June 13, 2006

How to protect our freedoms, strengthen developing economies, and make money

My Computerworld column finally came out this month, pointing back here. Only there were typos and omissions in the URLs. Also, a couple of the key notes here were incorrectly published in draft form, and got reedited. So let me summarize again, and reiterate the internal links.

1. There’s a whole section on privacy, censorship, and freedom, both domestic and abroad. You can also find a link to it in the left sidebar.

2. I proposed two modes of hands-on involvement in fighting authoritarian-government censorship and repression. One is to immediately adopt the quick-and-dirty tactics of http://www.irrepressible.info, by adding a little code to your websites. (I’ve done that already on four sites.) The other is to help me theorize about a badly needed next-generation improvement on those.

3. There’s a whole section on technology-related economic development (again, also accessible from the left sidebar), most of it added recently in connection with my preparations for or ruminations after TechLeb. The most actionable private-sector idea in the lot is probably this one.

Please help. Everybody can.


3 Responses to “How to protect our freedoms, strengthen developing economies, and make money”

  1. The Monash Report»Blog Archive » Layer 7 stateful deep packet inspection — the privacy threat is more serious than we thought on June 17th, 2006 4:42 am

    […] The technology that’s kicked off the whole debate is Layer 7 stateful deep packet inspection. This a feature of telecom equipment, originally found only in high-end firewalls, but now evidently found throughout Cisco’s (and surely also its competitors’) product lines. In IP telecom without this feature, the equipment just sees packets of data, and perhaps header information, but can’t look at the data’s content. However, when you’re looking at Layer 7, the equipment is looking at what the application sees. Everything is visible — every record, every word.  And if Cisco’s marketing materials are to be believed, all that technology exists today. The dangers this presents in terms of privacy and censorship, whether in the basically free countries or the basically authoritarian ones, should be obvious. Fighting for freedom is more urgent than we previously realized. • • • […]

  2. The Monash Report»Blog Archive » Why I feel qualified to pontificate about public policy on June 20th, 2006 9:23 am

    […] Maybe I should explain why I feel motivated and qualified to hold forth at such length about public policy issues such as net neutrality, free-world privacy, authoritarian censorship, economic development, and so on. […]

  3. David H. Marshall on April 16th, 2007 11:08 am

    The A, B, C’s of “DESIGNED TO HARM. 4/16/07

    In 2007 duplicated is the U.S. Senate’s stated Department of Defense (DOD) “experiments that were designed to harm”! [6] This is by the in 2006 established CIVILIAN Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA). [8] Under its “NATIONAL SECURITY MISSIONS” is the advancement of the DOD Project 112, SHAD “Biomedical” lessons learned. [7] BARDA, under the present war cover, also lacks the oversight and accountability of the past wars DOD Shipboard Hazard and Defense (SHAD) experiment. That it “”WAS NECESSARY “TO CONCEAL THESE” [DOD] “ACTIVITIES FROM THE AMERICAN PUBLIC IN GENERAL,” BECAUSE PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE OF THE “UNETHICAL AND ILLICIT ACTIVITIES WOULD HAVE SERIOUS REPERCUSSIONS IN POLITICAL AND DIPLOMATIC CIRCLES AND WOULD BE DETRIMENTAL TO THE ACCOMPLISHMENT OF ITS MISSION.”” says it all!! See Footnote 4, U.S. Supreme Court STANLEY military experiments case, Page 688. [3] Each “designed to harm” project completes the Research and Development (R&D) process. Prior R&D is reviewed, e.g., Project SHAD. The resulting Scope of Work defines what each experiment is “designed” to accomplish. The how, where, when and who is identified. The conducted RESEARCH cause and effects are closely followed and also recorded. From the results are DEVELOPED safe production, in-the-field use, treatment and protection. AT THE TIME, AND LONG AFTER THESE PROJECTS ARE OUT-OF-DATE, THIS EXPERIMENT REVEALING CAUSE AND EFFECTS ARE NOT IN A SUBJECT’S MEDICAL HISTORY.

    Their resulting disabilities are not in the Dept. of Veterans Affairs (VA) “schedule of ratings for disabilities”. [5] This Veterans Court Chief Judge’s “may not review” [5] cause and effects are not available for past, present and future veteran diagnosis and treatment: 1. By civilian HMO and VA Physicians’! 2. For each group’s long term “to harm” follow up, that would alert the victims. This is the from 1944, 63 YEARS of lost, individual and group benefitting lessons learned! Thereby, lost is treatment for the original and additional injuries. And 3. For use as evidence during U.S. Executive (DOD & VA) and Judicial Branch processes! The subjects’ never the wiser become, e.g., Congress’s recent “Veterans Right to Know Act” failures.

    H.R. 4259 [109th]: Veterans Right to Know Act to establish the Veterans’ Right to Know Commission bill was proposed in the 2005 & 2006 Congresses. At the end of each session all proposed bills that haven’t passed are cleared from the books. This bill never became law.

    The from 1944 DOD “designed to harm” are documented by the 1994 U.S. SENATE REPORT! [6] The conducted on “hundreds of thousands” needed for treatment evidence is not in their Medical History! REPORT NOTES (No.’s 72, 168 & 169) cite, “The Nazi Doctors and the Nuremberg Code, Human Rights in Human Experimentation..” Not addressed by the U.S. Congress and U.S. Courts are the many conducted in direct disobedience of the DOD Secretary’s 1953 ‘Nuremberg’ order; “The Nazi Doctors” pages 343-345. [2] With the Secretary’s of all U.S. Military Services and the DOD R&D Board then known! This ignored order was TOP SECRET until 1975, 22 YEARS LATER. The subjects by its “need to know” are prevented from finding out. The 1994 Report noted that rights be restored. To-date not done!

    “The court may not review the schedule of ratings for disabilities or the policies underlying the schedule.”, i.e., the needed for treatment “designed to harm” causes and effects! [6] The Veterans Court Chief Judge’s statement during 17-18 Oct. 1994. [5] His severely “may not review” restricted is a Congress’s 12/18/88 established Legislative ‘no teeth’ Article I Court. [9] Their oversight and accountability response to the 6/25/87 STANLEY experiment. One of the U.S. Judicial Branch Supreme Court decisions on: 1. The DOD STANLEY 1953 order disobeyed 1958 confirming Congress is responsible Case. [3] And 2. The 1950 FERES Case that prevents recourse on DOD “harm” as “incident” to service. [1] Made very clear is that UNLESS CONGRESS CHANGES IT, BY REASON OF MILITARY SERVICE VETERANS’ LOST ARE PRIOR TO CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS! They are given to convicted rapists and murderers. [4] These cases assume that the DOD and VA “disabilities” coverage provides remedy. Not addressed is the withheld R&D “experiments…designed to harm” identifying, needed for treatment evidence! Congress’s 12 December 1974 Privacy Act censored the names of all injury witnesses from surviving and future service records. The 12 July 1973 National Personnel Records Center fire destroyed “to harm” service records. The victims never the wiser become!

    Will BARDA’s needed for treatment “NATIONAL SECURITY” evidence be part of YOUR Medical History?

    A politically contrived justice denied for the greater good, end justifies the deliberate “to harm” means. Make the checks and balances within and between our branches of government work! Only when you hold your members in the U.S. Congress responsible will this happen!

    [1] Feres v. United States, 340 U.S. 135, 146 (1950)

    [2] DOD Secretary’s 26 February 1953 NO non-consensual, human experiment’s Memo pages 343-345. George J. Annas and Michael A. Grodin, “The Nazi Doctors and the Nuremberg Code; Human Rights in Human Experimentation” (New York: Oxford University Press, 1992). In REFERENCE [6] as NOTES 72, 168 & 169.

    [3] U.S. SUPREME COURT, JUNE 25, 1987, U.S. V. STANLEY, 107 S. CT. 3054 (VOLUME 483 U.S., SECTION 669, PAGES 699 TO 710). In REFERENCE [6] cited in NOTE 169.

    [4] U.S. State Dept., “U.S. Report under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights July 1994, Article 7”.

    [5] Chief Judge and colleague statements, Court of Veterans Appeals, Annual Judicial Conference, Fort Meyer, VA., 17 & 18 October 1994. http://www.goodnet. com/~heads/ nebeker.html

    [6] December 8, 1994 REPORT 103-97 “Is Military Research Hazardous to Veterans’ Health? Lessons Spanning Half a Century.” Hearings Before the U.S. Senate Committee on Veterans’ Affairs, 103rd Congress 2nd Session. With NOTES 1 to 170.

    [7] “Project 112 (Including Project SHAD) Home”; www1.va.gov/ shad/ Starting in 1962 DOD chemical and biological experiments.

    [8] Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA). Became law 19 December 2006.

    [9] Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Title 38, Part V, Para. 7252. Jurisdiction; finality of decisions.

Leave a Reply

Feed including blog about enterprise technology strategy and public policy Subscribe to the Monash Research feed via RSS or email:


Search our blogs and white papers

Monash Research blogs

User consulting

Building a short list? Refining your strategic plan? We can help.

Vendor advisory

We tell vendors what's happening -- and, more important, what they should do about it.

Monash Research highlights

Learn about white papers, webcasts, and blog highlights, by RSS or email.