Texas CISPA Bill Scheduled for Monday Vote
The Texas CISPA bill, approved unanimously by the House last week, may be passed by the Legislature within 24 hours. It has been scheduled for a vote on Monday.
The bill, now slightly altered SB 1052 in the Senate, does the following:
- Requires any Internet provider that serves Texans to hand over private communication and files.
- Sets no standard for warrants for such seizures, enabling arbitrary violations of Texans’ privacy.
- Forces Internet providers to respond within 15-30 days (and sometimes 4-30), giving them almost no time to protect information not targeted.
- Makes it a crime for an officer, director or owner of a company to not comply with the request within the 15-30 day window.
- Opens the door to politically-motivated seizures of online communication.
(via seattle-gadgets)
Infowars: U.N.’s ITU pursues Internet control — again — this week
Violet Blue
zdnet.com
May 13, 2013The Fifth World Telecommunication/ICT Policy Forum (“WTPF-13″) will be held in Geneva, Switzerland, this week for three days, May 14-16.
As with the bellicose WCIT-12 (the U.N.’s 2012 World Conference on International Telecommunications) last December in Dubai and its accompanying protests and dramatic walkout by the U.S. delegation, this Forum will be run by the United Nations notoriously dubious telecommunications arm, the ITU.
WTPF-13 — with its Twitter hashtag #WTPF13 and counter-tag #OpWTF — is ITU’s final preparation forThe 2014 ITU Plenipotentiary Conference (“PP-14″), ITU’s Fall 2014 plenipotentiary meeting.
In February, outgoing U.S. Federal Communications Commissioner Robert McDowell testified to Congress in a joint U.S. House subcommittee hearing on international Internet governance that U.N.’s ITU Internet plans “must be stopped.”
What is CISPA? (by LibertyNewsNetwork1)
What is CISPA?
The Cyber Intelligence Sharing & Protection Act is a proposed bill that will essentially give the government, private security agencies, and corporations the right to anonymously access your private information on your computer and let them do with it what they please. The bill was proposed in hopes to cut down on piracy, but CISPA poses much more problems for citizens than actually fixing them.
UN Pushes Plan To Assume Internet Governance Role
From Slashdot:
no0b writes with an Op-Ed by the FCC Commisioner on a UN plan to gain more control over Internet regulation. From the article: “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. ” BoingBoing offers a slightly different perspective; The Register offers a quite different perspective.
And people thought censorship was an issue now. What do you think would happen if the UN gets its hooks into it. Plus UN hates free market trade. They will do anything possible to hamper that on the internet. Like over the top regulation.
The UN also for a long time wanted to enact a internet tax. With them assuming control. They could very well do that. One of these taxes they would love to do is based around e-mail.
The World Trade Origination who came up with the ACTA treaty is an arm of the UN. With the UN controlling the internet. They can enact the ACTA with out any support from other nations. They can do it all on their own. Scary idea.
They could also enact controls over free speech. Like banning conspiracy theory’s, like what Cass Sunstein has wanted to for a while. Or halt free speech because it hurts some one else feelings.
UN, leave it be!!!!
Copyright Industry Calls For Broad Search Engine Controls
From Slashdot.org:
The copyright battles going on right now are not all about SOPA, PIPA, or even the wider-reaching ACTA: suraj.sun snips thus from TorrentFreak: “At a behind-closed-doors meeting facilitated by the UK Department for Culture, Media and Sport, copyright holders have handed out a list of demands to Google, Bing and Yahoo. To curb the growing piracy problem, Hollywood and the major music labels want the search engines to de-list popular filesharing sites such as The Pirate Bay, and give higher ranking to authorized sites. … If the copyright industry had their way, Google and other search engines would no longer link to sites such as The Pirate Bay and isoHunt. In a detailed proposal handed out during a meeting with Google, Yahoo and Bing, various copyright holders made their demands clear. The document, which describes a government-overlooked ‘Voluntary Code of Practice’ for search engines, was not intended for public consumption but the Open Rights Group obtained it through a Freedom of Information (FOI) request.”
Rose by any other name would be called censorship. If they can do this. What other things will they demand from search engines? Will they make certain worlds illegal to use in a search?
Image via CrunchBase
Are You Ready For The Universal Internet ID That Barack Obama Wants To Impose On All Of Us?
The American Dream
Jan 20, 2011The Obama administration is developing a “universal Internet ID” program that would watch, track, monitor and potentially control your activity on the Internet. These“trusted identities” are being touted as a way to increase safety and security on the Internet and as a way to eliminate the need for dozens of different usernames and passwords. But is a universal Internet ID that is issued and controlled by the U.S. government really a good idea? Right now, Obama administration officials are trying to make it seem as non-threatening as possible. They are insisting that it will not be mandatory. They are insisting that it would be impossible for hackers to steal the universal Internet identities. They are insisting that none of our personal information will be gathered or used by federal agencies. But in light of how regularly the government has abused our liberties and freedoms in recent years in the name of “security”, should we really believe what they are saying about this new universal Internet ID?
Perhaps to assuage concerns about “Big Brother”, the Obama administration is proposing that the U.S. Commerce Department be the one to oversee these new universal Internet identities.
But how long do you think it would take for the Department of Homeland Security (along with several dozen other government agencies) to get involved in “administering” these “trusted identities”?
The potential for government abuse of such a system is absolutely staggering. As we have seen so many times over the past few years, when you give government bureaucrats an inch, often they end up taking several miles.
Via - http://www.prisonplanet.com/
ACTA Explained - Spread the Word (by btb617)
ACTA will ruin the Internet as we know it. Spread this video as much as you can to let the public know about it so we can try to stop it. SOPA is nearly dead but the government will never stop trying to take our rights away unless we fight!
Discussion of the Bill:
http://reddit.com/r/acta
ACTA Petitions:
http://www.stopp-acta.info/english/get+involved/petition/petition.html
ACTA Secret: Obama Lord of the RIAA Copyright Trolls Movie Trailer Mike Mozart STEAL THIS VIDEO! (by JeepersMedia)
ACTA is being Created by the Nest of RIAA Copyright Trolls the USA President Obama Hand Picked for his Department of Justice!
SIGN the FREE RICHARD O’DWYER Online Petition! http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/stop-extradition-fair-uk-trial-for-richar…
The RIAA hand Picked Copyright Trolls are Crafting and controlling these laws Worldwide and USA President Obama gave them ALL the Power and Money to Do it!
LINKS;
Obama Appoint the 5th RIAA Attorney
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/04/obama-taps-fift/
Obama: Stop Filling Administration with RIAA Insiders
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/04/obama-stop-fill/
Obama Supports 150,000 fine per infringed work
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/03/obama-sides-wit-2/
Obama Declares Proposed IP Treaty a “National Security Secret”
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/03/obama-declares
Obama Supports the RIAA Against Jammie Rasset Thomas
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10201831-38.html
Obama Proves He Is an RIAA Lapdog
http://ilikekillnerds.com/2011/01/obama-proves-he-is-an-riaa-lapdog/
Obama Supports $150,000 Per Infringed Work Wired
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/03/obama-sides-wit-2/
Obama Keep Filling the DOJ with RIAA Attorneys
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/04/obama-keep-fill/
Ron Paul wants to kill indefinite detention provision of the NDAA
(NaturalNews) You may not agree with him on every foreign and domestic policy point, but you can’t deny the fact that Congressman Ron Paul from Texas is the most consistent, literal interpreter of the U.S. Constitution in the current race for the Republican presidential nomination. In fact, it can be truthfully said he’s the most ardent constitutionalist running in either party
ACTA is another big threat to our freedom of speech and privacy that many are unaware of. Unlike SOPA and PIPA, it will affect over 35 countries (including the US, Canada, and a good portion of Europe). Reblog and repost this as many times as you can.
![sinidentidades:
anticapitalist:
anticapitalist:
(highres)
“I see your SOPA and I raise you one ACTA”
ACTA is like SOPA, but worse.
From Wikipedia:
The Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) is a proposed plurilateral agreement for the purpose of establishing international standards on intellectual property rights enforcement.[1] ACTA would establish a new international legal framework that countries can join on a voluntary basis[2] and would create its own governing body outside existing international institutions such as the World Trade Organization (WTO), the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) or theUnited Nations.[1][3] Negotiating countries have described it as a response “to the increase in global trade of counterfeit goods and pirated copyright protected works.”[2] The scope of ACTA includes counterfeit goods, generic medicines and copyright infringement on the Internet.[4]
spread this shit around.
It’s important.
Both PIPA and ACTA are still legitimate threats, you guys. Reblog the hell out of this.](http://www.derechoaleer.org/images/2011/acta-eu/acta-eu-950.png)
“I see your SOPA and I raise you one ACTA”
ACTA is like SOPA, but worse.
From Wikipedia:
The Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) is a proposed plurilateral agreement for the purpose of establishing international standards on intellectual property rights enforcement.[1] ACTA would establish a new international legal framework that countries can join on a voluntary basis[2] and would create its own governing body outside existing international institutions such as the World Trade Organization (WTO), the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) or theUnited Nations.[1][3] Negotiating countries have described it as a response “to the increase in global trade of counterfeit goods and pirated copyright protected works.”[2] The scope of ACTA includes counterfeit goods, generic medicines and copyright infringement on the Internet.[4]
spread this shit around.
It’s important.
Both PIPA and ACTA are still legitimate threats, you guys. Reblog the hell out of this.
(via glitchthemachine)
Why is it good to do this?
Image via Wikipedia
People who complain about an overbearing goverment. Were it spies on you. Bails out banks and other interests the political elite like. Say the MIAA and RIAA and a prime examples.
Yet lot of these same people instead of supporting less goverment, less regulation. Want more goverment to fix the broken goverment.
I do not understand that. Why build more on a broken foundation? That would just lead to more collapse of our society. Would you build a house on a cracked foundation? I know I would not.
One example comes to mind of bad ideas in this area. I have been an opponent of Protect IP act and ACTA treaty along with some other smiler laws for a long time. A lot of people who are also against these stupid and liberty steeling laws. Also support Net Neutrality a regulation and liberty steeling law too.
Even if Net Neutrality was a good thing. Why is it a good thing to support a law that would be ran by the FCC. Who has had a long history of censorship? A long history of going beyond its stated mission. When our own goverment has given Federal agencies the right to create laws under the broad term of “Regulation”.
Like everything the goverment does. Laws like this, are ran were one size fits all. In the private world. Business and non-profits are able to customize what they are providing to the public. Government by its nature can’t do this, and wont do this. This Net Neutrality will be enforced has harshly on the big providers as it would be on the small town ISP. At least the big providers can eat some of these costs a law like this would have. The small town ISP would not. It would have to be bought out or die on the vine.
This one size fits all does not work for content. It is logical video is going to take up more resources then a jpeg image of your dog. There for it is going to cost more to do video. Its classic economics. Even a Austrian and a Keynesian economist can agree on this point. It is also assumed that a provider would base price on content. I do not think it is a forgone conclusion. The only place you see this happening to any degree is in the Cellphone market.
If this type thing worked in the free market. Why did the internet world move away from charging based on the hour like what we had in the 90s? Were ISPs like AOL would give you 250 hours of service a month. People wanted more so providers went to a monthly flat rate. Like what we see now from most places in the USA.
Another issue I fear. a piling up on all these regulations. ISPs will start failing and dieing. Then some bright collectivist in the goverment or media will say, “Gee why don’t we have the goverment run the internet. After all the internet is to big to fail. The goverment can protect our free speech on the net”. Like what they are saying now with Net Neutrality.
That would not be good for anyone. Now the goverment would have complet control of a free speech zone. A place were they could regulate what can be said and done. Just think of the protests in the public parks happening now and how the law is cracking down on the protesters.
I already heard rumblings that the goverment wants any one who makes content for the internet, to have a broadcaster like license. Were that license would have all kinds of strings attached. On top of the extremely high costs a license like this would have.
As the classic saying goes. Two wrong do not make a right. You can not say one controlling law is better and should replace another controlling regulation.
ACTA Signed By 8 of 11 Participating Countries
Image by k.l.macke via Flickr
What is the sickest about this on top of losing out internet freedoms? The fact this treaty was signed by the USA with out the Senate even having the right to vote. Obama has basically said he has all the right in the word to sign any treaty he wants and then enforce it. Freedom is dead in our nation.
What makes this even worse. The courts have ruled. Treaties trump our own constitution. So throw treaty this slime bag will sign away our freedoms.
Then on top of all of this. This treaty has no due process. All you have to have happen as a internet user. Is accused. That is all it takes. 10 accusations and you lose your internet. On top of everything else that is secretly done to write this treaty.
From Slashdot.org:
An anonymous reader writes with this news on the ACTA treaty, straight from the EFF’s release on the news: “On Saturday October 1st, eight countries (the United States, Australia, Canada, Japan, Morocco, New Zealand, Singapore, and South Korea) signed the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) in Tokyo, Japan. Three of the participating countries (the European Union, Mexico, and Switzerland) have not yet signed the treaty, but have issued a joint statement affirming their intentions to sign it ‘as soon as practicable.’ ACTA will remain open for signature until May 2013. While the treaty’s title might suggest that it deals only with counterfeit physical goods such as medicines, it is in fact far broader in scope. ACTA contains new potential obligations for Internet intermediaries, requiring them to police the Internet and their users, which in turn pose significant concerns for citizens’ privacy, freedom of expression, and fair use rights.”
- ACTA Signed By 8 of 11 Participating Countries (yro.slashdot.org)
- ACTA To Be Signed This Weekend (yro.slashdot.org)
- U.S. Senator Wyden Raises Constitutional Questions About ACTA (yro.slashdot.org)
- ACTA Signed by 8 of 11 Countries - Now What? (eff.org)
- Out ACTA-ing ACTA: All TPP Negotiating Documents To Be Kept Secret Until Four Years After Ratification (opendotdotdot.blogspot.com)
- Canada Signs ACTA: What Comes Next (michaelgeist.ca)
- Links - ACTA SIGNED! (techrights.org)
- Will ACTA Be Killed in the EU? | La Quadrature du Net x GSGBlog (gonzalosangil.wordpress.com)
- Canada May Not Be Signing ACTA This Weekend (michaelgeist.ca)
- Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement slouches toward signing on Saturday (arstechnica.com)
- ACTA Signed by Eight Nations - USTR States that ACTA is Consistent with US Law and Doesn’t Need Congressional Approval (donttradeourlivesaway.wordpress.com)
U.S. Senator Wyden Raises Constitutional Questions About ACTA
Image via Wikipedia
Will sense when did Obama care about law and the Constitution? This is just another notch on his belt for big goverment and fascism and all other one world order critters.
Slashdot:
bs0d3 writes “In a written letter which can be found here, U.S. Senator Ron Wyden questions President Obama’s authority to sign ACTA without Congressional approval. ‘It may be possible for the U.S. to implement ACTA or any other trade agreement, once validly entered, without legislation if the agreement requires no change in U.S. law,’ Wyden writes. ‘But regardless of whether the agreement requires changes in U.S. law … the executive branch lacks constitutional authority to enter a binding international agreement covering issues delegated by the Constitution to Congress’ authority, absent congressional approval.’”
