US Against UN Takover of the WebAdded: Monday, June 4th, 2012
Category: Bit Torrent Freedom > The Right To Share
Tags:ET, p2p, Torrent, Piracy, Peer To Peer, Network, Hackers, Internet, BitTorrent, Google, utorrent, bitcomet, extratorrent, 2010, www.extrattorrent.com
American politicians claimed that a United Nations takeover of the web should be stopped. A few days ago Democratic and Republican government officials pointed out that a UN summit in December could lead to a virtual takeover of the web if Chinese, Russian, Iranian, and Saudi Arabian proposals are adopted.
A Michigan Republican was first to say that these were terrible ideas, because they could allow the governments to control and restrict content or impose economic costs upon international information flows.
Then a member of the Federal Communications Commission also became worried about the United Nations bringing in Internet-based taxes to fund the build-out of Internet infrastructure all over the world. Such US giants as Google, Facebook, and Netflix appear to be the prime sources of funding.
Finally, California Democrat in whose district Facebook's headquarters are located, claimed that many countries don't share their view of the web and how it works. Perhaps, she meant that the web was supposed to run so that American companies become rich and controls are decided by whichever lobby group bribes Congressmen enough campaign funds.
The summit called the World Conference on International Telecommunications (WCIT) is planned to review a set of telecommunications regulations set in 1988. The United States claimed that it will give such countries as Russia and China an opportunity to propose the United Nations to establish a new "data security" regime or develop an alternative to ICANN.
Meanwhile, experts point out that the United Nations has been trying to take over control of the web for a while now, while giving the American government too much control over other countries affairs. The matter is that the more autocratic countries may draft technical standards to implement the methods of tracing the source of online communications and deprive Internet users of the ability to remain anonymous.
Google's chief Internet evangelist, the co-developer of the TCP/IP protocol, admitted that the ITU idea might result in “top-down control dictated by governments”, which would impact free expression, security, and other important issues.
At some point, it’s right. But on the other hand, why should countries which don't trust the United States be forced to do what they are told?
June 4th,2012Posted by:
Monday, June 4th, 2012
|posted by (2012-06-04 20:42:32)|
|Hmmmmmmnnnn.....Kettle Black springs to mind here.|
|posted by (2012-06-05 01:22:45)|
|The United Nations is an international organization whose stated aims are facilitating co-operation in international law, international security, economic development, social progress, human rights, and achievement of world peace. AND Yet the United States is a menber of the UN. But It wants to Take over. The UN was founded in 1945 after World War II. USA WAKE UP, you have 192 other coutries within the UN. America's long-standing policy of isolationism left the United States reluctant to involve itself with what was popularly perceived, among the American public, as a European war. OH thats right it was only after Pearl Harbour did you decided to join ww2 in november 1941, 2 years after ww2 started.|
|posted by (2012-06-05 01:26:59)|
|OH thats Right you as a Country was owned by the British before you got your Independance|
|this article is missing a few key points here is another article on this subject written by our good friends over at cnet|
Democratic and Republican government officials warned this morning that a United Nations summit in December will lead to a virtual takeover of the Internet if proposals from China, Russia, Iran, and Saudi Arabia are adopted.
It was a rare point of bipartisan agreement during an election year: a proposal that Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin described last year as handing the U.N. "international control of the Internet" must be stopped.
"These are terrible ideas," Rep. Fred Upton, a Michigan Republican, said during a U.S. House of Representatives hearing. They could allow "governments to monitor and restrict content or impose economic costs upon international data flows," added Ambassador Philip Verveer, a deputy assistant secretary of state.
Robert McDowell, a member of the Federal Communications Commission, elaborated by saying proposals foreign governments have pitched to him personally would "use international mandates to charge certain Web destinations on a 'per-click' basis to fund the build-out of broadband infrastructure across the globe."
"Google, iTunes, Facebook, and Netflix are mentioned most often as prime sources of funding," McDowell said. Added Rep. Anna Eshoo, a California Democrat whose district includes Facebook's headquarters, many countries "don't share our view of the Internet and how it operates."
What prompted today's hearing -- and a related congressional resolution (PDF) supporting a free and open Internet -- is a Dubai summit that will be convened by the 193 members of the U.N.'s International Telecommunications Union, which was chartered in 1865 to oversee international telegraph regulations.
Called the World Conference on International Telecommunications, or WCIT, the summit will review a set of telecommunications regulations established in 1988, when home computers used dial-up modems, the Internet was primarily a university network, and Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg was a mere 4 years old.
That review has created an opening for countries with a weak appreciation of free speech and civil liberties -- with Russia and China in the lead -- to propose the U.N. establish an new "information security" regime or create an alternative to ICANN, the nonprofit organization that has acted as the Internet's de facto governance body since the late 1990s.
Unless the U.S. and its allies can block these proposals, they "just might break the Internet by subjecting it to an international regulatory regime designed for old-fashioned telephone service," Rep. Greg Walden, an Oregon Republican said. (U.S. allies include Japan, Canada, Mexico, and many European countries.)
This is hardly the first time that the U.N. or its agencies wanted to expand their influence over the Internet. At a 2004 summit at the U.N.'s headquarters in New York, U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan criticized the current system through which Internet standards are set and domain names are handled, and delegates from Cuba, Ghana, Bolivia and Venezula objected to what they said was too much control of the process by the U.S. government and its allies.
Two years later, at another U.N. summit in Athens, ITU Secretary General Yoshio Utsumi criticized the current ICANN-dominated process, stressing that poorer nations are dissatisfied and are hoping to erode U.S. influence. "No matter what technical experts argue is the best system, no matter what self-serving justifications are made that this is the only possible way to do things, there are no systems or technologies that can eternally claim they are the best," Utsumi said.
In 2008, CNET was the first to report that the ITU was quietly drafting technical standards, proposed by the Chinese government, to define methods of tracing the original source of Internet communications and potentially curbing the ability of users to remain anonymous. A leaked document showed the trace-back mechanism was designed to be used by a government that "tries to identify the source of the negative articles" published by an anonymous author.
December's meeting has alarmed even the Internet's technologists. The Internet Society, which is the umbrella organization for the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) and the Internet Architecture Board (IAB), sent a representative to today's hearing.
ISOC's Sally Wentworth, senior manager of public policy for the group, warned that the proposals to be considered are not "compatible" with the current open manner in which the Internet is managed.
Vint Cerf, Google's chief Internet evangelist, co-creator of the TCP/IP protocol, and former chairman of ICANN, said the ITU meeting could lead to "top-down control dictated by governments" that could impact free expression, security, and other important issues..
"The open Internet has never been at a higher risk than it is now," Cerf said.
|so what does all that mean it means in the long run a agency run by the UN can actively filter anything they dont like out of the net the funny thing is all this bill really is its PIPA and SOPA combined on steroids they want to in the long run to turn the net into a money making institution did you read the charge per click part look it up read it for yourselves|
the beautiful thing about this is that all of us we dont have a say in it there is no public votes just member votes so i for one like my net the way it is with its spam mail and pop ups and porn sites and torrent sites the net is owned by no one and it should remain that way also might i add when something is owned by a country and run by people those people often dont have other peoples best interests at heart alot of these people only care on how can we make more money so what happens when for example lets say the MPAA comes knocking and says we will "donate" a few hundred million dollars to your cause but we want this to be taken down off the net
but something like that could never happen right because countries are just and fair right and people are honest and have the best interests of the race in mind right
|posted by (2012-06-05 08:17:19)|
|Dude, qrih, before july 4th 1776 the USA didnt exsist and their was no country in what is now the USA. We used to be colonies of the british empire, and nobody has owned us since our creation, if you wanna rip on the USA, thats ur freedom...just get ur facts right man. We entered WW2 on dec 8th when congress declared war on japan, one day after pearl harbor...again facts...while the stated goals of the UN you enumerated are assumably the stated goals of the UN, make no mistake, the UN is run by russia, china, france, england and the USA, the allies of WW2. The real motive was to have a forum where international grievances could be heard and solved avoiding another catostrphic war..If germnay could aired grievances after ww1 and get relief from the sanctions hitler might never have been. the five ountries are perm members of the security counsel, and any one of them can veto a proposal, and cannot be over ruled...when veto by any of the five the issue is dead. It is ultimatly about control, the countries with any power and any ability to enforce peace was the five listed. the allies goal was to create a world that they could control and influence without having to deploy troops and go to war. Its all about economics...the IMF, the world bank, UN food and resource programs...any chance of sucess and prosperity required others to play by the rules that we set up, don't want too? fine trade embargos, sanctions, leading to military action that they could never possibly win...Western europe and the USA prosper because we make the rules and are in charge...we don't apologize for it either. If you don't like it too bad its the way it is, and we will continue to exert control of world markets and implement our policies because we HAVE to stay strong and powerful...if the USA falls, the world comes down with us. The pain will be far more severe to the world than for the USA.|
also, check your history, FDR gave billions in aid and equipment years before entry into ww2. China was able to fight japan because of our help prior to entering as well. We had no treaty with poland, or a mutual aid agrement with france or england. There were no germans fighting with japan nor vice versa...so two wars were going on at the same time..one in asia the other europe, and contained away from our land. The USA won't go to war without provocation...we don't start wars, we just finish them! Mutual aid treaties started ww1, and upgraded europes war to a global bid for control of the world.
|posted by (2012-06-05 08:24:25)|
|If im not wrong then, US looses its monopoly over the web, also within US, incase UN takes over WEB.|
So if US wants to takedown wikileaks and if any other UN member VETO'S it, then its a bummer for US.
Some other implications can be ex:
"What happens to censorship in China and many other countries?"
"What if UN itself(compromising of different countries with there vicious motives) starts suppressing freedom on web?"
Anyways users like us will always be at the receiving end, irrespective of who controls WEB.
|nothing happens to censorship in china it remains how it always has a change in the law over the net does not force the Chinese government to change any of its polices. and, could you please explain to me what monopoly that the US currently has on the web? here is another article i found on this subject from our friends over at wutsupwithat.com it may shed a little more light on what the benevolent UN wants to do|
The new world order invades your computer
Imagine if everything you did online was subject to monitoring and control by the United Nations. Powerful authoritarian states, including China and Russia, are spearheading an effort to place the most potent information system in the world under centralized international control. They want the Internet to work with the same efficiency, speed and reliability as the U.N.
This week, Congress will consider legislation to amend the 1988 International Telecommunication Regulations to give the U.N. extraordinary powers over the Internet. In September, the authoritarian bloc submitted a proposal titled “The International Code of Conduct for Information Security.” In theory, it seeks to systematize and standardize the Internet and establish rules for maintaining cybersecurity. In fact, it will give the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) – a U.N. agency that oversees global telecommunications – vast new powers to regulate and control access to the Internet and information flow in cyberspace.
That Beijing and Moscow are backing the idea is enough to know it’s a bad one. The free flow of information has always been an enemy of thuggish regimes. To them, individual expression and the unlimited exchange of ideas – which the Internet has made possible for some oppressed people for the first time in history – must be stamped out. Such countries view the Internet as a vast intelligence operation, a means of collecting sensitive information on people and preventing freedom of expression through a sophisticated array of censorship tools.
WE SHOULD REMAIN UNIFIED IN OUR OPPOSITION TO UN/ITU REGULATION OF THE INTERNET.
Finally, all of us should be concerned with a well-organized international effort to secure intergovernmental control of Internet governance. Since being privatized in the early 1990’s, the Internet has historically flourished within a deregulatory regime not only within our country but internationally as well. In fact, the long-standing international consensus has been to keep governments from regulating core functions of
the Internet’s ecosystem.
Unfortunately, some nations, such as China, Russia, India, Iran and Saudi Arabia, have been pushing to reverse this consensus by giving the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) regulatory jurisdiction over Internet governance. The
ITU is a treaty-based organization under the auspices of the United Nations.32 As Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin said last June, the goal of this effort is to establish “international control over the Internet using the monitoring and supervisory capabilities of the [ITU].”33
Today, however, several countries within the 193 member states of the ITU35 want to renegotiate the 1988 treaty to expand its reach into previously unregulated areas. A few specifics are as follows:
- Subject cyber security and data privacy to international control;
- Allow foreign phone companies to charge fees for “international” Internet traffic, perhaps even on a “per-click” basis for certain Web destinations, with the goal of generating revenue for state-owned phone companies and government treasuries;
- Impose unprecedented economic regulations such as mandates for rates, terms and conditions for currently unregulated traffic-swapping agreements known as “peering;”
- Establish for the first time ITU dominion over important functions of multi-stakeholder Internet governance entities such as the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, the nonprofit entity that coordinates the .com and .org Web addresses of the world;
- Subsume under intergovernmental control many functions of the Internet Engineering Task Force, the Internet Society and other multi-stakeholder groups that establish the engineering and technical standards that allow the Internet to work; and
- Regulate international mobile roaming rates and practices. These efforts could ultimately partition the Internet between countries that on the one hand opt out of today’s highly successful, non-governmental, multi-stakeholder model to live under an intergovernmental regulatory regime, and on the other hand, those member states that decide to keep the current system. Such a legal structure would be devastating to global free trade, rising living standards and the spread of political freedom. It would also create an engineering morass.
Once control is handed over, how long do you think it will be before they move to shut down climate skeptic blogs critical of the UN’s IPCC?
Write/call your representative in Congress now.
h/t to Mike Lorrey
|posted by (2012-06-05 09:38:21)|
|Well what happened to wikileaks, or tpb or megaupload?|
Why are these sites running around for servers/hosts?
Why isnt visa,paypal etc processing donations,contributions to sites which is not liked by the US?
Now if you do a lil more searching on this you will know whats with US and web.They would begin arm twisting with anyone as in case of wikileaks or megaupload etc to get away with there desires.
Also i never said UN was going to make WEB any better place if u read my earlier post, neither did i assert censorship is gonna go away in CHINA!
Its just my penny for ppl's thoughts.
And when i say US, i am not talking about the odd 315 millions approx citizens but the ppl at power who are taking these decisions. No intentions to offend any american here.
for a further read, check here
|ok i understand what your saying after reading that sorry about that but the first link i had honestly never read before and after reading and doing some research on verisign i have to say that was kinda sneaky of old bill clinton there on the second link like i said on that post itself people are missing the point in my opinion is this whole thing is a very bloated form of a hostile take over so many experts on other sites are saying mega will never come back from this i think that was the intention all along even if dotcom gets off 100% free whats he going to do sue the US like that has ever worked it would get tied up in litigation longer then he will be alive|
and ty for pointing out its not the people who are wanting this or any of this it is a conman belief by many in this country our government is out of date and it needs to progress it is holding on to ideals that are outdated the world has advanced and no countries laws have advanced to catch up with technology
|also kuntu how do you post the whole website in your posts i tried to but something ate the site address right out of the post just curious saves the length of a post from having to be a copy paste of the entire article i wish to talk about|
|posted by (2012-06-05 13:57:15)|
|It always boils down to a lot of people (especially Pakistanis apparently) have a grudge with the US government. It is so fun and trendy to be anti-American. The US government has done a fair bit of "bad things" in recent history that justify some animosity. But OK - reality check. If the US loses it's dominant position who fills the power vacuum? Some nice peaceful and moral country with human rights and concerns about your individual liberties? No, sorry - it's China and Russia. Trust me, I live in China and you do not want China to control anything.|
So ya, it's so horrible that one country has most of controls on the Internet and that it can do things like enforce copyright laws and such. But really, this kind of horrible I can accept because there are far far worse things. The UN is not some benevolent democratic body. It is controlled by the big players, and only a few of those members give even one inkling about individual rights.
You don't how good you got it until it's gone.
|who cares the UN is owned by America as America provides the UN with the most troops and the most Money and America is owned by Israel so by proxy the UN is owned by Israel|
|@ #2, QRIH: "Oh thats right it was only after Pearl Harbour did you decided to join ww2 in november 1941, 2 years after ww2 started."|
One particular point that 'official' US history likes to forget about is the fact that it had been covertly fighting the Japanese since 1937 after Imperial Japan's invasion of mainland China in 1936. The US aided the Chinese financially, as well as with arms and training against the Japanese. The US also banned the selling of scrap metal to Japan in an effort to slow down the Japanese war effort. Shortly before Pearl Harbour, the US - the main supplier of oil to Japan up until this point - banned oil sales, leaving the Japanese engaged in a full-on invasion of Asia with no oil for their armoured divisions, etc.
Guess which direction Japan looked in order to secure a new oil supply for itself? The Dutch East Indies, located south west of Pearl Harbour, with a potential US naval blockade in the way. So if history wants to blame anyone for the 'sneak' attack on Pearl Harbour, it should blame the US and its own near-sighted interventionism and short-term goals. As per usual. It wasn't a 'sneak attack'; the US had been prodding Imperial Japan with a stick for years without having the balls to openly declare war.
|posted by (2012-06-05 18:54:38)|
|Its a false flag. The UN is controlled by the Illuminati and their big banks, as is the United States. Both of them want to control the Web for their propaganda and to curtail free speech. They want to install a New World Government controlled by just a few powerful families and kill and enslave most of the world's population.|
|posted by (2012-06-05 20:24:44)|
|posted by (2012-06-05 21:50:31)|
|only reason the usa is agaisnt is coz THEY want to won the net|
|posted by (2012-06-06 04:01:19)|
|@azar @klkekiller As a U.S. citizen I actually think your both right.|
@QRIH Your just an idiot.
|posted by (2012-06-06 07:24:24)|
|Think i am lost here; laymans terms are needed . .|
|Rockman; It as usual anytime any article mentions something about America the trolls just crawl out of the wood work.|
The UN can never take over the internet for one very good reason; know what it is?
It ain't the USA either; except for the dns servers being there.
All of the worlds telecom companies OWN the internet..
They own ALL of the internet backbone connections and sell internet access to jobbers who resell it as ISP's..
There have been threats made to the USA that if they don't turn over the control to the DNS Servers they will do what to the USA?
The only way you will cut out the control that the USA has and it will again never let that go because IT IS BIG MONEY..
Is for the other COUNTRIES construct their own internet; again that won't happen due to the telecom companies. Each country would have to nationalize all of the telecommunications to control the internet.
|posted by (2012-06-06 14:06:17)|
|menahunie: As usual Sir number 1 troller; who can t use a spell and grammer checker most times your just upset cause your troll comments didn t been me out in the postings ; but i enjoy reading your nonsense here .|
|@ Rockman - you want laymen terminology? I can sum up this article in 2 words.|
Hope that helps
|posted by (2012-06-06 17:44:54)|
|im not a big fan of usa controlling the internet but id rather them than having china Russia Iran and Saudi Arabia having anything to do with controlling the internet|
|Rockman: Really explain how my post is a troll comment?|
Given the comment you just made attacking me again?
The last trolls that did that were blocked
You are worried and think I am trying to beat out your postings?
Well you do a good job beating yourself already..
|posted by (2012-06-07 06:29:57)|
|menahunie- I think we all know what this means "The last trolls that did that were blocked" so no futher comments are needed so moving on .|
law0000 - i agree can t think how bad those 4 countries would be controling the internet; they own phone companies wonder why they don t invent theie own county wide ips services . .
|hey good article if u have any question with education then go to |
|posted by (2012-06-08 02:54:20)|
|hsrunner, you got your facts wrong,The United States starts most of the wars and can't finish half of them. Wars are started because of greed by the elite in the world which control most governments. Poland during world war II was dealt away to Stalin by the coward chamberlain of England. It was the poles that saved England with their heroic pilots when Germany invaded by air. The Brits were too stupid to fight the incoming German planes. In the end the poles were denided to appear in a victory parade so as not to offend Stalen. The americans hoped that the Russians would be crushed and Hitlers armies would diminish due to severe casualties inflected by the Russians but the Russians didn't fall.|
|posted by (2012-06-08 10:03:55)|
|I'm guessing half of these posters are off their meds, but entertaining reading anyway.|
Glory to the heroic Poles LOL! So are you Polish azar? I could say a lot about this - but too off topic. It is just cute how each country has it's own self glorified version of history.
I will say that it is more accurate to state the US starts very few wars, but instead tries to finish them. For example did you know the Vietnam war was fought against French colonialism? The French fought and lost that war before the US stepped in to absorb the flak. Or maybe you didn't know that the Ba'ath party that caused so much trouble for Iraq was created to topple the British puppet monarchy that existed before it? It's just never that simple, you know? You need to be careful where you get your history lessons from.
If you believe in the "Illuminati" you have no right to an opinion - your brain is baked. For the rest you should know that the UN is a group of factions. For example if China wants something done it can make all the African and South American countries that depend on it's money line up behind. There are other factions and none of them give a crap about you are me or our rights. The US at least has a few laws and a vocal citizenry to oppose any draconian measures placed on the Internet. It's something at least until there is a better option.
|posted by (2012-06-08 14:11:24)|
" I'm guessing half of these posters are off their meds, but entertaining reading anyway " you need meds yourself to help you think clearer .
" The US at least has a few laws and a vocal citizenry to oppose any draconian measures placed on the Internet " Bingo if you had your meds you d be reading what your typing can yo think how fast Russia and China and the Far right wing arab states would shut down the internet; no more torrents; no peerblock and no vpn s for starters that would be shut down all of it iF China and Russia have their way .
|Well consider this. The world debt is apparently 39 trillion dollars. Individual families have 100+ trillion dollars. Rothchilds have anywhere between 300 - 600 trillion though they keep it secret so the exact amount is unsure. I heard the Rockefellers are 100+ trillion though I didn't double check it. These aren't the only power families. Check out the queen of England who technically owns ALL the crown land in ALL the commonwealth. Or the Vatican which took over how many countries and converted them to catholic? Jesuits anyone? You can argue till the cows come home about which "country" rules what, or what happened it this or that war, or which country is best to rule this or that. But guess what. Virtually all your T.V. Shows, magazines, news sources, school textbooks etc "Are owned" "who owns the world? (directly or through middlemen)(can you trust these sources of info or history?) "Politician are BRED" google -you tube bill clinton mind control-, and you see Bill Clinton in a secretly recorded video in a zombie state then switching to child alter personalities (in the full version vid) Every single US president is a direct decendant of Royal monarchs(multiple) and also all related to a single monarch(I forget who, probably william of orange but you can google it) Who funded communism in russia and china. Who made these countries what they are today? You all need to take a crash course in CONSPIRACY 101 to grasp whats going on otherwise reading all your comments is....how do I say...nicely...well I can't. oh well. best luck. By the way "conspiracy should be re-named "hidden truth" or some such name.. also if you don't believe in conspiracy, then your just an innocence theorist or co-incidence theorist and don't even know it.|
|@ Rockman, so what if the US has a few laws?? those few laws only help those few in power and not those 95% of the ordinary citizens who need the help! And what good is "vocal citizenry" when no one is listening?? Gotta make it direct action all the time and at least if they still take no notice at least it is way more fun than voicing an opinion.|
So you have noticed that there is a fair use of "draconian measures placed on the Internet"(PS nice copy and paste?),but thats not the real worry its all the other laws that effect your real life,and not your cyber one that you should be more worried about,and voicing your opinion about them.
Why do you need to think how fast Russia(not to bad yet),China and the Arab states would shut down the internet?? they pretty much already have shut down the internet in their countries,try having a read here
and then think how lucky we all really are to be able to download the latest out of synch cropped cam movies!!
As for no more torrents, peerblock and the like yeah I do agree there,as IMO as the times change then the method of delivery and distribution of the files we share will change,and all these aforementioned products/processes will become defunct,just remember it really wasn't that long ago we were all VHS video pirates!!
|the MPAA RIAA and all countries are morons, they sue the Downloaders, Uploaders, ISPs, Other countries, Random old women who dont even have internet, when all they have to do to stop it is Sue the Media player manufacturers, and then upgrade their DRM, and the whole problem is solved..... Yes it wont be totally eliminated, but it will be reduced 10 fold of these futile actions they are taking.|
|Lots to absorb, but having read the CIA/NSA Global Cyber strategy 2001-2011 and the manifesto of CYBER @ Fort meade I think people believe this has only just begun and not been happening in subtle ways for the past decade+,the USA already leases UK ministry of defence satellites amongst others,it already has spent 100`s of millions of dollars on the ground work including 106m on a new building at Fort Meade for Cyber,it won`t really have a strangle hold on ISP`s for a couple more years but there are already a lot of countries working with them (undermining their own security in the process)after false flag attacks on the Pentagon files and other bullsh1te put out to both Empower the Cyber strategy and to frighten other governments into believing they are an indispensable ally for their own future security and stability whilst not realising that they are being hoodwinked into turning their own control of the Internet solely over to American NSA and CIA,we should all relish the next couple of years of liberty on the web as the noose is tightening and Orwellian as it sounds BIG BROTHER is watching and getting ready to take our liberty and freedom from us in what we watch and do on the Internet.|
|The UN is a better choice for controlling the Internet than the US as their Global Cyber Strategy already dictates their intent and should this come about it won`t be the police knocking on your door, but armed troops with powers to search ,seize and detain Guantanomo Bay style,not to mention the censorship they will impose through ISP`s and the open propaganda and control of our media as is detailed in the Cyber manifesto and Global Cyber Strategy 2001-2011 CIA/NSA report,I have copies of both should anyone not be able to locate them. (:^D) I have done my bit in Helping secure Bit torrenting as [email protected] getting Parg to do the DHT plug in for Azureus as there was a call on the forums for decentralised torrenting,most now incorporate this into their application, but even IRC internoding and DHT will not be enough to stop big brother when they have Global Internet control and our collective goverments / countries are monitored by them.|
|posted by (2012-06-09 10:03:27)|
|thanks for the read SaM! wow how many of you are the 99% for the net?|
if you want some too change then change it! by letting it know all over the place.
we all have the net so use it why we can!!!!!!!!!!!!
or just sit back and let it happen!
|All of this makes me crack up, I'm surprised though that no one brought up what is probably the most pertinent / relevant factor. The United States isn't plotting or scheming to take over anything, and do you know why? Because WE DON'T HAVE TO. The Internet didn't just HAPPEN, it, along with just about every other modern technology you whining little cry babies enjoy on a daily basis was invented right here. We ALLOWED other countries access to OUR INTERNET, a PRIVILEGE we could revoke at the drop of a hat. You can bitch and moan all you want, call us names and blah blah blah, the fact of the matter is that if the rest of the worlds network was cut off from OUR INTERNET it would simply cease to function. Now I'm sure there is going to be a rash of responses to this, about how that isn't true and we could do this, and they could do that etc... I would only be able to sigh and wish it would actually happen some day so we could sit over here and laugh our asses off while the rest of you spent a decade coming to the grim realization that communications infrastructures don't run on delusional senses of self entitlement.|
The bottom line is that this entire discussion is a waste of time, any of you that actually believe that the US would or could ever be forced to give up control of anything are simply dreaming. No one is going to start a war over it, ignore for a minute the fact that if you any of you even so much as hinted at an attack we would crush your skulls for breakfast and then replace your government with a less self destructive one. Just think of how hypocritical you would all look, who would you blame for your inadequacies if we were no longer the worlds fall guy?
|Last time I've checked the Syrian president won't even listen to the UN never mind the whole world will be controlled by them . that's just a foolish idea and no countries want that happens.they should stick to the peace making ( if that's working ).|
|Well Well, as we know that until these things happen JESUS will not return, MAKE no mistake, when the UN take over the web, there will be a one world Government, one currency, one leader, it's just a matter of time, read Revelation, and YOU haters, don't hate me, JESUS was hated and was crucified, IT'S JUST A MATTER OF TIME.... IT MUST HAPPEN.....|
|posted by (2012-06-11 09:50:40)|
|'The Internet didn't just HAPPEN, it, along with just about every other modern technology you whining little cry babies enjoy on a daily basis was invented right here.' such ignorance, coupled with the foot stamping petulance of a 10 year old, 'We ALLOWED other countries access to OUR INTERNET, a PRIVILEGE we could revoke at the drop of a hat.' must make the intelligent people in the USA wince every time they read such gems of enlightenment.||
Most Popular Stories