US Military Made The Internet—Then Sold It To All You Suckers

As noted, it is not a big confidence builder, regarding the allegedly benign nature of the T.H.O.R. "rescue" robot, that its name employs what appears to be a sniper's crosshairs. The fact it's a DARPA project, run by its advanced weapons division, doesn't help much either. And the same skepticism should apply to that other DARPA project, the internet.
DARPA (the  Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency) is the acronym of the United States military agency that invented the Internet. As with most things DARPA made, it didn’t do it alone, but in partnership with the usual fascist collaborators—big business and big universities.

If you want to understand where DARPA is coming from, and just what they’re trying to do (to you), understand this—when the Terminators come crashing through your neighborhood, smashing everything in sight, it will be DARPA you can thank for it. They’re the government agency making the robot infantry drones for the United States military.

Of course, as DARPA tends to do, they’re developing the killers under the guise of making warm-and-fuzzy “rescue” robots, with names like “T.H.O.R.”—"Tactical Hazardous Operations Robot”, made by a team of engineers from Virginia Tech, University of Pennsylvania, Harris Corporation, and Robotis.

T.H.O.R. is part of the “DARPA Robotics Challenge”, a competition between a number of tek companies and university robotics departments (e.g., MIT is a player) to build “a semi-autonomous robot capable of responding to a disaster scenario”, or you know, a robot capable of causing a disaster scenario to an enemy.

And if you think I’m being cynical, since after all how do I KNOW these rescue robots are intended for military use, well, the competition is being run under DARPA’s “Tactical Technology Office”, whose “vision” is listed on DARPA’s website as being:
“[To] rapidly develop new prototype military capabilities that create an asymmetric technological advantage and provide U.S. forces with decisive superiority and the ability to overwhelm our opponents.”
Or rescue them, whatever.

So, one of the things you should consider is that DARPA likes to build weapons systems that pretend to be kindly, beneficial, gifts to the world. That way, it is easier to get all kinds of corporate and university participation, whereas if they were running a DARPA Terminator Challenge, a lot of people might shy away from playing (openly anyway).


Let’s look at some dots:

1. First Dot—read the origin story of DARPA. Created in response to the fear of another surprise attack, like that launched by the Japanese Empire, at Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941, which nearly destroyed the US Pacific fleet, DARPA’s mission was:

“to prevent strategic surprise from negatively impacting U.S. national security and create strategic surprise for U.S. adversaries by maintaining the technological superiority of the U.S. military.”

Now, consider what that mission might entail.

DARPA’s website explains it:
“To fulfill its mission, the Agency relies on diverse performers to apply multi-disciplinary approaches to both advance knowledge through basic research and create innovative technologies that address current practical problems through applied research.”
“Diverse performers” means DARPA mines technological data and capability wherever it finds it, meaning it regularly employs partnerships made up of businesses and academic researchers who can supply the resources to solve the problems DARPA identifies.

2. Second Dot—Thus was born the internet, which was created to make a distributed (survivable) communications network. How survivable? If you read the origin stories of the internet available in various modern sources, you will see criticism of a certain idea, that building a comm-grid capable of surviving a nuclear attack was an objective of the inventors of ARPANET, the DARPA prototype of the internet. But the fact is that one of the chief designers of the underlying technology of ARPANET, Paul Baran, created the system of moving data packets across a distributed communications network for the purpose of making it more survivable, especially in a nuclear strike.

Whether Baran was thinking spyability in his network design, the open nature of the network had an added advantage to the US military and the national surveillance regime: it made it very easy for US government spies to hack data of organizations (businesses and universities) connected to the grid. Why would the US government want to do such a thing?

Oh—they claimed it was important to secure the data of US organizations from being hacked by Russians. How thoughtful!

Of course, they didn’t inform the hacking victims of the help being supplied.

And the American people? Yeah, right.

3. Third Dot—Meanwhile, over at the NSA, the spy regime’s largest (known) data gatherer, the implications of ARPANET were readily apparent. As noted above, it was almost as if the government had designed the communications system to be ultra-hackable. And the concerns in Congress that NSA access to ARPANET, and pretty much any communication that moved into and out of the USA, might be abused, were voiced early and often—and vainly. Over and over again, when Congress actually pushed for more oversight of the spy regime, one president after another fixed that annoying little problem with another little-noticed (or secret) executive order, or these days with secret orders approved by the FISA court.

4. Fourth Dot—And then, the USA peddled the internet as the business and personal communications paradise the world had been waiting for. Uh-huh. And the world bought it, lock, stock and loss of all privacy. The best, most cynical, part of the distributed way of spying that NSA employs (and which mirrors DARPA’s employment of “partners”), is how businesses and pretty much any other organizations capable of hi-tek data gathering, are exploited by the US spies. While the government no longer steals data outright (as much, so far as we know) from US companies, it uses its coercive power to force compliance anyway.

And, as we have been learning more the last few days, the US government employs widespread spying on enemies and friends alike internationally. The idea that there is some effective wall or barrier (technical or legal) separating government, business, and academic databases from being exploited as the US government sees fit is simply wrong. It is as if the Fourth Amendment was written in hieroglyphics and carved on some ancient tomb of a dead civilization. And, increasingly, that seems to be exactly what the US government thinks of the rights of its citizens—and the rights of the citizens of the world.

I’ll leave it to you to connect these dots. The picture is, I think, pretty easy to see.

But then the inevitable and perennial question follows: so what?

What are you going to do about it?

Complain to Congress?

They have known about the problem and the abuses for decades. And nothing has gotten fixed—unless you mean the establishment of a regime fix that permanently and pervasively ignores and violates the rights of all Americans.

While Europeans and Japanese, and pretty much everyone on the face of the Earth connected to the internet, will have to decide what their nations are going to do to respond to the extent and brazen nature of American spying on the world, American citizens have a special responsibility to force Congress to listen to their concerns about this fundamental problem.

Again, perpetrator President Obama, has rightly advised the American people about what to do—STOP ELECTING THE ENABLERS.

Vote in candidates that will pledge and deliver protection to the citizens of their Constitutional rights.

Toss the other scumbags out.

If you won't do that at least—you deserve tyranny.