Deep Politics Forum

This popped up out of the Internet's tissue box. It is perhaps relevant for our friends in the UK. Caveat: It is a WkiPedia entry.

The Digital Economy Bill [1][2] is a bill announced in the 2009 Queen's Speech before the United Kingdom parliament.[3] The bill will receive its second reading on the 6 April 2010 and it is expected[4] that it will not be debated in the Commons, and instead will be pushed through in the "wash up".
The bill follows the Digital Britain report and contains many of its suggestions including provisions about:

• the functions of the Office of Communications
  
• the online infringement of copyright, including copyright and performers’ rights and about penalties for infringement
  
• internet domain registries
  
• the functions of the Channel Four Television Corporation
  
• the regulation of television and radio services
  
• the regulation of the use of the electromagnetic spectrum
  
• the Video Recordings Act 1984
  
• public lending right in relation to electronic publications
  
• the bill proposes adding a clause to the Communications Act 2003 with the effect that internet service providers could be forced to disclose details of their customers who repeatedly infringe copyright, on production of sufficient evidence, to copyright groups or face a fine of £250,000 for non-compliance.
  
• ISPs to be required to block access to sites that allow "substantial" infringement.[5]
  

The bill proposes further measures allowing for the "temporary suspension" of internet connections for repeat infringers of copyright following warnings from their ISP. The bill has received criticism for some of these measures. (see below)
Other provisions in the bill include an amendment to the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 to increase the criminal liability for "making or dealing with infringing articles" and "making, dealing with or using illicit recordings" to a maximum of £50,000.
Regulation of content is also a theme in the bill, which sees it adopt the PEGI standard for video game ratings. The UK government would also be able directly to intervene to control the use of the UK's domain name space, currently overseen by the independent body Nominet.
The bill also includes proposed changes to DAB radio in the United Kingdom including the reorganisation and merging of some of the local DAB ensembles[6] and an requirement for a digital switchover of terrestrial radio in the United Kingdom.[7]
Contents

[[url=javascript:toggleToc()]hide[/url]]

• 1 Criticism
  
• 2 Support
  
• 3 See also
  
• 4 External links
  
• 5 References
  

[edit] Criticism

The bill has attracted criticism from consumer rights and privacy groups[8] due partly, to its proposal of a graduated response scheme, by which Internet connections could be temporarily suspended upon evidence of their persistent use to infringe copyright.[9]
Further criticism of the bill centres on the expectation[citation needed] that it would provide measures to boost the UK's digital economy, for example by implementing a 50p-per-month levy on copper line connections, a recommendation contained in Lord Carter's Digital Britain report.
An article in New Scientist magazine claims that the bill is inspired by the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement which itself is designed to halt losses from internet piracy.[10]
Concerns have also been raised regarding the impact on small businesses offering free WiFi to their customers.[11]
Photographers, professional and amateurs alike, have critised the bill also, especially Clause 43 (formerly Clause 42) which deals with orphan works and Extended Collective Licencing. The photographers case against the bill is explained at stop43.org.uk. Authors also criticise the bill and the group, Action for Authors’ Rights, has released a detailed briefing on the Copyright Clauses of the Digital Economy Bill.
The Government has stated that the bill will not be debated in the Commons, and instead will be pushed through in the "wash up", in April 2010. The Open Rights Group has stated that over 17,000 letters have been sent to MPs criticising the bill. [12] Over 100 people protested outside Parliament on 24 March 2010, including Labour MPs Tom Watson and John Grogan, Liberal Democrat prospective parliamentary candidate Bridget Fox, and writer and activist Cory Doctorow.[13][14]
[edit] Support

• Design and Artists Copyright Society, for the modernisation of the copyright licensing system and access to orphan works.[15]
  
• Community Media Association, for the radio clauses that will bring significant benefits to the community broadcasting sector as FM spectrum becomes available following digital radio switchover.[16]
  

[edit] See also

• Copyright aspects of downloading and streaming
  
• Music download
  
• HADOPI law
  
• Digital radio in the United Kingdom
  
• UK government policy on illegal file sharing
  

[edit] External links

"Digital Economy Bill (HL) 2009-10". Bills & Legislation. http://www.parliament.co.uk. http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2009...onomy.html.
[edit] References

1. ^ Text of the bill
   
2. ^ Official summary of the bill
   
3. ^ "Ensure the communications infrastructure is fit for the digital age" in the Queen's Speech
   
4. ^ http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/201...ll-commons
   
5. ^ http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/mar...onomy-bill
   
6. ^ Paine, Andre (2010-02-10). "Race Against Time For U.K. Digital Bill". Billboard. http://www.billboard.biz/bbbiz/content_d...dd757955dd. Retrieved 2010-03-14.
   
7. ^ Barnett, Emma (2009-11-20). "Digital Economy Bill: No date for radio digital switchover". The Telegraph. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/66...hover.html. Retrieved 2010-03-14.
   
8. ^ Open Rights Group comments
   
9. ^ Britain's new Internet law, article at BoingBoing.net
   
10. ^ Marks Net piracy: The people vs the entertainment industry, Paul (2009-12-03). "Marks Net piracy: The people vs the entertainment industry". New Scientist. http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20...ustry.html. Retrieved 2009-12-03.
    
11. ^ http://news.zdnet.co.uk/communications/0...470,00.htm
    
12. ^ http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/201...ll-commons
    
13. ^ http://www.eweekeurope.co.uk/news/uk-dig...otest-6089. Almost 35,000 people have signed a petition calling for the Bill's disconnection provisions to be dropped.
    
14. ^ http://www.metro.co.uk/tech/819096-web-b...ull-debate
    
15. ^ DACS
    
16. ^ Digital Economy Bill Benefits Community Radio
    

Yup, Parliament is ever a whore to corporate commercial interests.

Anger about 'stitch-up' over Digital Economy bill


Please turn on JavaScript. Media requires JavaScript to play.
</p>

MPs have passed the Digital Economy Bill: From BBC Democracy Live

Ministers have been accused of a "stitch-up" to pass laws cracking down on digital piracy before the election.
MPs voiced anger at attempts to rush through the digital economy bill aimed at supporting artists' copyright and tackle illegal file-sharing.
Former minister Tom Watson said it would be a "catastrophic disaster" if the bill went through as constituted.
However, the bill was approved by MPs by a majority of 142 votes and will now pass to the Lords for final approval.
The legislation is one of more than 10 bills being considered by parliamentarians in the "wash-up period" - the remaining time before the legislature is dissolved.
'Repercussions'
Under the terms of the bill, internet service providers will be obliged to send letters to any of their subscribers linked to alleged infringements.
Copyright holders will be able to apply for a court order to gain access to the names and addresses of serious infringers and take action against them while ISPs would be able to suspend accounts of offenders.
Hundreds of millions of pounds every year is currently haemorrhaging from our creative industries because of unlawful file-sharing


Ben Bradshaw

Mr Watson expressed concern this could lead to innocent internet users being caught simply since they lived in the same building as infringers.
"There might be a deal with the Tory front bench and the Lib Dem front bench but there are 20,000 people who have taken the time to e-mail their MPs about this in the last seven days alone," Mr Watson said of the proposals.
"They are extremely upset that this bill will not have the scrutiny it deserves and requires."
Labour MP Kate Hoey said the bill could be pushed through by a "stitch-up" between leaders of the three main parties.
And she added: "The reality is out there, the ordinary person who has only begun, many of them, to realise the repercussions of this bill are going to feel totally let down by Parliament."
Ministers have already made a number of concessions in order to assuage the concerns of MPs.
Restrictions on the activities of persistent copyright offenders will not come into force for a year and only on the basis of clear evidence of their activities.
A clause on "orphan works" - material where the author was impossible to identify - was also dropped after opposition from photographers.
Another proposal allowing politicians to block pirate websites without primary legislation was replaced with an amendment which lets ministers "make provision about the granting by a court of a blocking injunction".
The next Parliament will be able to study the most contentious aspects of the bill before they are enacted and there will be an extended period of public consultation.
Culture Secretary Ben Bradshaw said the legislation struck the right balance between giving creative artists more protection and giving consumers a "fair deal".
"Hundreds of millions of pounds every year is currently haemorrhaging from our creative industries because of unlawful file-sharing.
"This is not a harmless or victimless activity. It deprives our musicians, writers and film makers and other artists of their livelihoods and if we don't do something about it, it will pose a serious threat to our creative sectors and Britain's in them."
The Conservatives said the bill, as it stood, was an "Amstrad" when "we wanted an IPod".
For the Lib Dems, Don Foster said it was a "disgrace" that a bill of such complexity was being given so little time for debate.
'Sombre day'
Jim Killock of the Open Rights Group said the legislation was an "an attack on everyone's right to communicate, work and gain an education".
The phone and broadband company Talk Talk said the revised bill was "in much better shape" but still contained "many draconian proposals".
The Pirate Party UK - which campaigns for the legalisation of non-commercial file sharing - said the passage of the bill marked "a sombre day for Britain's digital future".
However, UK Music chief executive Feargal Sharkey - former lead singer with the Undertones - said action was needed to stop pirates.
He told BBC Breakfast: "People are taking someone else's talent, time, effort and ability and not paying for it, and doing it without their permission.
"And quite clearly that's just wrong, and we need to try and do something to stop it."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/polit...608478.stm

Here's the thing - the bill gives a Govt minister the power to take whistleblowing sites to "court" and get them blocked on entirely spurious grounds, namely using copyrighted material.

Presumably the Pentagon snuff movie put online by wikileaks is "copyright" © The Pentagon.

Quote:Earlier the government removed its proposed clause 18, which could have given it sweeping powers to block sites, but replaced it with an amendment to clause 8 of the bill. The new clause allows the secretary of state for business to order the blocking of "a location on the internet which the court is satisfied has been, is being or is likely to be used for or in connection with an activity that infringes copyright".

The Liberal Democrat MP John Hemming protested that this could mean the blocking of the whistleblower site Wikileaks, which carries only copyrighted work. Stephen Timms for the government said that it would not want to see the clause used to restrict freedom of speech – but gave no assurance that sites like Wikileaks would not be blocked.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/201...rd-reading

Jan Klimkowski Wrote:Here's the thing - the bill gives a Govt minister the power to take whistleblowing sites to "court" and get them blocked on entirely spurious grounds, namely using copyrighted material.

And that's not the half of it either.

Consider the case of Craig Murray's attempts to include documents he obtained under the UK FOIA in his book 'Murder in Samarkand'. He was threatened with legal action which his own solicitor advised could cost £1 million to defend, for - wait for it - BREACH OF CROWN COPYRIGHT.

Got that? You can obtain documents under FOI but you can't publish them without permission of the copyright holder. You couldn't make this up could you? but that was (is) the precise position of HMG in this case.

Attached is a jpg of one of the threatening letters from one Gareth Butrill of HM Treasury Solicitors (strapline 'Law at the Heart of Government'). It is NOt a wind up or forgery or satire. It is the real deal. This actually happened.

You can read an extended commentary as events unfolded here
And on Murray's own blog here

It doesn't take much imagination to project how such reasoning will be used under this new Bill does it? and the average ISP is certainly not going to go out on a limb in face of claims of Crown Copyright from a Government Law Officer either.

The stealth war against dissent continues with its velvet gloved deceptions. I wonder how long before the gloves come off?

Quote:And she [Kate Hoey] added: "The reality is out there, the ordinary person who has only begun, many of them, to realise the repercussions of this bill are going to feel totally let down by Parliament."

I'm well past being let down by Parliament. It stands for nothing I care about or believe in, and does nothing I care about or believe in. It is, in fact, nothing more or less than a rubber stamp for elite and business interests.

And I decline to vote for any pol or political party. Democracy is an open lie.

Death Of The Internet: Unprecedented Censorship Bill Passes in UK
Posted By admin On April 8, 2010 @ 12:06 pm In Featured Stories, News In Focus, Steve Watson Articles | 30 Comments

“Wash-up” process used to rush through draconian legislation as a pitiful handful of MPs attend debate
Steve Watson
Infowars.net [1]
Thursday, April 8th, 2010
A draconian Internet censorship bill that has been long looming on the horizon finally passed the house of commons [2] in the UK yesterday, legislating for government powers to restrict and filter any website that is deemed to be undesirable for public consumption.
The “Digital Economy Bill [3]” was rushed through parliament in a late night session last night after a third reading.
In the wake of the announcement of a general election on May 6, the government has taken advantage of what is known as the “wash-up process”, allowing the legislative process to be speeded up between an election being called and Parliament being dissolved.
Only a pitiful handful of MPs (pictured below) were present to debate the bill, which was fully supported by the “opposition” Conservative party, and passed by 189 votes to 47 keeping the majority of its original clauses intact.
The bill will now go back to the House of Lords, where it originated, for a final formal approval.
The government removed a proposal in clause 18 of the bill, which openly stated that it could block any website, however it was replaced with an amendment to clause 8 of the bill which essentially legislates for the same powers.
The new clause allows the unelected secretary of state for business, currently Lord Mandelson, to order the blocking of “a location on the internet which the court is satisfied has been, is being or is likely to be used for or in connection with an activity that infringes copyright”.
Opposing MPs argued that the clause was too broad and open ended, arguing that the phrase “likely to be used” could be used to block websites without them ever having been used for “activity that infringes copyright”. Other MPs argued that under the bill, whistleblower websites, such as Wikileaks, could be targeted.
The legislation will also allow the Home Secretary to place “a technical obligation on internet service providers” to block whichever sites it wishes.
Under clause 11 [4] of the proposed legislation “technical obligation” is defined as follows:In other words, the government will have the power to force ISPs to downgrade and even block your internet access to certain websites or altogether if it wishes.
[5]
The legislation is part of an amplified effort by the government to seize more power over the internet and those who use it.
For months now unelected “Secretary of State” Lord Mandelson has overseen government efforts to challenge the independence of the of UK’s internet infrastructure [6].
The Digital Economy Bill will also see users’ broadband access cut off indefinitely, [7] in addition to a fine of up to £50,000 without evidence or trial, if they download copyrighted music and films. The plan has been identified as “potentially illegal” by experts.
The legislation would impose a duty on ISPs to effectively spy on all their customers by keeping records of the websites they have visited and the material they have downloaded. ISPs who refuse to cooperate could be fined £250,000.
As Journalist and copyright law expert Cory Doctrow [8]has noted, the bill also gives the Secretary of State the power to make up as many new penalties and enforcement systems as he likes, without Parliamentary oversight or debate.
This could include the authority to appoint private militias, who will have the power to kick you off the internet, spy on your use of the network, demand the removal of files in addition to the blocking of websites.
Mandelson and his successors will have the power to invent any penalty, including jail time, for any digital transgression he deems Britons to be guilty of.
Despite being named the Digital Economy Bill, the legislation contains nothing that will actually stimulate the economy and is largely based on shifting control over the internet into government hands, allowing unaccountable bureaucrats to arbitrarily hide information from the public should they wish to do so.
Mandelson began the onslaught on the free internet in the UK after spending a luxury two week holiday at Nat Rothschild’s Corfu mansion [9] with multi-millionaire record company executive David Geffen.
Over 20,000 members of the public [10] have written to their MPs in the last week to lobby against the bill being rushed through, however, their concerns have fallen on deaf ears and the government has been allowed to deal a devastating blow to the last real vestige of free speech in this country.
The Wider Agenda Of Internet Control
The Digital Economy Bill is intrinsically linked to long term plans by the UK government to carry out an unprecedented extension of state powers by claiming the authority to monitor all emails, phone calls and internet activity nationwide.
IN 2008, the government announced its intention to create a massive central database [11], gathering details on every text sent, e-mail sent, phone call made and website visited by everyone in the UK.
The programme, known as the “Interception Modernisation Programme”, would allow spy chiefs at GCHQ, the government’s secret eavesdropping agency, the centre for Signal Intelligence (SIGINT) activities (pictured above), to effectively place a “live tap” on every electronic communication in Britain in the name of preventing terrorism.
Following outcry over the announcement, the government suggested that it was scaling down the plans [12], with then Home Secretary Jacqui Smith stating that there were “absolutely no plans for a single central store” of communications data.
However, as the “climbdown” was celebrated by civil liberties advocates and the plan was “replaced” by new laws [13] requiring ISPs to store details of emails and internet telephony for just 12 months, fresh details emerged indicating the government was implementing a big brother spy system that far outstrips the original public announcement.
The London Times published leaked details of a secret mass internet surveillance [14] project known as “Mastering the Internet” (MTI).
Costing hundreds of millions in public funds, the system is already being implemented by GCHQ with the aid of American defence giant Lockheed Martin and British IT firm Detica, which has close ties to the intelligence agencies.
A group of over 300 internet service providers and telecommunications firms has attempted to fight back over the radical plans [15], describing the proposals as an unwarranted invasion of people’s privacy.
Currently, any interception of a communication in Britain must be authorised by a warrant signed by the home secretary or a minister of equivalent rank. Only individuals who are the subject of police or security service investigations may be subject to surveillance.
If the GCHQ’s MTI project is completed, black-box probes would be placed at critical traffic junctions with internet service providers and telephone companies, allowing eavesdroppers to instantly monitor the communications of every person in the country without the need for a warrant.
Even if you believe GCHQ’s denial that it has any plans to create a huge monitoring system, the current law under the RIPA (the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act) allows hundreds of government agencies access to the records of every internet provider in the country.
In publicly announced proposals to extend these powers, firms will be asked to collect and store even more vast amounts of data, including from social networking sites such as Facebook.
If the plans go ahead, every internet user will be given a unique ID code and all their data will be stored in one place. Government agencies such as the police and security services will have access to the data should they request it with respect to criminal or terrorist investigations.
This is clearly the next step in an incremental program to implement an already exposed full scale big brother spy system designed to completely obliterate privacy, a fundamental right under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
[5] [16] [5]
Death Of The Internet In Europe, Australia, New Zealand and the U.S.
Similar efforts to place restrictions on the internet are unfolding in Australia where the government is implementing a mandatory and wide-ranging internet filter [17] modeled on that of the Communist Chinese government.
Australian communication minister Stephen Conroy said the government would be the final arbiter on what sites would be blacklisted under “refused classification.”
The official justification for the filter is to block child pornography, however, as the watchdog group Electronic Frontiers Australia [18] has pointed out, the law will also allow the government to block any website it desires while the pornographers can relatively easily skirt around the filters.
Earlier this year, the Wikileaks website published a leaked secret list of sites slated to be blocked [19] by Australia’s state-sponsored parental filter.
The list revealed that blacklisted sites included “online poker sites, YouTube links, regular gay and straight porn sites, Wikipedia entries, euthanasia sites, websites of fringe religions such as satanic sites, fetish sites, Christian sites, the website of a tour operator and even a Queensland dentist.”
The filter will even block web-based games [20] deemed unsuitable for anyone over the age of fifteen, according to the Australian government.
In neighbouring New Zealand, the government has quietly implemented an internet filter [21] and is urging the leading ISPs in the country to adopt the measure, in a move that would give the authorities the power to restrict whichever websites they see fit.
The New Zealand Department of Internal Affairs (DIA) reportedly turned on the internet filter on February 1st without making any announcement, prompting critics to charge that the measure had been activated in stealth.
It was no coincidence that around the same time the government’s Internet filter went live, Infowars began receiving notification from readers in New Zealand that their access to Alex Jones’ flagship websites Infowars.com and Prisonplanet.com had been suddenly blocked.
The broad attack on the free internet is not only restricted to the UK, New Zealand and Australia.
The European Union, Finland, Denmark, Germany and other countries in Europe have all proposed blocking or limiting access to the internet and using filters like those used in Iran, Syria, China, and other repressive regimes.
In 2008 in the U.S., The Motion Picture Association of America [22] asked president Obama to introduce laws that would allow the federal government to effectively spy on the entire Internet, establishing a system where being accused of copyright infringement would result in loss of your Internet connection.
In 2009 the Cybersecurity Act was introduced [23], proposing to allow the federal government to tap into any digital aspect of every citizen’s information without a warrant. Banking, business and medical records would be wide open to inspection, as well as personal instant message and e mail communications.
The legislation [24], introduced by Senators John Rockefeller (D-W. Va.) and Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) in April, gives the president the ability to “declare a cybersecurity emergency” and shut down or limit Internet traffic in any “critical” information network “in the interest of national security.” The bill does not define a critical information network or a cybersecurity emergency. That definition would be left to the president, according to a Mother Jones report. [25]
During a hearing on the bill, Senator John Rockefeller betrayed the true intent behind the legislation when he stated, “Would it have been better if we’d have never invented the Internet,” while fearmongering about cyber attacks on the U.S. government and how the country could be shut down.
Watch the clip below.
The Obama White House has also sought a private contractor to “crawl and archive” data [26] such as comments, tag lines, e-mail, audio and video from any place online where the White House “maintains a presence” – for a period of up to eight years.
Obama has also proposed scaling back a long-standing ban on tracking how people use government Internet sites [27] with “cookies” and other technologies.
Recent disclosures under the Freedom Of Information Act also reveal that the federal government has several contracts [28] with social media outlets such as Youtube (Google), Facebook, Myspace and Flickr (Yahoo) that waive rules on monitoring users and permit companies to track visitors to government web sites for advertising purposes.
The U.S. military [29] also has some $30 Billion invested in it’s own mastering the internet projects.
We have extensively covered efforts to scrap the internet [30] as we know it and move toward a greatly restricted “internet 2″ system. All of the above represents stepping stones toward the realisation of that agenda.
The free internet is under attack the world over, only by exposing the true intentions of our governments to restrict the flow of data can we defeat such efforts and preserve what is left of the last vestige of independent information.

Article printed from Prison Planet.com: http://www.prisonplanet.com
URL to article: http://www.prisonplanet.com/death-of-the...in-uk.html
URLs in this post:
[1] Infowars.net: http://www.infowars.net/index.html
[2] passed the house of commons: http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/201...rd-reading
[3] Digital Economy Bill: http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2009...onomy.html
[4] clause 11: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa....html#j158
[5] Image: http://prisonplanet.tv/signup.html
[6] challenge the independence of the of UK’s internet infrastructure: http://www.prisonplanet.com/mandelsons-d...-grab.html
[7] users’ broadband access cut off indefinitely,: http://www.prisonplanet.com/mandelson-we...legal.html
[8] Journalist and copyright law expert Cory Doctrow : http://www.boingboing.net/2009/11/19/bre...-uk-g.html
[9] holiday at Nat Rothschild’s Corfu mansion: http://www.prisonplanet.com/lording-it-u...he-uk.html
[10] Over 20,000 members of the public: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/ne...-Bill.html
[11] create a massive central database: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk...882622.ece
[12] scaling down the plans: http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/97377
[13] new laws: http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/200...ta-storage
[14] secret mass internet surveillance: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/po...211101.ece
[15] attempted to fight back over the radical plans: http://www.thisisgloucestershire.co.uk/g...ticle.html
[16] Image: http://infowars-shop.stores.yahoo.net/inemnewwoord.html
[17] implementing a mandatory and wide-ranging internet filter: http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2009/12/1...-internet/
[18] Electronic Frontiers Australia: http://www.efa.org.au/2009/12/17/filteri...n-in-2010/
[19] secret list of sites slated to be blocked: http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2009/0...e=fullpage
[20] block web-based games: http://www.smh.com.au/digital-life/games...-cxrx.html
[21] quietly implemented an internet filter: http://www.prisonplanet.com/government-i...aland.html
[22] Motion Picture Association of America: http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2008/12/mpaa-obama
[23] Cybersecurity Act was introduced: http://www.infowars.net/articles/june200...9Cyber.htm
[24] The legislation: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s111-773
[25] Mother Jones report.: http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2009...l-internet
[26] private contractor to “crawl and archive” data: http://infowars.net/articles/september20...apping.htm
[27] tracking how people use government Internet sites: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con...02743.html
[28] federal government has several contracts: http://epic.org/privacy/socialnet/gsa/
[29] The U.S. military: http://infowars.net/articles/may2008/060508DARPA.htm
[30] scrap the internet: http://www.infowars.net/articles/april20...ternet.htm