Showing posts with label social internet terrorism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label social internet terrorism. Show all posts

Tuesday, April 17, 2018

I Paul Dewitt Goree --Self Incrimination Testimonial ---Michael Moore Who???


 SELF INCRIMINATION REGARDING MICHAEL MOORE

This is a self incrimination testimonial by me Paul Dewitt Goree. Legally the statue of limitations has ran out in Nevada, California and New York by which either Michael Moore can press charges. But if I'm lucky, then maybe there's a way around that, and they can proceed with charges. The charges are desired by me, because they are linked to a more horrifying reality, which links secret networks of sub-cultural collectives. These sub-cultural collectives have the ability when networking to hack any systems and to manipulate data, causing some chaos - yet depending on the circumstance, the out come is questionable. Are these sub-cultural collectives the Robin Hoods of modern Hi-Tech advancement, by which their efforts allude even the greatest intelli-enforcement? Who knows, but seeming intelli-enforcement has long desired the employment of such collectives as individuals: maybe let to their own LIBERTY and INDIVIDUALISM, better becomes the out come.

Nevertheless my testimonial is about the identity of 2 Americans named Michael Moore.  Michael Moore #1 was (2002-2004 Las Vegas, NV) a inspired, positive-business, intelligent , ambitious upper ward mobile banking executive at Bank of America. I am sure that his wit and swiftness secured his disposition with Bank of America and with the numerous customers at Bank of America.  When I did identity theft upon him, to prove the easy access and the not attentive clerk positon through out the nation; he was swift to respond. When I telephoned Bank of America and requested that my account be altered. I was transferred to his secretary, who was puzzled, seeming he was in the branch office at the moment. Thus the phone call from a larger branch office made no sense. It alerted Michael Moore the banker and probably made him consider the notion, that if his accounts could be altered, then the security of all of the customers at Bank of America were at risk. Considering we were in terrorist times. Corporate America had more to be concerned about.


MICHAEL MOORE #1
Michael Moore #1 would also find out in time (1 month) that not only had I altered some of his accounts, including his employment banking accounts, I had also obtained an apartment in his names, a new mailing address (by which I had some mail re-directed through phone calls and letters I wrote myself . I refrain from using the United States Post Office Address Change form and also I refrain from using any corporate address change form. I was thinking the expense and legal nature of Corporate and official forms should be attended to by all employees, thus written request should be referred and a official address change form should be provided. If this is not attended to, then liability and security are up for grabs--under conditions whereby a corporation is being evaluated for their efficiency). I also opened some investment accounts with new investment financial stores, which were not FDIC regulated.









I never knew much about who Michael Moore #1 was. It turns out his name and data was given to me by some person, who are ONE OF THE SUB-CULTURAL COLLECTIVES I have written about in the past.  Their intent was to bring attention to Michael Moore, and from that point what becomes of him, is up to his own character. Even with the most dishonorable acts of behavior. A person is able to explain with intergrity their intent and the outcome of their actions, by which no other American can condemn them, especially when facts reveal their actions were preventive towards the future and were UTILITARIAN.  From what I found out through research and the intimidating expression of the sub-cultural collective, was Michael Moore #1 was the son of a heavy weight boxer. He was bright and intelligent, obtained his college degree and went on to be a successful bank executive.

Yet this information was provided by a sub-cultural collective: which today I am skeptical of, but then this is after the fact. If they had me thinking that they were FBI agents and Police officers, by which uniforms would not distinguish them from REAL officers. Then many perplexing question are to be asked, but can't be answered. For example the following link: http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-aide-harris-accused-rogue-police-force-20150505-story.html  

In the above link story, the ideal and reality during the years 2002-2016 about pretend police officers and higher intelligence agents, was very common; yet not accepted as truth in the general public. These sub-cultural collectives gain when cemented civic norms of authority are blurred. This is why I have always considered such actions terrorist and domestic terrorism, such as Timothy McVeigh . Another factor that should be considered, is that these sub-cultural collectives really gain momentum when their acts are detected and re-established by COPY CAT sub-cults. Providing a more complexing reality.


MICHAEL MOORE #2
The second Michael Moore is even more unbelievable. He is the documenting film producer/director. The year was 2002-2003. Once again I had received some data about a person named Michael Moore. But this time I receive less data than before. Thus I had to research. I found out that the data provided was an American Express account. I then proceed to be Michael Moore's personal assistant. I contacted American Express and requested a replacement card. I was told that this account was closed due to failed payment within a 90 day period. Seeming this account was not a revolving account, the only thing required was to pay off the entire balance (as always with these monthly total balance due American Express Accounts). I paid off the balance with the checking account that was already associated with the account. And requested the new card be expressed to me at the MGM Las Vegas. Luckily American Express had an brick and mortar location inside the MGM and when the card arrived the next day. I went into the American Express Kiosk bank and obtained the card. Which I then used for purchases, I donated to those in need.



The sub-cultural collective informed me after the fact. That this Michael Moore, was the film director/producer who was working on a new documentation film about identity theft and the effect on America and it's future economy...hint something along the lines of ROBIN HOOD for the betterment of the nations working poor.! Whether this was true of not, who knows. But the fact that I experienced this and other events from 1999-2018 have made life quite interesting and now I WILL copyright my experiences as lived!!!


Saturday, March 24, 2018

HOW CONGRESS CENSORED THE INTERNET by: ELLIOT HARMON

How Congress Censored the Internet

March 21, 2018

In Passing SESTA/FOSTA, Lawmakers Failed to Separate Their Good Intentions from Bad Law

Today was a dark day for the Internet.
The U.S. Senate just voted 97-2 to pass the Allow States and Victims to Fight Online Sex Trafficking Act (FOSTA, H.R. 1865), a bill that silences online speech by forcing Internet platforms to censor their users. As lobbyists and members of Congress applaud themselves for enacting a law tackling the problem of trafficking, let’s be clear: Congress just made trafficking victims less safe, not more.
The version of FOSTA that just passed the Senate combined an earlier version of FOSTA (what we call FOSTA 2.0) with the Stop Enabling Sex Traffickers Act (SESTA, S. 1693). The history of SESTA/FOSTA—a bad bill that turned into a worse bill and then was rushed through votes in both houses of Congress—is a story about Congress’ failure to see that its good intentions can result in bad law. It’s a story of Congress’ failure to listen to the constituents who’d be most affected by the laws it passed. It’s also the story of some players in the tech sector choosing to settle for compromises and half-wins that will put ordinary people in danger.

Silencing Internet Users Doesn’t Make Us Safer

SESTA/FOSTA undermines Section 230, the most important law protecting free speech online. Section 230 protects online platforms from liability for some types of speech by their users. Without Section 230, the Internet would look very different. It’s likely that many of today’s online platforms would never have formed or received the investment they needed to grow and scale—the risk of litigation would have simply been too high. Similarly, in absence of Section 230 protections, noncommercial platforms like Wikipedia and the Internet Archive likely wouldn’t have been founded given the high level of legal risk involved with hosting third-party content.
The bill is worded so broadly that it could even be used against platform owners that don’t know that their sites are being used for trafficking.
Importantly, Section 230 does not shield platforms from liability under federal criminal law. Section 230 also doesn’t shield platforms across-the-board from liability under civil law: courts have allowed civil claims against online platforms when a platform directly contributed to unlawful speech. Section 230 strikes a careful balance between enabling the pursuit of justice and promoting free speech and innovation online: platforms can be held responsible for their own actions, and can still host user-generated content without fear of broad legal liability.
SESTA/FOSTA upends that balance, opening platforms to new criminal and civil liability at the state and federal levels for their users’ sex trafficking activities. The platform liability created by new Section 230 carve outs applies retroactively—meaning the increased liability applies to trafficking that took place before the law passed. The Department of Justice has raised concerns [.pdf] about this violating the Constitution’s Ex Post Facto Clause, at least for the criminal provisions.
The bill also expands existing federal criminal law to target online platforms where sex trafficking content appears. The bill is worded so broadly that it could even be used against platform owners that don’t know that their sites are being used for trafficking.
Finally, SESTA/FOSTA expands federal prostitution law to cover those who use the Internet to “promote or facilitate prostitution.”
The Internet will become a less inclusive place, something that hurts all of us.
It’s easy to see the impact that this ramp-up in liability will have on online speech: facing the risk of ruinous litigation, online platforms will have little choice but to become much more restrictive in what sorts of discussion—and what sorts of users—they allow, censoring innocent people in the process.
What forms that erasure takes will vary from platform to platform. For some, it will mean increasingly restrictive terms of service—banning sexual content, for example, or advertisements for legal escort services. For others, it will mean over-reliance on automated filters to delete borderline posts. No matter what methods platforms use to mitigate their risk, one thing is certain: when platforms choose to err on the side of censorship, marginalized voices are censored disproportionately. The Internet will become a less inclusive place, something that hurts all of us.

Big Tech Companies Don’t Speak for Users

SESTA/FOSTA supporters boast that their bill has the support of the technology community, but it’s worth considering what they mean by “technology.” IBM and Oracle—companies whose business models don’t heavily rely on Section 230—were quick to jump onboard. Next came the Internet Association, a trade association representing the world’s largest Internet companies, companies that will certainly be able to survive SESTA while their smaller competitors struggle to comply with it.
Those tech companies simply don’t speak for the Internet users who will be silenced under the law. And tragically, the people likely to be censored the most are trafficking victims themselves.

SESTA/FOSTA Will Put Trafficking Victims in More Danger

Throughout the SESTA/FOSTA debate, the bills’ proponents provided little to no evidence that increased platform liability would do anything to reduce trafficking. On the other hand, the bills’ opponents have presented a great deal of evidence that shutting down platforms where sexual services are advertised exposes trafficking victims to more danger.
Freedom Network USA—the largest national network of organizations working to reduce trafficking in their communities—spoke out early to express grave concerns [.pdf] that removing sexual ads from the Internet would also remove the best chance trafficking victims had of being found and helped by organizations like theirs as well as law enforcement agencies.
Reforming [Section 230] to include the threat of civil litigation could deter responsible website administrators from trying to identify and report trafficking.
It is important to note that responsible website administration can make trafficking more visible—which can lead to increased identification. There are many cases of victims being identified online—and little doubt that without this platform, they would have not been identified. Internet sites provide a digital footprint that law enforcement can use to investigate trafficking into the sex trade, and to locate trafficking victims. When websites are shut down, the sex trade is pushed underground and sex trafficking victims are forced into even more dangerous circumstances.
Freedom Network was far from alone. Since SESTA was introduced, many experts have chimed in to point out the danger that SESTA would put all sex workers in, including those who are being trafficked. Sex workers themselves have spoken out too, explaining how online platforms have literally saved their lives. Why didn’t Congress bring those experts to its deliberations on SESTA/FOSTA over the past year?
While we can’t speculate on the agendas of the groups behind SESTA, we can study those same groups’ past advocacy work. Given that history, one could be forgiven for thinking that some of these groups see SESTA as a mere stepping stone to banning pornography from the Internet or blurring the legal distinctions between sex work and trafficking.
In all of Congress’ deliberations on SESTA, no one spoke to the experiences of the sex workers that the bill will push off of the Internet and onto the dangerous streets. It wasn’t surprising, then, when the House of Representatives presented its “alternative” bill, one that targeted those communities more directly.

“Compromise” Bill Raises New Civil Liberties Concerns

In December, the House Judiciary Committee unveiled its new revision of FOSTA. FOSTA 2.0 had the same inherent flaw that its predecessor had—attaching more liability to platforms for their users’ speech does nothing to fight the underlying criminal behavior of traffickers.
In a way, FOSTA 2.0 was an improvement: the bill was targeted only at platforms that intentionally facilitated prostitution, and so would affect a narrower swath of the Internet. But the damage it would do was much more blunt: it would expand federal prostitution law such that online platforms would have to take down any posts that could potentially be in support of any sex work, regardless of whether there’s an indication of force or coercion, or whether minors were involved.
FOSTA 2.0 didn’t stop there. It criminalized using the Internet to “promote or facilitate” prostitution. Activists who work to reduce harm in the sex work community—by providing health information, for example, or sharing lists of dangerous clients—were rightly worried that prosecutors would attempt to use this law to put their work in jeopardy.
Regardless, a few holdouts in the tech world believed that their best hope of stopping SESTA was to endorse a censorship bill that would do slightly less damage to the tech industry.
They should have known it was a trap.

SESTA/FOSTA: The Worst of Both Worlds

That brings us to last month, when a new bill combining SESTA and FOSTA was rushed through congressional procedure and overwhelmingly passed the House.
When the Department of Justice is the group urging Congress not to expand criminal law and Congress does it anyway, something is very wrong.
Thousands of you picked up your phone and called your senators, urging them to oppose the new Frankenstein bill. And you weren’t alone: EFF, the American Civil Liberties Union, the Center for Democracy and Technology, and many other experts pleaded with Congress to recognize the dangers to free speech and online communities that the bill presented.
Even the Department of Justice wrote a letter urging Congress not to go forward with the hybrid bill [.pdf]. The DOJ said that the expansion of federal criminal law in SESTA/FOSTA was simply unnecessary, and could possibly undermine criminal investigations. When the Department of Justice is the group urging Congress not to expand criminal law and Congress does it anyway, something is very wrong.
Assuming that the president signs it into law, SESTA/FOSTA is the most significant rollback to date of the protections for online speech in Section 230. We hope that it’s the last, but it may not be. Over the past year, we’ve seen more calls than ever to create new exceptions to Section 230.
In any case, we will continue to fight back against proposals that undermine our right to speak and gather online. We hope you’ll stand with us.

Monday, August 7, 2017

Latest attempt of Crazy emails like Letter From Africa