It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

WIPO Broadcast Treaty: Expansive Free Speech Limitations Proposed by U.N.

page: 4
3
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 5 2006 @ 02:23 PM
link   
I sent an email to hrw.org... I couldn't find one item on their website about this issue...

I know that Everything is a 'human rights' issue, but you would think that something of this magnitude would at least perk their ears up a bit...

twj




posted on May, 5 2006 @ 02:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord

2) AT&T, as a "broadcaster" of content originating on AboveTopSecret.com has rights to our content equal to our rights as the creator

Wouldn't that make, say, CNN the owner of the commericials broadcast on their station???



posted on May, 5 2006 @ 02:45 PM
link   
SkepticOverlord

After reading the factors you enumerated in your last post.

Everything comes too "I am just presuming here" that is not only the rights of the broadcasting business, but also a very firm hand on the proliferation of information through the INTERNET.

As a way of control of the people as how they can access information.

It seems that is all in the benefit of the Parties involve usually the corporations that pay their way through any rulings or laws that will benefit them.

Well. . . taking into consideration that US is the majority pro this treaty I imagine that is the majority in the US government rule corporative power the one moving the strings on these proposed treaty.

Now. . . does this surprise anybody? this business as usual in our nation I imagine.



posted on May, 5 2006 @ 03:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by thermopolis
How can anyone on this site be suprised that the "tolerance" bunch want to stop free speech. They have been doing it with political correctness for years. The moderators on this site have done the same.


The current US Administration is part of the "tolerance bunch" now?



posted on May, 5 2006 @ 03:33 PM
link   
I wonder what would happen if you disobeyed...?


How are they going to get everyone?



posted on May, 5 2006 @ 04:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by WyrdeOne
How can you win a war against thought with an army of thinkers?


Make sure the thinkers cannot communicate openly and freely.

If we all sit in our homes and think, it's nice, but harmless to a world government, NWO or global corporation. Individually, we're not very strong. Our strength and power is in our numbers and whomever is throwing a wrench in the works is well aware of that.

For each of us to read about this treaty is innocuous. For us to come together and share our thoughts and feelings and EDUCATE EACH OTHER, to perhaps get motivated to get more involved in taking some kind of action is dangerous to the ultimate goal of the powers that be.

This move by the UN and our government is an attempt to keep us from doing anything about the corruption in progress. It's one more move against the power of the people.



because the technology that drives this new world is complicated, the whipmasters will find themselves forever delegating the technical aspects of their reign to the very people they seek to enslave.


There's some mighty big plugs that can be pulled with the power that our government wields. This is just the first step toward controlling the information on boards like ATS and blogs. I'm convinced that they can and will go further. We've seen the totalitarian tiptoe, the invasion of telephone communication switching equipment, the RFIDs, the control of the mainstream media, this is just one more step toward a totally controlled populace.

If the technology gets to be too much to control, they can just take it out. They have their own internet.


Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
This may be the first time in three years (other than supporting international literacy efforts) where I might consider proposals on how ATS can organize its massive potential influence to increase awareness of this issue, and perhaps aid in the rejection of the treaty.


I'm behind you on this 100% if you should decide to.



posted on May, 5 2006 @ 04:20 PM
link   
I believe that one of the issue that make the powers than be nervous is the proliferation of information and the free speech to express our discontent that has made the INTERNET a probably Security risk.

Our government alone will never dare to said that the INTERNET is a danger to national security. . . or at least to the corrupt power of the government.

So it has to used other ways to get the INTERNET under control.

All these new agencies that are under the umbrella of corporate support are giving the impression of protecting the media outlets.

They are all supported by corporate power and that alone should be a red flag for anybody that respect what freedom of speech is all about.

I agree with you BH we are under attack just because we can bring the truth to what is going on around and people are learning and opening their eyes.

The INTERNET is becoming to dangerous for the power than rule the nation.

I guess even conspiracies get to close to the truth most of the time.



posted on May, 5 2006 @ 04:43 PM
link   
They kind of have to sneak in the back door so to speak. If they came down directly, and made us stop communicating, we'd all notice and revolt and wouldn't let it happen. As it is, they've still got some of the population behind them (as unbelievable as that may seem) and that support, along with the media and the people who can be bought and the people who just don't care anymore and are more interested in their hummers and football games (no offfense to any sport-os out there) and the distractions of Iran and China and fear and terrorism and gas prices AND IMMIGRATION - all come together to distract and divide us enough to give them an opportunity to go in the back door and snip away at the power the people do have, which is our ability to think and communicate information.

Take that away and we're sitting ducks waiting for a corrupt government to do with us what they will.

Take away our ability to organize and communicate, and we're toast. Individual pieces of toast.

And our strength, the ability to move information around the world in seconds, is also our vulnerability. And they will take every advantage of that.

OK. NOW I'm done.



posted on May, 5 2006 @ 05:20 PM
link   
UN wants to kill free speech?! AWESOME!!


About time they get "Ban Free Speech From Earth" treaty off to a rocking start! I've been trying to figure out why people think speech is actually free.


/sarcasm off.

Seriously, it should be called "freespeak", not free speech. May I propose to replace the free speech with "freespeak"? Every one on the planet have the right to "freespeak" (speak freely).

Screw the UN. Protech free speech/freespeak. Deny ignorance and all dat.



posted on May, 5 2006 @ 06:02 PM
link   
Well, me and someone else on this thread mentioned child porn, it seems funny to me that the authorities quoted BILLIONS of dollars yearly is made from CP.
Is there really that many pedophiles out there, that it's this rampant

Are we this sick as a society?!?!

When they quoted the problem as being this big, my crap filter pump turned on, and made me wonder. (and sludge came out)

OK then, you take this, then you move over to Al Quada, whom the big buzz in US news lately claims that the terrorists use the internet as a training tool and a way to gain info for terrorist acts.

Now, with all this crud, and stuff, all of a sudden on the news, it made me think, OK, here it comes, an internet crackdown.....

.....So, here it is, they are going to blame these two reasons, and say it's because the corporations (OH BOOHOOO) aren't able to make that extra billion, because us common folk are just informational parasites who suck the teat of knowledge *GASP* FOR FREE
!!!

So, to summarise, blame terrorists and kiddie porn (how they will sell it to us, pay ATTENTION, that is HOW THEY WILL SELL IT TO US! .....IMO of course), and the corporations make more dough as a bonus.



posted on May, 5 2006 @ 06:05 PM
link   
you know what, i say screw em. even if they were to pass the law, they couldnt enforce it if people just went and did it anyway. just everyone starts sourcing fox articles and flames them lol. There are reason i love people who are hackers too, they can screw with government systems, they would never figure out whats going on.

but like i said i think they couldnt enforce it if they tried. i could imagine them passing it...but enforcing it? i highly doubt it, it would be too hard. the only way they could enforce it is if they started using the national guard as like a federal police and had this massive police force to arrest them on first offense and give automatic jail time.

they would have to have concentration camps to hold the amount of people that would probably get arrested by this.



posted on May, 5 2006 @ 06:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
As it is, they've still got some of the population behind them (as unbelievable as that may seem) and that support, along with the media and the people who can be bought and the people who just don't care anymore and are more interested in their hummers and football games


I definitely believe they have some support of the population. Problem is, it is the portion of the population that believes in the 'golden rule'; them that has the gold, makes the rules.

The rest of the population is mesmerized with the unbelievably stupid television shows and advertising that constantly pummels the population. They're too busy voting for idols, wishing they had the coolest phones, and wondering what Dr. Phil or Oprah has to say to wake their media addled minds up to even take notice.

I think there is a very good chance that stories that raise doubts about the believability of mainstream media is a tactic to turn people away from even checking reliable source. After all, what's the point? You can't trust them.

Better to replace real journalism with advertising, gore, and entertainment news.

This has kind of been a rant, but I hope I made a point.



posted on May, 5 2006 @ 06:08 PM
link   
actually i think thats how the US will sell it when they make it a law. In the UN they dont really need to sell it, its already been sold and paid for probably by microsoft and yahoo.

The US will say its a good idea and could work for the war on terror. That terrorists would be unable to view information that would be potentially harmful....just remember when they say terrorists, they mean the future you.



posted on May, 5 2006 @ 06:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

If the technology gets to be too much to control, they can just take it out. They have their own internet.



Ever hear of ITS, the govt version? There is $20 million being added to some interstate highway projects that will connect a turnpike to a parallel interstate about 100 miles apart. It's to lay fiber optics (obsolete?) for a T-1 line for the state, and supposedly (when I first heard of this a couple years ago) enough left over for whoever wants to tap on.

But the main purpose is to keep lines open to the (cameras?) message boards and automatic systems (bridge de-icing, road/wx conditions) along the interstates.

Technology at ITS finest.



posted on May, 5 2006 @ 06:20 PM
link   
www.abovetopsecret.com...'

anybody see this?(aside from Nygdan who posted before me lol)

protests against the war on terror could "technically" be considered an act of terrorism. yea ok great, i can see how this is all playing out.



posted on May, 5 2006 @ 06:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by grimreaper797
Intellectual Property Organization ruins the rights of Intellectual property owners....how ironic.
Dont worry because back in 04, the US fought to make us nobody would change the route WIPO was headed.

www.ip-watch.org...


In an October 15 speech, the Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), Jonathan Dudas, vowed that the U.S. government will “fight” proposals that aim to “fundamentally change the WIPO charter and philosophy” away from its current focus on the promotion of intellectual property.


hmm...funny...because they dont seem to be promoting it but destroying it.


You're correct, but the issue of intelectual rights and/or patents is a lost issue, since Clinton sold our entire patent database to China for donations, including nuclear/weapon and delivery technology..... hence Ron Brown's death.



posted on May, 5 2006 @ 06:56 PM
link   
it cant be a lost issue, not to the extent where it starts to invade the freedom of speech. that is too far.

seriously though. lately i have been shocked from the amount of news im seeing thats just clearly abusive powers from the excuse of 9/11.



posted on May, 5 2006 @ 07:55 PM
link   
Well, I've gone through the draft treaty and the markups & comments on it, plus some of the working group meetings and I have to say this treaty is not nearly as bad, or restrictive, as I first thought it was. That doesn't mean I'm for the treaty as it is currently written, but it does mean I could support it with certain changes to some of the Articles (most notably Article 6). Also, I'm not sure I've read everything pertinent to the proposed treaty yet. For example, I could not find wording covering the partial retransmission of a broadcast, or an edited version of a broadcast, or the inclusion of snippets of a broadcast for the purpose of critique/criticism. Further, this treaty would make it illegal to research, produce, or sell (or give away) capabilities to defeat such things as digital rights management software or hardware. As such, it would have a chilling effect on decryption research and any products derived therefrom. Moreover, the wording of the draft treaty is not exactly clear with respect to the extraction of and network distribution of, portions of broadcasts even though such broadcasts might well have originated with publicly funded instutitions or organizations.

All-in-all, I thing the proposed treaty could serve a useful purpose if the open ended restrictions on internet/computer network (distribution/re-broadcasting) were reworded to permit the free exchange of ideas & opinions concerning anything that may have been broadcast.



posted on May, 5 2006 @ 07:58 PM
link   
BH


Make sure the thinkers cannot communicate openly and freely.


Yes, information is partitioned. This is an effort to increase control, obviously.

But you yourself have acknoweldged that 'they' have the power to pull the plug.

So..basically if you're going to play a game in someone's field, you play by their rules. If you want to play your own game, get your own field. And that's exactly what will happen, if/when this nonsense passes.

It will simply cut a segment of society off from the mainstream media even more, and force them to invest in their own intelligence gathering networks. Keep in mind this will NOT effect discussion of current events, only the rebroadcasting of copyrighted material for discussion purposes in the context of a commercial website such as ATS - if I understand the situation.

Keep in mind also that this hinges on enforcement. The courts will ultimately decide how far this flys, and how well it lands...



If we all sit in our homes and think, it's nice, but harmless to a world government, NWO or global corporation. Individually, we're not very strong. Our strength and power is in our numbers and whomever is throwing a wrench in the works is well aware of that.


It's not harmless to them. If you were sitting in your home and feeling, you'd be harmless. If you were in the streets and feeling, you'd be controllable, equally harmless. If you're anywhere right now in America, or the world, and you're thinking about what's happening, and you're actively engaged in trying to understand the machinations of these greedy bastards, you're the single greatest threat to the status quo.

I'm sure their web of control is very well thought out, but it's only effective because it uses our weaknesses against us. We can't conquer these self-appointed masters of the world on the field of battle, but we can conquer that part of ourselves that makes us so easy to manipulate, marginalize and destroy.

What sort of leverage would they have over an unafraid and self-reliant populace? Zero ( 0 )

When I fire up my computer and access the web, I'm well aware of the fact that I'm stepping into someone else's domain. I didn't build it, I don't maintain it, I don't control it.

If a charity group got together and wired us up another internet, we'd be good to go. Or, if it comes down to it, individual users can begin to connect to each other at disparate locations, and create privately owned networks where you can do whatever you please.




There's some mighty big plugs that can be pulled with the power that our government wields.


Vice versa as well.



This is just the first step toward controlling the information on boards like ATS and blogs. I'm convinced that they can and will go further. We've seen the totalitarian tiptoe, the invasion of telephone communication switching equipment, the RFIDs, the control of the mainstream media, this is just one more step toward a totally controlled populace.


For sure. What remains to be seen is if the population will tolerate more control. I suspect they will, and they'll reap the 'rewards' of that choice for years to come. This country has so many drug-addled, sleep-deprived, terrified citizens, it might as well be a herd of cattle stampeding ahead of a thunderstorm.

I can't speak for Europe, but given the increasing stranglehold of public surveillance and shoot-first-ask-questions-later law enforcement in those countries, I think the situation isn't much better there. Maybe worse, I don't know.

Just watched V for Vendetta last night, sad to say we're not far at all from realizing our very own dystopia, similar in a lot of ways. What resolved that conflict? Control over the airwaves.

Both sides are well aware of this fact. It's an intellectual arms race, and as I said before, the people who have traditionally been at the head of that curve are not exactly model, obedient citizens. Hopefully that will not change, and the future of this amazing resource will be secure.



posted on May, 5 2006 @ 09:39 PM
link   
I really wonder sometimes how much people really know of the UN. how many believe that the UN is there to help the needy nations and to promote peace love and understanding amongst the nations? Sometimes I do believe that people have way to much respect for the UN and believe that they are actually out there to bring the nations together united and doing all these other good things they claim to be doing.
Myself I just think that we need to get out of the UN and expose them for what they really are, which in my opinion is a monster, trying to bring about total enslavement of the world under one government, and we all know what that stands for. I really dont understand why people are so blinded by the light of the UN's bright white vehicles and the rest of their armada of peacekeepers. It doesnt suprise me a bit that they want to do away with free speech and our rights , they just love to strip away anything they can from the people, they need to be just done away with along with all of their organizations and Lord knows how many diferent ones they have.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join