Author Topic: ALERT - United Nations To Seize Control Of Internet ?!?  (Read 9816 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Scancast

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 119
  • US Scancast
    • US Scancast Nationwide Scanner Net
ALERT - United Nations To Seize Control Of Internet ?!?
« on: February 22, 2012, 08:05:27 am »
ALERT - United Nations To Seize Control Of Internet ?!?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M5WM1BUzxsk

Video Links -

The U.N. Threat To Internet Freedom
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204792404577229074023195322.html

U.S. DECLARES WAR ON IRAN (02/17/2012)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nV1sk9mSJEY

U.N. Nuke Agency Reports Failed Iran Talks (02/21/2012)
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2012/02/21/un-nuclear-agency-says-iran-blocking-probe-into-atomic-work/
US Scancast Nationwide Scanner Net
http://scancast.webs.com

YouTube Channel
http://www.youtube.com/user/USScancast

Offline Satyagraha

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8,941
Re: ALERT - United Nations To Seize Control Of Internet ?!?
« Reply #1 on: February 22, 2012, 08:16:41 am »
The U.N. Threat to Internet Freedom
Top-down, international regulation is antithetical to the Net, which has flourished under its current governance model.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204792404577229074023195322.html
FEBRUARY 21, 2012

By ROBERT M. MCDOWELL

On Feb. 27, a diplomatic process will begin in Geneva that could result in a new treaty giving the United Nations unprecedented powers over the Internet. Dozens of countries, including Russia and China, are pushing hard to reach this goal by year's end. As Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin said last June, his goal and that of his allies is to establish "international control over the Internet" through the International Telecommunication Union (ITU), a treaty-based organization under U.N. auspices.

If successful, these new regulatory proposals would upend the Internet's flourishing regime, which has been in place since 1988. That year, delegates from 114 countries gathered in Australia to agree to a treaty that set the stage for dramatic liberalization of international telecommunications. This insulated the Internet from economic and technical regulation and quickly became the greatest deregulatory success story of all time.

Since the Net's inception, engineers, academics, user groups and others have convened in bottom-up nongovernmental organizations to keep it operating and thriving through what is known as a "multi-stakeholder" governance model. This consensus-driven private-sector approach has been the key to the Net's phenomenal success.

In 1995, shortly after it was privatized, only 16 million people used the Internet world-wide. By 2011, more than two billion were online—and that number is growing by as much as half a million every day. This explosive growth is the direct result of governments generally keeping their hands off the Internet sphere.

Net access, especially through mobile devices, is improving the human condition more quickly—and more fundamentally—than any other technology in history. Nowhere is this more true than in the developing world, where unfettered Internet technologies are expanding economies and raising living standards.

Farmers who live far from markets are now able to find buyers for their crops through their Internet-connected mobile devices without assuming the risks and expenses of traveling with their goods. Worried parents are able to go online to locate medicine for their sick children. And proponents of political freedom are better able to share information and organize support to break down the walls of tyranny.

The Internet has also been a net job creator. A recent McKinsey study found that for every job disrupted by Internet connectivity, 2.6 new jobs are created. It is no coincidence that these wonderful developments blossomed as the Internet migrated further away from government control.

Today, however, Russia, China and their allies within the 193 member states of the ITU want to renegotiate the 1988 treaty to expand its reach into previously unregulated areas. Reading even a partial list of proposals that could be codified into international law next December at a conference in Dubai is chilling:

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;

• Regulate international mobile roaming rates and practices.

Many countries in the developing world, including India and Brazil, are particularly intrigued by these ideas. Even though Internet-based technologies are improving billions of lives everywhere, some governments feel excluded and want more control.

And let's face it, strong-arm regimes are threatened by popular outcries for political freedom that are empowered by unfettered Internet connectivity. They have formed impressive coalitions, and their efforts have progressed significantly.

Merely saying "no" to any changes to the current structure of Internet governance is likely to be a losing proposition. A more successful strategy would be for proponents of Internet freedom and prosperity within every nation to encourage a dialogue among all interested parties, including governments and the ITU, to broaden the multi-stakeholder umbrella with the goal of reaching consensus to address reasonable concerns. As part of this conversation, we should underscore the tremendous benefits that the Internet has yielded for the developing world through the multi-stakeholder model.

Upending this model with a new regulatory treaty is likely to partition the Internet as some countries would inevitably choose to opt out. A balkanized Internet would be devastating to global free trade and national sovereignty. It would impair Internet growth most severely in the developing world but also globally as technologists are forced to seek bureaucratic permission to innovate and invest. This would also undermine the proliferation of new cross-border technologies, such as cloud computing.

A top-down, centralized, international regulatory overlay is antithetical to the architecture of the Net, which is a global network of networks without borders. No government, let alone an intergovernmental body, can make engineering and economic decisions in lightning-fast Internet time. Productivity, rising living standards and the spread of freedom everywhere, but especially in the developing world, would grind to a halt as engineering and business decisions become politically paralyzed within a global regulatory body.

Any attempts to expand intergovernmental powers over the Internet—no matter how incremental or seemingly innocuous—should be turned back. Modernization and reform can be constructive, but not if the end result is a new global bureaucracy that departs from the multi-stakeholder model. Enlightened nations should draw a line in the sand against new regulations while welcoming reform that could include a nonregulatory role for the ITU.

Pro-regulation forces are, thus far, much more energized and organized than those who favor the multi-stakeholder approach. Regulation proponents only need to secure a simple majority of the 193 member states to codify their radical and counterproductive agenda. Unlike the U.N. Security Council, no country can wield a veto in ITU proceedings. With this in mind, some estimate that approximately 90 countries could be supporting intergovernmental Net regulation—a mere seven short of a majority.

While precious time ticks away, the U.S. has not named a leader for the treaty negotiation. We must awake from our slumber and engage before it is too late. Not only do these developments have the potential to affect the daily lives of all Americans, they also threaten freedom and prosperity across the globe.

Mr. McDowell is a commissioner of the Federal Communications Commission.

Alex spoke of this back in 2010: Alex was right, this is happening:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&NR=1&v=kmsODwISwlw
And  the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, 
Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren,  ye have done it unto me.

Matthew 25:40

Offline Dok

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 21,269
    • end times and current events
Re: ALERT - United Nations To Seize Control Of Internet ?!?
« Reply #2 on: February 22, 2012, 08:19:43 am »
The UN To Use Appropriate and Gradual Force In Gun Confiscation

The United Nations and their affiliated Non Governmental Organizations continually claim that their arms control treaty efforts are not directed at curtailing legal private ownership of guns. But, the United Nations has instituted 10 day Training Courses designed to help implement international “treaties” for gun control in Jamaica and throughout the Caribbean. Each session is led by a UN gun control training staff member. The course’s objectives are to give police technical skills related to firearms identification, ammunition and explosives, and to train the first responders in appropriate and gradual use of force and practical disarmament measures.

Yes, you read that right. According to a nondescript United Nations website, they will use the appropriate and gradual use of force in disarming gun owners. Just exactly what is this “appropriate and gradual use of force?” 

They have apparently put a portion of the training to use in Jamaica. They have to start somewhere. Here's what is happening there. In a possibly related warm up exercise, 4,000 firearms were destroyed in Jamaica in early February under the auspices and close support of the UN Center For Peace, Disarmament and Development in Latin America and the Caribbean. (UNLIREC)

rest: http://armedselfdefense.blogspot.com/2012/02/un-to-use-appropriate-and-gradual-force.html


The United Nations Wants To Crash The World Economy In Order To Save The Environment

The United Nations says that the earth is in great danger and that the way you and I are living is the problem.  In a shocking new report entitled, "Resilient People, Resilient Planet: A Future Worth Choosing" the UN declares that the entire way that we currently approach economics needs to be changed.  Instead of focusing on things like "economic growth", the UN is encouraging nations all over the world to start basing measurements of economic success on the goal of achieving "sustainable development".  But there is a huge problem with that.  The UN says that what we are doing right now is "unsustainable" by definition, and the major industrialized nations of the western world are the biggest culprits.  According to the UN, since we are the ones that create the most carbon emissions and the most pollution, we are the ones that should make the biggest sacrifices.  In addition, since we have the most money, we should also be willing to finance the transition of the developing world to a "sustainable development" economy as well.  As you will see detailed in the rest of this article, the United Nations basically wants to crash the world economy in order to save the environment.  Considering the fact that the U.S. and Europe are in the midst of a horrible economic crisis and are already drowning in debt, this is something that we simply cannot afford.

There is certainly nothing wrong with taking care of the environment.  But what the United Nations wants is a fundamental restructuring of the global economy based on flawed science.

In this new UN report, we find the following statement....

rest: http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/the-united-nations-wants-to-crash-the-world-economy-in-order-to-save-the-environment
HOW TO BE SAVED
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/how_to_be_saved.html

Ye Must Be Born Again!
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Basics/ye_must_be_born_again.htm

True Salvation & the TRUE Gospel/Good News!
http://www.contendingfortruth.com/?p=1060

how to avoid censorship ;)

Offline Satyagraha

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8,941
Re: ALERT - United Nations To Seize Control Of Internet ?!?
« Reply #3 on: February 22, 2012, 08:48:14 am »
NOW WE KNOW EXACTLY WHAT PSYCHOPATH JAY ROCKEFELLER MEANT WHEN HE SAID THE FOLLOWING....




Senator (D-WV) John D. Rockefeller IV
[In refererence to why he believes the Internet should not exist]
Wednesday, March 18th, 2009
Commerce Secretary Confirmation Hearing:

[...1:53...]
Both the President Bushs'  Director of National Intelligence, Mike McConnell who I greatly respect, and President Obama's Director of National Intelligence, Admiral (Dennis) Blair, who I greatly respect, have labelled cyber security, perpetrated through the
internet,
as
the #1 national hazard of attack
on the homeland
[...]
It almost makes you ask the question, 'would it have been better if
we'd never invented the internet?'.
[...1:57...]
And it threatens the nation
unlike anything else.
More so than...
suitcase booms,
dirty bombs,
plutonium bombs.
This is what threatens us.
I lay that down as a major, major subject.



[Care of the prison planet forum resident graphics artist Brocke]
And  the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, 
Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren,  ye have done it unto me.

Matthew 25:40

Offline John_Back_From_The_Club_O

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9,166
    • From Hell to Veins
The UN Wants To Be 'Ultimate Authority' Over The Internet.
« Reply #4 on: February 22, 2012, 10:40:12 pm »
The U.N. Threat to Internet Free
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204792404577229074023195322.html

On Feb. 27, a diplomatic process will begin in Geneva that could result in a new treaty giving the United Nations unprecedented powers over the Internet. Dozens of countries, including Russia and China, are pushing hard to reach this goal by year's end. As Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin said last June, his goal and that of his allies is to establish "international control over the Internet" through the International Telecommunication Union (ITU), a treaty-based organization under U.N. auspices.

If successful, these new regulatory proposals would upend the Internet's flourishing regime, which has been in place since 1988. That year, delegates from 114 countries gathered in Australia to agree to a treaty that set the stage for dramatic liberalization of international telecommunications. This insulated the Internet from economic and technical regulation and quickly became the greatest deregulatory success story of all time.

Since the Net's inception, engineers, academics, user groups and others have convened in bottom-up nongovernmental organizations to keep it operating and thriving through what is known as a "multi-stakeholder" governance model. This consensus-driven private-sector approach has been the key to the Net's phenomenal success.

In 1995, shortly after it was privatized, only 16 million people used the Internet world-wide. By 2011, more than two billion were online—and that number is growing by as much as half a million every day. This explosive growth is the direct result of governments generally keeping their hands off the Internet sphere.

Net access, especially through mobile devices, is improving the human condition more quickly—and more fundamentally—than any other technology in history. Nowhere is this more true than in the developing world, where unfettered Internet technologies are expanding economies and raising living standards.



Farmers who live far from markets are now able to find buyers for their crops through their Internet-connected mobile devices without assuming the risks and expenses of traveling with their goods. Worried parents are able to go online to locate medicine for their sick children. And proponents of political freedom are better able to share information and organize support to break down the walls of tyranny.

The Internet has also been a net job creator. A recent McKinsey study found that for every job disrupted by Internet connectivity, 2.6 new jobs are created. It is no coincidence that these wonderful developments blossomed as the Internet migrated further away from government control.

Today, however, Russia, China and their allies within the 193 member states of the ITU want to renegotiate the 1988 treaty to expand its reach into previously unregulated areas. Reading even a partial list of proposals that could be codified into international law next December at a conference in Dubai is chilling:

• 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;

• Regulate international mobile roaming rates and practices.

Many countries in the developing world, including India and Brazil, are particularly intrigued by these ideas. Even though Internet-based technologies are improving billions of lives everywhere, some governments feel excluded and want more control.

And let's face it, strong-arm regimes are threatened by popular outcries for political freedom that are empowered by unfettered Internet connectivity. They have formed impressive coalitions, and their efforts have progressed significantly.

Merely saying "no" to any changes to the current structure of Internet governance is likely to be a losing proposition. A more successful strategy would be for proponents of Internet freedom and prosperity within every nation to encourage a dialogue among all interested parties, including governments and the ITU, to broaden the multi-stakeholder umbrella with the goal of reaching consensus to address reasonable concerns. As part of this conversation, we should underscore the tremendous benefits that the Internet has yielded for the developing world through the multi-stakeholder model.

Upending this model with a new regulatory treaty is likely to partition the Internet as some countries would inevitably choose to opt out. A balkanized Internet would be devastating to global free trade and national sovereignty. It would impair Internet growth most severely in the developing world but also globally as technologists are forced to seek bureaucratic permission to innovate and invest. This would also undermine the proliferation of new cross-border technologies, such as cloud computing.

A top-down, centralized, international regulatory overlay is antithetical to the architecture of the Net, which is a global network of networks without borders. No government, let alone an intergovernmental body, can make engineering and economic decisions in lightning-fast Internet time. Productivity, rising living standards and the spread of freedom everywhere, but especially in the developing world, would grind to a halt as engineering and business decisions become politically paralyzed within a global regulatory body.

Any attempts to expand intergovernmental powers over the Internet—no matter how incremental or seemingly innocuous—should be turned back. Modernization and reform can be constructive, but not if the end result is a new global bureaucracy that departs from the multi-stakeholder model. Enlightened nations should draw a line in the sand against new regulations while welcoming reform that could include a nonregulatory role for the ITU.

Pro-regulation forces are, thus far, much more energized and organized than those who favor the multi-stakeholder approach. Regulation proponents only need to secure a simple majority of the 193 member states to codify their radical and counterproductive agenda. Unlike the U.N. Security Council, no country can wield a veto in ITU proceedings. With this in mind, some estimate that approximately 90 countries could be supporting intergovernmental Net regulation—a mere seven short of a majority.

While precious time ticks away, the U.S. has not named a leader for the treaty negotiation. We must awake from our slumber and engage before it is too late. Not only do these developments have the potential to affect the daily lives of all Americans, they also threaten freedom and prosperity across the globe.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
UN about to take control of the Internet. Forget SOPA - this is international control - Forget Privacy - Seems "One World Government" is coming together.
http://sherriequestioningall.blogspot.com/2012/02/un-about-to-take-control-of-internet.html

With people all over the world standing up to the tyranny of the banks through all the governments and the information getting out to others around the world.... The governments want to stop the information.

All the countries are actually ruled by the banks which are actually all owned by the same people.  So they are now consolidating the power into the UN, so they don't have the hassle of dealing with all the individual countries.  The UN is seriously about to be the "One World Government."

The UN is looking to be the "Police" of the internet with individual countries releasing their own control.



On Feb. 27, a diplomatic process will begin in Geneva that could result in a new treaty giving the United Nations unprecedented powers over the Internet. Dozens of countries, including Russia and China, are pushing hard to reach this goal by year's end. As Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin said last June, his goal and that of his allies is to establish "international control over the Internet" through the International Telecommunication Union (ITU), a treaty-based organization under U.N. auspices.

• 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;

• Regulate international mobile roaming rates and practices.

This is why the Congress and Senate didn't care about the SOPA bill not getting through.  The UN will control the internet.

It seems countries are now relinquishing individual sovereignty more and more to the UN.  They are even discussing having a "One World Court"  a "One World Regulatory Banking".

In other words the "One World Government" is coming together via the UN.

Is this why they will attack all countries that are not willing to be part of the "One World Government?"
The Crowd Shouted... “Give us Barabbas!” ... and People, The NWO Gave Him To You.
http://www.dominicanajournal.org/give-us-barabbas/

https://www.greatagain.gov

Offline chris jones

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 21,817
Re: ALERT - United Nations To Seize Control Of Internet ?!?
« Reply #5 on: February 23, 2012, 05:56:51 pm »
 The U.N. is the attack dog not the master, they take orders.
These UN reps are deep into the game, I have a feeling they understand that they  remain on a safe and privileged plateau as long as they go along.
 To take a stand against the true powers, to blow the whistle, would in my opinion be their undoing and shorten their lifespan. All they have to do is play ball- puppets can have their strings cut.
 The middle east is on fire, however the smoke is clouding a clear vision, the USA is the primary target. This is global, yes, but we are the nucleus. So many great men have said through the years the only way to take down our nation is from within, this tactic requires global influence.
 I can't put aside the fact the last men who stood against these power freaks were assassinated, my point being these UN-ers are well aware of the consequences if they should disobey.
 There is now one man who has the courage to stand up and tell the people of this nation the truth against all odds,  GO *Ron Paul.