Researching my archives to craft another dainty morsel of child welfare castigation, I found this congressional hearing on cybersecurity in 2012.
The post had a video of the February 16, 2012 Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs where Senator Diane Feinstein did not have a clue of what was going on, but it seems Google likes to block, take things down, suppress, etc. if the price is right.
The
DNC presidential campaign corrupted the voting process by working with Google to manipulate the public record.
I know. I watched my own cyber-suppression in real time.
Anyway, the
S.2015 Cybersecurity Act of 2012 was trashed because a certain group of people considered it to be a form of burdensome regulation on business.
Seriously.
Here is a
clip of...well... I guess I would call it a working example of a tautological fallacy, or rather political asshatery because I truly have no idea of what is coming out of this woman's mouth, but the takeaway for me was, "
we are not going to do a damn thing about cybersecurity."
Four years later, not a damn thing has been done so at least she was telling the truth.
Quintessentially, cybersecurity is considered regulation and we all know who does not like it when government regulates business.
Since very few, if any have ever posited the talking points of "regulation kills jobs" into the cybersecurity discussions, I thought I would take a
stab at it (
pun intended) using a currently
unregulated industry as an example.
Cybersecurity is more than just hacking and surveillance and demands critical rethinking of its role in the protections of civil liberties.
The main reason these social welfare programs, more intuitively, poverty programs, inclusive of child welfare, do not work is because they are unregulated, meaning, it is a free for all when it comes to shoving money in the pockets of the administrators and workers.
Now, through privatization, fake global charities, many, but not all Christian, can invest in these social welfare programs to garner the best interests in billing these Social Security Trust Fund programs, non-taxable of course, to hedge in off shore, tax aversive shell corporations through private equities, devoid of any regulation.
To date and to my knowledge, no one has called "The Elected Ones" out on their hyperbolic smack of why regulation is bad for business, but not bad for social programs.
Cybersecurity is a business.
When there is no regulation, the people are stripped of their right to grieve, which means they are silenced and in this day and age, it becomes a form of informational asymmetry as only one side of the problem and solution is presented in the global dataverse.
The same concept applies to a voter whose only source of information about a candidate may be social media, which is unregulated, as a business, replete with troves of
fake news, censored information, and
false statements from the candidates.
This is nothing more than a manipulation of the public record that is ultimately Googled by staff of the Members of Congress as part of research in constructing law and policy.
That sucks.
This is a First Amendment issue because your vote is a formal conveyance of your voice, as free speech and the right to
peaceably assemble in the cybersphere.
(emphasis added).
What does poverty have to do with cybersecurity?
There is no avenue to question efficacy or report the fraud in these social welfare programs or social media, that Main Stream Media now heavily relies upon, all of which are private businesses.
Both are unregulated, devoid of any civil rights protections and both have lead to disastrous outcomes for the people due to a lack of regulation.
Child poverty has skyrocketed and on the other side of the coin, the vote has been compromised where no one is willing to challenge these effects in lack of regulation.
And that, boys and girls, is why cybersecurity in the U.S. sucks.
Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©
