PDA

View Full Version : U.N. to Seek Control of the Internet?



Retread
12-01-2012, 08:47 PM
Next week the United Nations' International Telecommunications Union will meet in Dubai to figure out how to control the Internet. Representatives from 193 nations will attend the nearly two week long meeting, according to news reports.

More (http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/un-seek-control-internet_664018.html)

JB
12-01-2012, 09:01 PM
Will Rice blame the out of control Internet on Al Gore and then apologize that an American invented it?

Janice
12-03-2012, 02:30 AM
One week we (0bama) hand(s) control of our military over to the UN and make them answerable to a world court. Another week we let the UN destroy the 2nd amendment. And another week, American citizens will be required to pay a tax to the UN. Still anther week 0bama asserts the authority to turn over private industry and the internet to this international agency. Where is any of this in the constitution? And how long should we expect before the cattle cars start arriving... hmm?

ReinMan
12-03-2012, 06:10 AM
One week we (0bama) hand(s) control of our military over to the UN and make them answerable to a world court. Another week we let the UN destroy the 2nd amendment. And another week, American citizens will be required to pay a tax to the UN. Still anther week 0bama asserts the authority to turn over private industry and the internet to this international agency. Where is any of this in the constitution? And how long should we expect before the cattle cars start arriving... hmm?

Aww, don't be so hard on Bammy!

He's just trying to transform the Office of the President of the United States from the hardest job in the world, to the easiest!

When the UN is finally 'the boss', he and all the other heads of state can organize into a union, and start striking for higher wages, longer vaca, etc.

It'll be a worker's utopian paradise, worldwide and top to bottom!

Janice
12-03-2012, 12:11 PM
http://i50.tinypic.com/6oojms.jpg
"Father of the internet" Vint Cerf claims the "free and open net is under threat"

UN internet regulation treaty talks begin in Dubai

Government regulators from 193 countries are in Dubai to revise a wide-ranging communications treaty.

Google has warned the event threatened the "open internet", while the EU said the current system worked, adding: "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."

But the agency said action was needed to ensure investment in infrastructure to help more people access the net.

"The brutal truth is that the internet remains largely [the] rich world's privilege, " said Dr Hamadoun Toure, secretary-general of the UN's International Telecommunications Union, ahead of the meeting.

"ITU wants to change that." >>>

The EU's digital agenda commissioner, Neelie Kroes, has called into question why the treaty needs to refer to the net.

"The internet works, it doesn't need to be regulated by ITR treaty," she tweeted.

Vint Cerf - the computer scientist who co-designed some of the internet's core underlying protocols and who now acts as Google's chief internet evangelist - has been even more vocal, penning a series of op-ed columns.

"A state-controlled system of regulation is not only unnecessary, it would almost invariably raise costs and prices and interfere with the rapid and organic growth of the internet we have seen since its commercial emergence in the 1990s," he wrote for CNN.

Google itself has also run an "open internet" petition alongside the claim: "Only governments have a voice at the ITU... engineers, companies, and people that build and use the web have no vote."


MORE@BBC.co.uk (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-20575844)

Molon Labe
12-03-2012, 12:46 PM
People should also be worried about our own government trying to get its hands into this. There are bills introduced every year right here that try to get the last vestige of pure freedom taken away.

Janice
12-03-2012, 01:41 PM
Global Governance Begins on December 14

Knowing who controls the UN, it is not hard to see that a primary aim of the updated "treaty" will be to give credence to the regulation and monitoring of online activity in ways that are desirable to the (authoritarian) majority of member states. >>>

This quiet UN takeover of the internet is the important first step in a new kind of occupation. The globalists, with the help of the re-elected Obama administration, are going to move forward quickly with their plans for what Al Gore and Herman van Rompuy call "global governance." A key part of this process is the reduction of the world's last defense against authoritarianism -- the United States of America -- to the status of just another mild-mannered vote at the UN. Enter Barack Obama, with his hyper-conciliation to the Muslim Brotherhood, his promise to Vladimir Putin to finish dismantling America's defenses after his re-election, and his remaking of a prosperous constitutional republic as an economically doomed leftist regulatory state.

Just as hyper-regulation within a nation subverts representative government, by creating a panoply of bureaucratic directives that supervene upon changing electoral tides, so international hyper-regulation will have the effect of nullifying any transnational voice of unified dissent -- specifically, any voice speaking on behalf of the free exchange of ideas.

The range of speech, both with regard to content and dissemination, will be curtailed by the ITU's proposed regulations. That will be the point of these regulations. They will help authoritarians preserve their power, prevent the oppressed from organizing from a distance, and restrict the much needed influx of moral support from abroad.

Now, Mr. Obama, if you will just sign one more executive order, Agenda 21 in its entirety will become "the law of the land," and the forced migration may proceed -- gently at first, as we don't want to startle anyone. But don't worry, if the objections get too boisterous, we can always assert the national security provisions of the International Telecommunications Regulations to tamp things down a little. Those ITRs are proving very effective for normalizing conditions in China, Russia, and Iran. And your Department of Homeland Security has already anticipated this eventuality by introducing into its guidelines on domestic terrorism language identifying people who revere liberty as potential security threats.

In any case, as November 6 proved, at least 140 million American adults can be effectively subdued by repeatedly chanting, "Don't run, we are your friends."

MORE@AmericanThinker (http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/12/lobal_governance_begins_on_december_14.html)

We are rapidly approaching freedom's point of no return.

Retread
12-04-2012, 12:37 AM
The country has been on a downhill slide since 1861. The only change in the slant of the slope.

Starbuck
12-04-2012, 11:16 AM
Control the Internet?

No. That's not what they want at all. They're playing games with your head. Listen:

One idea is to apply the ITU's long-distance telephone rules to the Internet by creating a 'sender-party-pays' rule. International phone calls include a fee from the originating country........authoritarians are pushing the tax,.........
They know they will never control it. What they want to do it tax it.

Odysseus
12-04-2012, 12:26 PM
Control the Internet?

No. That's not what they want at all. They're playing games with your head. Listen:

They know they will never control it. What they want to do it tax it.

No, they want to control it. The countries that are pushing this are Russia and China, which have seen massive dissent spread through a medium that they cannot control. China's economy is dependent on exports, but with global consumption down, they cannot maintain it, so they have to keep power by manipulating the Chinese people, and they cannot do that if the truth of their mismanagement of domestic policies comes out. Putin is running Russia like the KGB apparatchik that he is. He has banned all dissent and is using terror as a means of suppression, including the systematic murders of journalists and the jailing of rivals. The leadership of these countries cannot maintain control as long as information about their conduct threatens their power. The rest of the world's dictators would love to sign on, and make no mistake about it, the dictatorships outnumber the democrats. Throw in the various leftists in the democracies who see the internet as a threat to their hegemony, the various news outlets that have been constantly embarrassed by their failures to report news that has come out through alternative sources (Dan Rather would be all over this) and the Islamists who see this as a means to control dissent through the imposition of global laws against blasphemy and you have a perfect storm of totalitarian thought police banding together.

The taxes are just the icing on the cake. They get to control what we read, and tax us for the privilege.

Unreconstructed Reb
12-04-2012, 12:47 PM
The UN can have my interwebs when they pry it from my cold, dead hands!

Unreconstructed Reb
12-04-2012, 12:48 PM
The country has been on a downhill slide since 1861. The only change in the slant of the slope.

Why 1861?

JB
12-04-2012, 08:07 PM
Why 1861?I imagine it either has something to do with the War of Southern Aggression or Lincoln, who was sworn in in early 1861.

Retread
12-04-2012, 09:46 PM
More to do with the invasion of a sovereign state by federal troops with no authority.

Starbuck
12-04-2012, 10:56 PM
More to do with the invasion of a sovereign state by federal troops with no authority.

Yeah. Looking back I think a serious mistake was made by allowing the Feds to surrender Fort Sumter and leave without losing a single man. Probably shoulda just killed them all......:smile-new: Sends the best message, ya know.

Unreconstructed Reb
12-05-2012, 09:09 AM
More to do with the invasion of a sovereign state by federal troops with no authority.

Yeah, that's what I thought. War of Southern Aggression?!? That's cute.

The beginning of the end of states rights began with the election of Lincoln the Tyrant and was sealed on April 9, 1865. Without the 10th Amendment or the threat of secession the federal government had the power and arrogance to rule with an iron fist and that day has finally come.

Unreconstructed Reb
12-05-2012, 09:17 AM
Yeah. Looking back I think a serious mistake was made by allowing the Feds to surrender Fort Sumter and leave without losing a single man. Probably shoulda just killed them all......:smile-new: Sends the best message, ya know.

DisHonest Abe planned to invade the South, regardless of the outcome of the Sumter affair so perhaps the best lesson to take from dealing with the yankees/progressives/communists is to give no quarter.

Bailey
12-05-2012, 09:43 AM
More to do with the invasion of a sovereign state by federal troops with no authority.

Enough already, we get it, you're still sore from your pride (and ass) being spanked by freedom loving Northern forces.

Odysseus
12-05-2012, 09:50 AM
DisHonest Abe planned to invade the South, regardless of the outcome of the Sumter affair so perhaps the best lesson to take from dealing with the yankees/progressives/communists is to give no quarter.

http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instances/400x/25452521.jpg

The UN is working to eliminate free speech on a global scale, and you're refighting FT Sumpter? Really?

Unreconstructed Reb
12-05-2012, 03:02 PM
Enough already, we get it, you're still sore from your pride (and ass) being spanked by freedom loving Northern forces.

How do you justify calling them 'freedom loving' when they subjugated a nation of people who had declared their independence?

Unreconstructed Reb
12-05-2012, 03:09 PM
The UN is working to eliminate free speech on a global scale, and you're refighting FT Sumpter? Really?

That's a bit dramatic, isn't it?

So, instead, I should post on a website my horror at the UN's attempts to install a global government and subjugate the people of all nations and the simple act of that post will make a monumental difference. -snicker-

Odysseus
12-05-2012, 06:41 PM
That's a bit dramatic, isn't it?

So, instead, I should post on a website my horror at the UN's attempts to install a global government and subjugate the people of all nations and the simple act of that post will make a monumental difference. -snicker-

Let me put it another way: It's absurdly beside the point. There is a real threat to the free flow of information globally, due to the UN and its enablers, and our liberties are in serious jeopardy. Your posting on the topic will probably make very little difference, but hijacking the thread into a completely pointless rehash of the Civil War will guarantee it. Nobody is stopping you from starting a Civil War thread, but it isn't the subject of this thread.

JB
12-05-2012, 06:50 PM
DisHonest Abe planned to invade the South, regardless of the outcome of the Sumter affair so perhaps the best lesson to take from dealing with the yankees/progressives/communists is to give no quarter.Yes, yes. We need more posts like this on here. Keep 'em coming.

m00
12-05-2012, 10:02 PM
"U.N. to Seek Control of the Internet?"

Yes.

Unreconstructed Reb
12-06-2012, 01:32 PM
Let me put it another way: It's absurdly beside the point. There is a real threat to the free flow of information globally, due to the UN and its enablers, and our liberties are in serious jeopardy. Your posting on the topic will probably make very little difference, but hijacking the thread into a completely pointless rehash of the Civil War will guarantee it. Nobody is stopping you from starting a Civil War thread, but it isn't the subject of this thread.

If you'll slowly read through the thread, from the beginning, especially post #14, you'll find that the events leading up to, and especially following, the war between the Confederacy and the US Federal Government is quite applicable to the topic.

Now, I must repectfully suggest that it is you who has hijacked the tread by attempting to severely limit the discussion to your narrow range.

Starbuck
12-06-2012, 02:02 PM
The United nations seems to be morphing into something altogether different than its original intent. Originally, it was thought to be a forum of sorts, where countries could hash out their differences without declaring war and killing each other.

But now it wants to become a governing body. The United Nations is no longer content with its role as a meeting place for Kings. Now, it would like to become King itself, and enable itself to pass laws which all members are compelled to obey.

If it succeeds, it will then feel empowered to pass provisions for punishing those who do not obey the laws it has passed. And that punishment would most likely be in the form of taxes. So, it wants to pass laws restricting use of the internet, monitor the efficacy of its laws through taxes, and provide for monetary punishment of any offenders.

We should lock the doors of The U.N. building now, before the building itself comes to life and achieves self awareness.:adoration:

Janice
12-13-2012, 10:47 PM
http://i49.tinypic.com/5uwzm.png

U.N. Conference Slyly Introduces Resolution to Gain Control of Internet—in Middle of Night
Dec 12, 2012

In the middle of the night at a U.N. conference in Dubai, the presiding chairman of the International Telecommunication Union conference surveyed the assembled countries to see whether there was interest in having greater involvement in the U.N. governing the Internet. A majority of countries gave their approval.

With a sufficient majority supporting the U.N. becoming more active in controlling the Internet, the chairman put forth a resolution. >>> The resolution was supported by Cuba, Algeria, Nigeria, Saudi Arabia >>>

"While it is our understanding that the resolutions made at the WCIT are non-binding, the Secretary-General might treat them as binding, which effectively creates a dangerous mandate for the ITU >>>

Given the shady nature of the middle-of-the-night introduction of the resolution, it's unclear how ITU conference will proceed.

TheWeeklyStandard (http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/middle-night-un-conference-slyly-introduces-resolution-gain-some-control-internet_666391.html)

Yeah, Im sure theyre all staying over to conference about this because .... what? It means nothing??