Written By Michael Reign on Wednesday, June 18, 2014 | 11:30 PM

Conficker is a computer worm that has been steadily infecting an innumerable host of servers/ networks via the Internet since November 2008. With little to nothing conclusively known relevant to its inherent purpose, Conficker is rapidly metastasizing in its scope of influence; corrupting vast armadas of digital tessellation. Machines adversely affected with this worm are surreptitiously manipulated by an, as yet, unknown contingent charged with its creation. With the exception of isolated instances of malware (A portmanteau incorporating the use of two words: malicious and software) propagation through various ports of entry granting prospective users Internet accessibility, Conficker, for the most part, remains in a state of dormancy. Its genesis predicated on the presence of an obfuscated/ labyrinthine coded sequence masquerading as a legitimate system process, Conficker lurks beneath an interwoven tapestry of peer-to-peer media utilities; actively evading the most sophisticated network filtering agencies through a seemingly unpredictable array of updates (protocol pertinent to the updating process is similar in context to pathogenic mutation through acquired immunity).
Conficker itself may be representative of a massive campaign, orchestrated by the United States government and various corporate-level intermediary constituencies, to facilitate the enactment of a substantive virtual false flag initiative. With the passage of the S. 3480 - PCNAA (Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act) legislation the Federal Government could, in effect, grant the Executive Branch absolute dominion over every conceivable arena of Internet communication emanating from the continental United States. Utilizing the pretense of cyber-security relative to Conficker’s emergence in the virtual world, substantive network restrictions (mandated censorship of various content deemed contrary to the national interest, restricted domain registry access, intermittent patterns of connectivity or engineered instances of communications signal disruptions, etc.) could then be enacted and strictly enforced under penalty of law.
The new Internet, quite possibly what has come to be colloquialized as Internet2 (Despite claims deemed contrary to a purpose of beneficence by those responsible for its inception, Internet2 exists as a federalized alternative to its present day counterpart. A non-profit U.S. networking consortium coordinated/ maintained by the most accredited members of research and academia, as well as representatives of industry and government; Internet2 operates under a dynamic circuit network [DCN] strictly regulated by its progenitors within the scientific community), could then be implemented through legislative edict, nullifying the freedom of expression of prospective users amidst an inexhaustible morass of intergovernmental regulation. Conficker then, exists to facilitate the authoritarian suppression of personal autonomy under the pretense of national security, a perfect cyber-mirroring of the “anti-terrorist” legislative mandate so oftentimes imposed throughout the last decade.
The progenitors of Conficker will be revealed as authoritarian ideologues exhibiting a symbiotic relationship with the convoluted process of Conficker’s path of destruction.


Conficker, Cyber-Protectionism, and the Internet Kill Switch by Kai Tischen
Share this article :


Speak your mind and let your voice be heard.

This is a censorship free discussion area.

Support: Creating Website | Johny Template | Mas Template
Ωmnibus ™ and © Michael Reign. All Rights Reserved.
Template Created by Creating Website Published by Mas Template
Site modifications and enhancements by Michael Reign c/o Legerdemain Technologies