not returned.

The cyber-attack method used in the earlier attack was a DDoS attack against the primary site used to find spammers. SpamHaus, one of the sites I, and most email providers use to check for spam, was attacked by a spammer based in the Netherlands. It was a concentrated attack by one site, with hundreds of computers, against another single site—and it affected the entire internet, world-wide.

Web slows under ‘biggest attack ever’

Millions of people around the world have been affected by slow internet speeds after an unprecedented attack.

By Matt Warman and agencies, 1:41PM GMT 27 Mar 2013

A Dutch web-hosting company caused disruption and the global slowdown of the internet, according to a not-for-profit anti-spam organization.

The interruptions came after Spamhaus, a spam-fighting group based in Geneva, temporarily added the Dutch firm, CyberBunker, to a blacklist that is used by e-mail providers to weed out spam.

Cyberbunker is housed in a five-story former NATO bunker and famously offers its services to any website “except child porn and anything related to terrorism”. As such it has often been linked to behaviour that anti-spam blacklist compilers have condemend.

It retaliated with a huge ‘denial of service attack’. These work by trying to make a network unavailable to its intended users,overloading a server with coordinated requests to access it. At one point, 300 billion bits per second were being sent by a network of computers, making this the biggest attack ever.

The attack was particularly potent because it exploited the ‘domain name system’, which acts like the telephone directory of the internet and are used every time a web address is entered into a computer.

Patrick Gilmore, of digital content provider Akamai Networks told the New York Times that Cyberbunker did not believe spamming users was wrong. “These guys are just mad. To be frank, they got caught,” he alleged. “They think they should be allowed to spam.”

Calling the disruptions “one of the largest computer attacks on the Internet,” the New York Times reported today that millions of ordinary web users have experienced delays in services such as Netflix video-streaming service or couldn’t reach a certain website for a short time.

“The size of the attack hurt some very large networks and internet exchange points such as the London Internet Exchange,” John Reid, a spokesman for Spamhaus, said in an e-mailed response to questions by Bloomberg News. “It could be thousands, it could be millions. Due to our global infrastructure, the attackers target places all over the world.”

Spamhaus was targeted with a so-called distributed denial of service attack on the evening of March 15, Reid said.

Sven Olaf Kamphuis, an internet activist who told the New York Times he was a spokesman for the attackers, said that Cyberbunker was retaliating against Spamhaus for “abusing their influence” as the gatekeeper of lists of spammers. “Nobody ever deputized Spamhaus to determine what goes and does not go on the Internet,” he claimed. “They worked themselves into that position by pretending to fight spam.”

Such attacks are growing in quantity as well as scale, according to Vitaly Kamluk, chief malware expert of Kaspersky Lab’s global research and analysis team. The two main motives for the disruptions are money through cybercrime and political and social activism, he said.

“This is indeed the largest known DDoS operation,” Kamluk said by e-mail. “Such DDoS attack may affect regular users as well, with network slowdown or total unavailability of certain web resources as typical symptoms.”

Cyberbunker claims that it has resisted a number of ‘attacks’ by Dutch police attempting to make arrests.

Have no doubt, these people, the ones behind the name of Cyberbunker, are criminals and should be behind bars. Cyberbunker has been linked to wiki-Leaks and the Anonymous hacker group. A hundred years ago, they would be bomb-throwing anarchists. Today, they are cyber-anarchists throwing digital bombs.