UN proposes license to surf the web

[onwebcam]

?Don?t be surprised if it becomes reality in the near future,? writes ZD Net?s Doug Hanchard. ?Every device connected to the Internet will have a permament license plate and without it, the network won?t allow you to log in.?

The graphic below illustrates how you would be blocked from using the Internet if your device had not obtained government permission to access the network.

Another method would be to make the use of fingerprint scanners that are included on a lot of new computer models mandatory. You would have to register your fingerprint at a central government data center and then scan each time you want to access the Internet. Misbehave online and your access will be denied.

?One thing is for sure,? concludes Hanchard, ?A lot of money is going to be spent trying and sooner or later, everyone may have to pay with an Internet cop instant messaging you ? ?license and registration please?.

It seems certain that cyber security problems will be exploited or even manufactured to justify the move to Internet licensing. Authorities need to create a strong pretext to justify measures that would otherwise be rightly rejected for what they truly represent ? government regulation and censorship of the web that would outstrip anything the Communist Chinese have attempted.

Internet censorship bills currently working their way into law in the UK, Australia and the U.S. legislate for government powers to restrict and filter any website that it deems to be undesirable for public consumption.

In the UK, legislation slated as the ?Digital Economy Bill?, currently being debated in the House of Lords, would allow the Home Secretary to place ?a technical obligation on internet service providers? to block whichever sites it wishes.

Under clause 11 of the proposed legislation ?technical obligation? is defined as follows:

A ?technical obligation?, in relation to an internet service provider, is an obligation for the provider to take a technical measure against particular subscribers to its service.

A ?technical measure? is a measure that ? (a) limits the speed or other capacity of the service provided to a subscriber; (b) prevents a subscriber from using the service to gain access to particular material, or limits such use; (c) suspends the service provided to a subscriber; or (d) limits the service provided to a subscriber in another way.

In other words, the government will have the power to force ISPs to downgrade and even block your internet access to certain websites or altogether if it wishes.

The legislation comes in the wake of amplified UK government efforts to seize more power over the internet and those who use it.

For months now unelected ?Secretary of State? Lord Mandelson has overseen government efforts to challenge the independence of the of UK?s internet infrastructure.

Mandelson also wants to impose harsh policies, via the Digital Economy Bill, that would see users? broadband access cut off indefinitely, in addition to a fine of up to £50,000 without evidence or trial, if they download copyrighted music and films. The plan has been identified as ?potentially illegal? by experts.

The legislation would impose a duty on ISPs to effectively spy on all their customers by keeping records of the websites they have visited and the material they have downloaded. ISPs who refuse to cooperate could be fined £250,000.

As Journalist and copyright law expert Cory Doctrow has noted, the bill also gives the Secretary of State the power to make up as many new penalties and enforcement systems as he likes, without Parliamentary oversight or debate.

This could include the authority to appoint private militias, who will have the power to kick you off the internet, spy on your use of the network, demand the removal of files in addition to the blocking of websites.

more..
http://www.infowars.com/enemies-of-f...net-licensing/

[pornguy]

This is one of those things that has potential to go really bad in either direction.

[GatorB]

This is bullshit. Ok UN law. Who gives afuck. Since when are Americans going to listen to what the UN fucking says?

[onwebcam]

Originally Posted by GatorB

This is bullshit. Ok UN law. Who gives afuck. Since when are Americans going to listen to what the UN fucking says?

The UN controls ICANN now. It's been the plan all along but everyone called it a "conspiracy theory" They can't get away with their scams with a free and open internet. It's must be taxed and controlled just like every other part of society.

[L-Pink]

Originally Posted by GatorB

This is bullshit. Ok UN law. Who gives afuck. Since when are Americans going to listen to what the UN fucking says?

Re: your avatar ... you are one ugly fuck.


.

[GatorB]

Originally Posted by onwebcam

The UN controls ICANN now. It's been the plan all along but everyone called it a "conspiracy theory"

Doesn't matter. If the Un said "Hey US take away the Bill of Rights" like that's going to happen. UN doesn't have authority over shit. UN gets to pushy we'll tell them to fuck off and get their shit out of NY and oh yeah you don't get any more money from us.

[GatorB]

Originally Posted by L-Pink

Re: your avatar ... you are one ugly fuck.


.

That's not me moron.

[onwebcam]

Originally Posted by GatorB

Doesn't matter. If the Un said "Hey US take away the Bill of Rights" like that's going to happen. UN doesn't have authority over shit. UN gets to pushy we'll tell them to fuck off and get their shit out of NY and oh yeah you don't get any more money from us.

Obama (unconstitutionally) heads up the UN security counsel. The highest position in the UN. He is all about the UN. He is Mr. World Government. They are going to try it, believe it.

[mikeyddddd]

Originally Posted by GatorB

That's not me moron.

Thus the wink

[CYF]

Originally Posted by onwebcam

The UN controls ICANN now. It's been the plan all along but everyone called it a "conspiracy theory" They can't get away with their scams with a free and open internet. It's must be taxed and controlled just like every other part of society.

UN controls ICANN? Since when?

The Affirmation of Commitments ? What it Means

30 September 2009

The Affirmation of Commitments completes a transition that started 11 years ago ...

When ICANN was created in 1998, with the assistance of the United States Government, a memorandum of understanding (MOU) process was started with the objective of achieving a noble goal: the coordination of the Internet's unique identifiers by the private sector through a not-for-profit organization where policies were developed from the bottom up.

The signing of the Affirmation determines once and for all that this model works.

The JPA was the seventh amendment of the original MOU. Over the years there have been thirteen report cards on performance of responsibilities to the US Department of Commerce alone. So why is the Affirmation of Commitments a further step in progress and internationalization of the ICANN model?

It commits ICANN to remaining a private not for profit organization. It declares ICANN is independent and is not controlled by any one entity. It commits ICANN to reviews performed BY THE COMMUNITY ? a further recognition that the multi-stakeholder model is robust enough to review itself.

The Affirmation is of long standing and is not limited to the three years for which previous agreements operated.

The Government Advisory Committee's role is reaffirmed. And the GAC is a key participant in selecting the membership of the review teams.

There is a certain timetable as to when those reviews will take place.

In summary, the Affirmation of Commitments places beyond doubt that the ICANN model is best equipped to coordinate this vital resource and places reviews of ICANN's performance in the hands of the community.

That provides a stable, secure platform into the future that can adapt to changes to the Internet itself.

[Dcat]

Originally Posted by GatorB

Doesn't matter. If the Un said "Hey US take away the Bill of Rights" like that's going to happen. UN doesn't have authority over shit. UN gets to pushy we'll tell them to fuck off and get their shit out of NY and oh yeah you don't get any more money from us.

The US was mere inches away from ceding it's sovereignty at the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen only weeks ago. The deal was only foiled at the last minute by China (and a group of other third World countries) that blocked it.

[onwebcam]

Originally Posted by CYF

UN controls ICANN? Since when?

I'll have to find some info on it for ya. When the US gave up control of the root it essentially defaulted to UN control. ICANN says they are "independent" and are only there to "serve the community" but they are far from it. They were controlled by the US Department of Commerce before, now some (forgot which) entity within the UN oversees them now. It's a corrupt organization just like any other governmental body and they'll go along with this all day long. In fact they're behind the idea of allowing the FCC to issue licenses to have a website. There again more control.

[CYF]

Originally Posted by onwebcam

I'll have to find some info on it for ya. When the US gave up control of the root it essentially defaulted to UN control. ICANN says they are "independent" and are only there to "serve the community" but they are far from it. They were controlled by the US department of Commerce before now some (forgot which) entity within the UN oversees them now.

ICANN and the UN have a deal for the .post TLD. The UN does not control ICANN.

[onwebcam]

Originally Posted by CYF

ICANN and the UN have a deal for the .post TLD. The UN does not control ICANN.

Do you really think they are just floating around the World answering to no one?

[CYF]

Originally Posted by onwebcam

Do you really think they are just floating around the World answering to no one?

How does a California non-profit organization "default to UN control?"

[onwebcam]

Originally Posted by CYF

How does a California non-profit organization "default to UN control?"

So you think that non profits don't have any governmental oversight? You are aware that even churches answer to the government right? Hell, tens of thousands of Pastors, Preachers, etc are admittedly on government payroll right now to disseminate propaganda to their followers.

Now with that in mind. If the US government gave up oversight then who do you suppose got said oversight? Who is making this proposal among many others lately?

[CYF]

Originally Posted by onwebcam

So you think that non profits don't have any governmental oversight? You are aware that even churches answer to the government right? Hell, tens of thousands of Pastors, Preachers, etc are admittedly on government payroll right now to disseminate propaganda to their followers.

Now with that in mind. If the US government gave up oversight then who do you suppose got said oversight? Who is making this proposal among many others lately?

Are you really this retarded?

[onwebcam]

Originally Posted by CYF

Are you really this retarded?

What do you find retarded? You don't believe that Pastors and Preachers are on payroll? Do you think that ICANN is a sovereign entity that answers to no one? What are they the Federal Reserve of the internet?

[CYF]

Originally Posted by onwebcam

What do you find retarded? You don't believe that Pastors and Preachers are on payroll? Do you think that ICANN is a sovereign entity that answers to no one? What are they the Federal Reserve of the internet?

I ask you a question, and you go off on a tangent about churches and other bullshit and trying to put words in my mouth. That's retarded.

Where's your proof that ICANN is controlled by the UN? I'll be holding my breath waiting.

[onwebcam]

Originally Posted by CYF

I ask you a question, and you go off on a tangent about churches and other bullshit and trying to put words in my mouth. That's retarded.

Where's your proof that ICANN is controlled by the UN? I'll be holding my breath waiting.

I went off in that direction because you implied that since it's a "non-profit" organization they answer to no one which isn't the case and the churches and preachers are the example.

[TheDoc]

Hello, the Internet isn't closed down to ICANN and DNS servers that make a fucking shit to them either way...hell even domain names...

You can make your own damn Internet for a reason, make up your own domains, extensions..

Good lord, ICANN isn't and couldn't be ran by the U.N.

[CYF]

Originally Posted by onwebcam

I went off in that direction because you implied that since it's a "non-profit" organization they answer to no one which isn't the case and the churches and preachers are the example.

I implied no such thing. I asked how a California non-profit can "default to UN Control" which is what you stated.

Still holding my breath on your proof that the UN controls ICANN.

'Fear mongering' at its best, thank fuck for the UN and liberal media. I doubt that this will ever become a reality on an 'global, cooperative level.' National, on the other hand (yeah, the dipshits at the UN just gave the Obama administration a new idea) ...

[TheDoc]

Originally Posted by magpan

'Fear mongering' at its best, thank fuck for the UN and liberal media. I doubt that this will ever become a reality on an 'global, cooperative level.' National, on the other hand (yeah, the dipshits at the UN just gave the Obama administration a new idea) ...

I hope it gets used to filter out stupid posts like yours.

[onwebcam]

Originally Posted by CYF

I implied no such thing. I asked how a California non-profit can "default to UN Control" which is what you stated.

Still holding my breath on your proof that the UN controls ICANN.

I guess they have become the Federal Reserve of the internet. There's no mention of who the "overseers" are just that there are overseers. I just have to put 2+2 together I guess. Since this all occurred the UN has been making lots of "proposals"

ICANN oversight: a change of phase

"The reviews will be conducted by “oversight panels” that include representatives of foreign governments. That is an area where the details are especially hazy. We do not know how these “oversight panels” will be selected, or whether they will include business and civil society in a balanced way as well as foreign governments."

"The Economist article reports that the U.S. government will retain “a permanent seat” on the panel dealing with accountability. It also claims that “there are no penalties if ICANN fails to heed its new overseers.”

http://blog.internetgovernance.org/b...5/4332022.html