Never before in my lifetime has Britain had such an odious Home Secretary as Theresa May. In her racist policies, she surpasses even Jack Straw’s rendition to torture and his support for Tony Blair’s illegal war in Iraq. As if things were not bad enough, May has pushed the boundaries beyond what would be acceptable even to the criminal underground. Straw signed off renditions to torture and human rights’ abuses in full knowledge that incarceration in Guantanamo Bay and elsewhere would follow. May has gone a stage further. In the latest of her initiatives to emerge, Muslims are separated from their loved ones and divested of their identity while they are abroad. When they try to contact their families, the coordinates of their mobile phone’s signal are passed on from United Kingdom intelligence to United States intelligence. Thus the US, and possibly UK military, locate and kill these displaced persons by drone attacks.[1] This might sound like something from a futuristic horror story, but it is the UK Home Secretary in full flight.

Theresa May’s father was the Reverend Hugh Brasier, an Oxfordshire vicar who died in a car-crash shortly after his daughter graduated. Mrs. May claims to be an Anglican herself, and this should also make her a Christian, but her political actions and aspirations call into question the type of Christianity that might be being taught and practiced in Oxfordshire. Certainly in the broader sense of loving one’s neighbor, the Christianity she claims to espouse would be extended to countries within the European community and, more importantly, to countries outside of Europe. Laying aside a chosen few rich states like the US, Israel and former commonwealth countries, May’s actions show absolutely no love for any country or anybody unless they are rich and powerful. This includes rich and powerful Muslims.

“Blessed are the poor!” Theresa May is calling for the UK no longer to accede to the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR).[2] If this notion comes to law, it would be analogous to the US not recognizing the International Criminal Court (ICC). Her policies match those of Enoch Powell, though there are big differences. Powell’s actions did not result in discrimination based on race and religious grounds but, rather, attacks on all poor non-whites. What is more, he could string sentences together in a coherent and dramatic manner, as in his so-called “rivers of blood” speech. The venom he spat out, though almost as despicable and almost as Tory as the current home secretary’s, was streaked with figurative oratory and articulated with a certain degree of parliamentary rhetoric which May lacks in abundance. Without a script or auto-cue, she would be lost. Her policies against Muslims are without parallel in their racism. Although she is careful not to target Muslims directly in her speech, those she particularly wants to deport are Muslims. Her record speaks for itself.

Theresa May at the despatch box is odium at the podium. At the Conservative Party Conference in 2011 the home secretary said “the ille – the illegal immigrant . . . who cannot be deported, because – and I am not making this up – because he had a pet cat… and that is why I am of the view the Human Rights’ Act has to go.” She was making it up, as Andrew Neil got her to confirm.[3] Conservative head office has groomed May and other spokespeople never to mention that Islam is the target. Thus the terminology is “illegal immigrants”, “foreigners”, “foreign criminals”, “asylum-seekers” and such general terms. The anti-Islamic message is banged home, however, by accompanying images usually of Muslims. This is an attempt to create an enemy that did not exist before NATO’s illegal wars to steal natural resources from defeated countries. “Thou shalt not steal.”

Even worse was May’s extradition of five Muslims to US Supermax prisons last year. She showed no compassion for the poet Talha Ahsan, an Asberger sufferer and one of the five sent to the US in an agreement done behind the scenes with officials of the European Court of Human Rights. Before Talha Ahsan’s extradition to the US, he had already spent six years in prison in the UK without being charged with a crime. In Ahsan’s case, like that of Babar Ahmad, habeas corpus was ignored. Instead of focusing on this blatant contravention of one of the pillars of the English judicial system, the media concentrated on Muslim cleric Abu Hamza (the man with the hook), who is alleged to be a preacher of hatred.[4]

The slur on Islam has gone on for more than a decade. It is a miracle and a great credit to Muslim communities that there have not been countless acts of retaliation against NATO aggression abroad and anti-Islamic rhetoric at home. In a further attempt to denigrate Muslims and perpetuate the war on Islam, UK police have issued a radio advertisement that is so often repeated, one cannot switch on the radio without hearing it. The advertisement warns people to be watchful against terrorism and tells them that if they “notice something suspicious … chances are, it is probably nothing…” But what if it is? It then gives a hotline number and concludes with the message: “Your call could save lives”. A similar campaign was run during the Second World War, when German infiltrators were called “the enemy within” and were supposed to be ubiquitous. Slogans like “walls have ears” and “careless words cost lives” were bandied about all over the country. Today, it is not just “probably nothing”, it is certainly nothing.

What causes most people to think of Muslims whenever this advertisement runs? At the start of the advertising campaign three men from Small Heath, Birmingham, had just been found guilty of planning terrorist activities. Mr Justice Henriques told the men “It’s clear that you were planning a terrorist outrage in Birmingham.”[5] Tom Whitehead, Security Editor of the Telegraph, put out the headline that three Muslims had been found guilty of plotting the “worst ever terrorist attack in Britain.”[6] This was supported by other reporting which followed the guilty verdict. Undoubtedly these men fantasized about a terror plot, but they appear to have just had big mouths, since nobody really planning an attack would be bragging about it beforehand like they did.  The headline was in quotation marks. So who actually said that these men were planning “the worst ever terrorist attack”? Within the same article Whitehead claimed “Police believe had they been successful it would have been the largest terrorist atrocity on home soil.”[7] What police? The local bobby at Whitehead’s pub? Thus, as far as it is possible to ascertain, the Telegraph’s anti-Muslim hype in quotation marks was generated by Whitehead himself and picked up by bloggers by mistake and the disreputable press. “Thou shalt not bear false witness.”

To get five Muslims, including Talha Ahsan and Babar Ahmad, to the United States it appears that two of the judges, Lech Garlicki and Nicolas Bratza, who sat in judgment at Strasbourg had been to a closed-door meeting in Washington at a conference on judicial process a month before judgment was passed. To extradite the “Strasbourg five” was an act of defiance that goes against the exceedingly good reputation Strasbourg had previously built up in protecting the rights of nationals when faced with dubious renditions, extraditions and incarcerations abroad.[8]  What also points to a done deal before the court even sat is the fact that the same day the verdict was announced the five Muslims, who have already faced many years in UK prisons without charge, were on planes to the US. Such things take time to arrange.

The Home Secretary’s ongoing battle to get Abu Qatada extradited to Jordan, where he may face torture, is the latest manifestation of her hatred of impoverished Muslims.[9] Theresa May is married to a banker. What if Abu Qatada had been wealthy? Ahmed Chalabi, for example, is wanted in Jordan for robbing the poor investors of the Petra Bank he set up. A 22-year prison sentence awaits him, which was awarded in absentia. Worse still, he supplied false information to George W. Bush and Tony Blair to justify the war in Iraq. He is now an enemy to most people in the west, to hear them speak, but he spent most of his life in the US and UK, before re-establishing himself in Iraq. Now, here is a criminal of the most despicable kind. Where were the previous home secretaries when Chalabi fled Jordan and was living in Mayfair? Who was shouting for extradition then?

There has been a blatant, sinister and creeping tirade on impoverished Muslims from successive UK governments, but Theresa May’s current personal “war on Islam” has hit rock bottom. Two men were divested of their English identities by Home Secretary Theresa May while out of the country and subsequently killed by US drone strikes. One of the men phoned his wife to learn that he had just become a father. Shortly afterwards, thanks to the cowards who remotely operate drone killings, his wife became a widow and his newborn child an orphan. Theresa May’s version of Christianity in practice is not what is taught in most Anglican or other Christian churches. That message is: “thou shalt not kill.” Unfortunately some messages fall on stony ground.

Editor’s Note: Photographs from two to eight by UK Home Office.

References

[1] http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/british-terror-suspects-quietly-stripped-of-citizenship-then-killed-by-drones-8513858.html

[2] http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2287183/A-great-day-British-justice-Theresa-May-vows-UK-European-Court-Human-Rights.html

[3] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qXM7DzeMLe4

[4] http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2013/02/impossible-injustice-talha-ahsan%E2%80%99s-extradition-and-detention

[5] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/terrorism-in-the-uk/9877193/Suicide-bomb-gang-guilty-of-plotting-worst-ever-terror-attack-in-Britain.html

[6] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/terrorism-in-the-uk/9877193/Suicide-bomb-gang-guilty-of-plotting-worst-ever-terror-attack-in-Britain.html

[7] ibid.

[8] http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2013/02/impossible-injustice-talha-ahsan%E2%80%99s-extradition-and-detention

[9] http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/mar/11/abu-qatada-deprtation-theresa-may-appeal

In creating its new Do Not Track button, Microsoft has angered The Digital Advertising Alliance, the major association of digital Internet advertisers, marketing and media companies.  Known as the DAA, it is upset for good reason when one considers that there are more than 600 million users of Windows 7 OS. DAA believes it will no longer have complete access to who, what and where you are on the Web and beyond if some of those people decide to use the Do Not Track icon. The DAA is probably frightened over the possibility that the 600 million will opt out simultaneously and they will lose all that free information about what a person does or does not like. Just imagine the ensuing wail that will erupt though the digital hallways of DAA. Though not likely to happen, it is crybaby talk. For too long the DAA and its members have been getting a free ride with its unbridled collection of what ordinary humans believe is private information. Microsoft’s decision to create its Do Not Track button still leaves the choice to use the new key up to the individual user. There is no saying people will decide to use the new icon.

Lest we forget, every browser including Firefox, Safari and Chrome, to name a few, allows the user to kill the cookies he or she does not want to track them. A person can preserve his or her privacy by using the privacy setting on any browser to protect him or herself from prying eyes. If you want privacy, do not be lazy. Lift your hand, use a finger and press a key that will wipe away the cookie collected by an outsider during your time online. To repeat: It does not take much to protect yourself, if you are strong enough, in touch with the reality of the Web and not overly lazy. I have a message for all of you naive social media addicts, especially those who use Facebook.  Do not think for a moment that because it is now a public company that your privacy has the protection it never had before the IPO that made Mark Zuckerberg and his friends rich beyond anyone’s imagination. I see to protect themselves that many on Facebook are writing notes that say that they are private. By saying it, they believe –wrongly– that protects their lives from intrusion.  As if a few words will protect their privacy. These are meaningless statements.

The philosophy of privacy is, however, oddly meaningless to many people. It is generational. The younger one is, the less privacy has meant to them – until now. Suddenly, they do not want their lives revealed to anyone, especially those I call cookie stealers — the ones who process the data they collect from cookies. Algorithms have always been tracking and collecting your personal data. Algorithms make no distinctions about your privacy concerns. To utter, as some are across the spectrum of social media are doing, especially on Facebook, that persons unknown  “are hereby prohibited from using, distributing, disclosing, copying etc.,” has the same effect as if you were shouting down a bottomless pit.

People give up all privacy the moment they sign on to a social media site. They are under a microscope and always will be as long as they allow the browser they use to easily track and distribute to interested parties everything they do online. Submissive is the operative word that defines most everyone who uses social media as his or her clubhouse. Don’t forget that those supposedly innocent apps you place on your mobile devices also allow advertisers to collect every bit of information about you and then use that information to sell you products you either do not want, and never heard of or surely never expected to hear about. Social media has almost everyone hooked. Sadly, those many millions are beyond help.

Editor’s Note: Photograph one by Rob Pongsajapan. Photograph two by Kevin Dooley. Photograph three and illustration five by o5com.

For some time I have been thinking about apps and what they do for us and to us. Apps may be great, but they are also a huge problem. To back me up, comes a story called “Selling You on Facebook” in The Wall Street Journal, yes, the Wall Street Journal, the one newspaper that I am sure is an object of loathing to anyone who regularly peruses this site for a left wing and progressive take on the world.

Non-political, the article’s premise is simple, one that I have been writing about recently. It says, “Many popular Facebook apps are obtaining sensitive information about users — and users’ friends – so don’t be surprised if details about your religious, political and even sexual preferences start popping up in unexpected places.” What the authors write is not a plot against freedom or social networks. They speak the truth. More importantly, the premise of the article extends to other apps as well and that is where the trouble begins.

We have a new player in the world of previously hidden information. The app. Apps are about giving – information of every kind, directions, instructions, name your poison. With all that and more, apps are fast becoming the single most important means of data collecting that people who do not believe in privacy, nor allow themselves to think that privacy is important, engage in at almost light speed. These amiable creatures called apps are taking over our lives.

In the recent not too distant past, advertisers used human focus groups to judge and help define new products and services. There were no algorithms to get in the way of the human equation. Mostly, these real people did a pretty good job. Hollywood movies and TV shows still use focus groups often to the dismay of the producers who believe their instincts work better in the art of storytelling.

If we do not know we should, that cookies on the Web provide anyone who gains access to them information about every move one makes as he or she surfs the Internet, often innocently and sometimes for other reasons.  As I write, apps are taking over for cookies by further devouring our online lives. Apps in a very short time have replaced cookies as the most important sales tool merchants of every type depend on.

At the rate we are going, apps will take over for both cookies and focus groups, dominating every choice we make. Our lives with all the different cyber platforms – meaning every mobile device including smart phones and tablets and every social network imaginable — control who we are and what we do and how we do everything beneath each clever, smooth, come-on interface. This will surely continue into the future. Face it, our online lives, however we perceive them, because of apps are now more than ever open for prying eyes to use the information they collect to sell us what we might not want and control us in ways that we never anticipated.

Yes, I know, apps have become very important in our lives and in how we live. They help when you are lost. They guide you to a good restaurant. They locate the nearest hospital. They find the closest gas station. They keep track of where your neighbors are, if you are so inclined to know where they are at all times. They can improve one’s life. They really do everything and more for a person in a complicated world that is more difficult to navigate every day. But addiction rules. As all addicts know, kicking a habit is nearly impossible.

I am willing to bet someone is working on an app as I write to cover the most unusual aspects of our lives. There are apps for everything and just about everything has an app. Pacman, once thought dead, is flourishing. This means that soon there will be an app for even more than we have apps for now. It does not mean apps are benign. If we succumb to these new apps, what little privacy we have will be lost forever. Privacy used to be, well, private. I care about privacy but many other people seem to revel in public exposure.

There are now probably more than a million apps available for the choosing. The making of an app has become a major tech industry. And if an app catches on, riches follow. One common theme impossible to ignore when exploring the effect of social media on how people live is the belief that social networks are about sharing. Sometimes people on social networks give away too much. That is because much of what is on all social networks is sophomoric. It is dorm room cool, which means that it is silly and self–gratifying. It depends on how needy one is.

You may wonder if anyone cares what you post, and because you may think no one does care, what you place for all to see has little interest beyond the words or photos on your page. This is all the better for the collectors of your data who mostly believe what they receive is too little. The maw they must fill is infinite. The craving for more data increases by the millisecond. It is voracious. Ignoring the need for privacy is now beyond help. It is a dead concept.

Using an app relieves a person from making direct eye-to-eye contact with another person. Technology today replaces the social experience of dealing with your fellow man and woman as if they were live and not microdots on a small screen. Using apps for everything obviates the need for real people in one’s life. Sorry, but Angry Birds are not real.

However, as long as I have free will, I am safe from this new invasion of my prime space. My hermit-like desire may be my last refuge, my final bastion of freedom. I have no apps.

Editor’s Note: Ron Steinman is executive editor and a columnist for online magazines, The Digital Journalist and The Digital Filmmaker. An award-winning producer for NBC News and NBC’s Today Show, he served as bureau chief in Saigon during the Vietnam War, and later as bureau chief in Hong Kong and London. At ABC News Productions, he produced documentaries for A&E, TLC, The History Channel, and Discovery. He is currently an independent documentary producer, director and writer through his company, Douglas/Steinman Productions. He is the author of seven books, including “Inside Television’s First War: A Saigon Journal,” that details how NBC News covered the war in Vietnam.

“We don’t build services to make money; we make money to build services.” Mark Zuckerberg, his I.P.O letter.

As we all know, Facebook and Mark Zuckerberg are on the verge of a massive I.P.O. It may be the biggest sale of a stock in history. Mr. Zuckerberg says he does not think in terms of money, but I find that hard to believe. He and his brethren at Facebook pour an enormous amount of money into updating and changing how Facebook works.

The money to do that has to come from somewhere. That somewhere is advertising. In 2011, Facebook realized more than 3.2 billion dollars in advertising revenue. Reportedly, Google made more than ten times that amount, clocking in at an estimated 36.5 billion dollars. Facebook wants to reach that amount and to surpass it.

 “Facebook was not originally created to be a company. It was built to accomplish a social mission – to make the world more open and connected.” Mark Zuckerberg, from his letter attached to Facebook’s I.P.O filing.

Facebook has a very big lobbying effort in Washington and, now, even a political action committee that will allow its employees to contribute to political campaigns. The lobbying and the PAC put Facebook in the real world, not the rose colored glasses one it wants all its “friends” to believe it inhabits. This means that Facebook understands its power, its reach, its importance to advertisers, and its seemingly well-meaning effort to tie a socially fractured world together.

The Arab Spring became one with Facebook, and, throughout the world, Facebook, as a prince of social media, continues to help bring about change. So, despite my cynicism, Facebook can be a force for good. Does that outweigh how it captures and dominates so many lives? Does that mean that Facebook’s seemingly benign desire to kill anonymity and erase solitude is its hidden agenda. I believe Facebook’s scheme, to keep duping its unsuspecting “friends,” is nothing more than a clever way to make money. Time will tell if I am wrong.

Being one with each other is an ancient desire. In the past, people sat around a campfire. If Mr. Zuckerberg keeps expanding, he might accomplish his social mission and have the biggest campfire the world has ever known. However, all that Facebook is, and the bigger it becomes just by sitting in cyberspace as a beached whale, does not mean that I want to be Mark Zuckerberg’s friend. Really I do not. At 845 million friends and growing daily, I think he has enough friends and can easily do without me.

I sometimes will call him “Mark” because I am sure everyone else does, though I see that stories about him at times refer to him as “Zuck.” I do not think he will be insulted if I do not show him enough deference and reverence, both of which I am sure drive him to want to take over the world. At least on the Internet. His is a massive effort at social engineering, the likes of which the world has never seen. But it is not for me. I value what remains of my privacy. I am a fan of solitude.

Facebook is about traffic and the personal data it has on file for about half the world, those 845 million people, the majority of whom are women as women use the site more than men do. Facebook provides the data it collects to advertisers for money, lots of money. Mark, along with his friends and investors, will soon be among the richest people in the world. I am not against anyone making money, but somehow much of what Facebook preaches has the texture and smell of snake oil sold by small time and would-be Barnum’s in the Old West or the new Internet, simply an updated version of a carnival barker. Mark Zuckerberg is creating this new wealth based on smart algorithms that track every movement of usually unsuspecting and mostly innocent people and what he correctly assumes, I believe, is a world of people with fragile psyches.

Mark Zuckerberg’s great strength is that he understands that the world is a difficult enough place to navigate for many. That meme must come from inside his head. It is apparent, otherwise why would so many join Facebook without spending any money upfront. The masses do this everywhere Facebook lives, and they do it readily with hardly a whimper.

I can handle not being Mark Zuckerberg’s friend knowing that he and his ilk are working very hard to guide me into his fold and then keep me in it as he manipulates who I am and what I stand for, all in the service of whomever wants to advertise on his site. In his way, Mr. Zuckerberg has discovered a magic amulet that allows him to hypnotize the masses and to make them enjoy what he is doing to them, as they become willing partners in his cult of togetherness. I am on Facebook for reasons that have nothing to do with wanting to be social. My latest count shows I have 160 friends, a paltry number compared to many who are my contemporaries, but frankly, almost too many for me to handle. I cannot imagine all these people in one room at the same time. It would put the Tower of Babel to shame.

“Facebook aspires to build the services that give people the power to share and help them once again transform many of our core institutions and industries.” More from Mark’s I.P.O letter.

I do not trust Mark Zuckerberg’s understanding of the past and his heady vision for the future. He created Facebook in a dorm room, hardly a place for deep philosophical thought. Eventually we will know if Mr. Zuckerberg and his cohorts are successful in transforming the world into a tolerant and accepting unBorg-like entity. But we should not be suckers when it comes to substituting sophomoric philosophy and self-aggrandizing for reality.

There is a world beyond Facebook where there is much more at stake than what we see on a Facebook page or on someone’s wall. So, Mark, friend or not, we are not nearly on the same page. 

In case you did not know it, SOPA in everyday English is Stop Online Piracy Act. Its main supporters are in Hollywood, TV, big music, and other major entertainment. Its opponents are the largest Web companies and the legions of naïve people who believe the passage of such an act would impede their right to freedom on the Internet.

For the moment, SOPA is in the official wastebasket where Washington bills go to die when so much of the public rises up to shout it down. Now our esteemed lawmakers believe SOPA, though necessary, needs clarity and better direction. It is hard to argue with the failure of the original bill. It is not worth the effort to try to pass that bill and to have big entertainment, big Internet and everyone else against it for different reasons important to each.

Do not be deceived by the millions who signed online petitions to scrap SOPA. The so-called little guy, Mr. and Mrs. grassroots, is simply a pawn in the hands of the big Internet boys who control the WEB. Do not be deceived by the black banner atop Google in protest of the bill. Just because you signed an online petition, keep in mind that the battle is still between the bigs: Hollywood and TV versus the Internet giants. It is not so much that one is against the other as much as it is how does each side best get what it wants, absolute freedom on the Internet versus controlled use for big entertainment and how it presents online what it believes it owns.

I am against piracy of intellectual property, even if the property is weak or poorly conceived. You may ask, who is not. I am against the theft of who I am when cookies ingest everything about me when I spend time on the Web. Everyone else should also feel this way, but people do not. Thus, companies such as Amazon and others are hypocrites because all they are doing is protecting their own turf. I am against hypocrisy but who is not, you say. Many who are on both sides of the argument are hypocrites because they try to hide the reality of Web commerce under the guise of freedom.

I do not believe what anyone on either side of the debate says. Both sides are using the average person, however good or bad his or her creation is, to advance its concept of freedom and ownership. They are working hard to hide one’s history on the Web and how it affects sales of products and sales of ideas.

We should all be for creativity. Many people I know agree that creativity is a gift and one of life’s joys. The Internet is the greatest platform for creativity ever. It opens enormous possibilities for anyone to post what he or she believes is their contribution to humankind. I am not arrogant when I say that most of what is on YouTube, other file sharing sites and found in millions of blogs is not very good. It is usually drivel and laughable in that we laugh at the effort, not at its humor or sense of fun. Most of what is in cyberspace is not worth my time. Attack me if you want. Please. But realize first, that just as not everyone can be a professional athlete, not everyone is capable of creating something that has lasting value. Just because you can post anything you want on the Internet for which you usually receive no pay, the act of posting does not give the work value.

We live in a society where sharing is free, especially in the world of social media. On social network sites free is the operating value system. It is the new normal, what people expect because the Internet is there for all to use as they wish, they think. Only one’s time is at stake. It strikes me that for the current generation, sharing and ignoring personal ownership is often more important than personal achievement. Many pundits believe that owning the copyright to a personally created work is a sin. If they could, they would eliminate copyright. They want to limit its length based on the idea that everyone should benefit from a copyrighted work even if they do not compensate its owner. Everyone, that is except the person who created the work.

Creating anything – art of any kind, a widget, an app, you name it — is hard work. If I create something on my own using my own time and money, or, better yet, with someone else’s money why should I not profit from or share in the profits from my enterprise without fear that someone will steal what I created. I do not subscribe to the idea that better creation will result based on earlier work. Why do the users and distributors of everything on the Web believe they should have a free ride of the back of my creative endeavor? Using another person’s work is fraudulent.

I come from a culture, or a time not too distant from the one we are living in, that believes you should own all or most of what you make with your mind or your hands. That is not the norm today. A certain amount of pleasurable, yet evil anarchy exists on the Web. There is a shoot first and ask questions later attitude toward what people own. If someone sees something they like, they post it for all to see, to possibly enjoy it without regard to its copyright. Then, if there is a complaint, they apologize, they take down the video, the photo, the written work, and everyone seems satisfied except the person or group who created the entity in the first place. The damage done, the violator gets an insignificant punishment or none at all, and goes out for another latte. Such is life.

Let me be clear. I am against piracy of intellectual property, even if and when – most of the time, by the way – it has almost no value to most people. Whether it is well conceived or poorly done, I have to admit it has value to its creator. I am against the unbridled, underhanded use of my personal information and creativity without my permission by either big entertainment or big Internet.

The voice of the creative community must make itself heard. Despite being unorganized, the creative community cannot allow those who use the Internet for gain of any kind to dominate ownership. Whatever replaces SOPA must be worth the journey or else anyone who thinks the Internet is free, however anyone uses it, had better think again.