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.

 

Global 'internet treaty' proposed

page: 1
2

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 20 2010 @ 07:25 PM
link   

Global 'internet treaty' proposed


www.telegraph.co.uk

Deal would enshrine in law the founding principles of open standards and net neutrality, and protect the web from political interference.

The proposal was presented at the Internet Governance Forum in Lithuania last week, and outlined 12 “principles of internet governance”, including a commitment from countries to sustain the technological foundations that underpin the web’s infrastructure.

The draft law has been likened to the Space Treaty, signed in 1967, which stated that space
(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
www.computerweekly.com
www.infosecurity-magazine.com
www.crunchgear.com
www.investors.com




posted on Sep, 20 2010 @ 07:25 PM
link   


Proposals put before the Internet Governance Forum would enshrine in law the principles of free speech and net neutrality for the web.

The globalist elite would want to take control of the World Wide Web and censor it altogether, just like in Communist (now Fascist) China, but this time on a global and far more repressive scale.

If this Internet treaty has its way, say goodbye to net neutrality, but we will not go down quietly without a fight.

www.telegraph.co.uk
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Sep, 20 2010 @ 07:31 PM
link   
The internet will be a martyr for revolution.



posted on Sep, 20 2010 @ 07:40 PM
link   
They can't stop us. We'll make another internet. We'll always find some way out of their control.
We always have.



posted on Sep, 20 2010 @ 08:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by hippomchippo
The internet will be a martyr for revolution.


It will be a martyr. Cyberpatriots will be up in arms...well, computers...





posted on Sep, 20 2010 @ 08:22 PM
link   
Well its a good thing that I got my Ham license


Shut it down .... I will still talk about the thing I talk about on here.



posted on Sep, 20 2010 @ 08:31 PM
link   
Whatever happened to "If it ain't broke don't fix it."?

When we start having catastrophes related to Internet access, then maybe we can talk about such an invasive procedure as legislation?

Of course, I realize that "fixing" something is not what this is about.



posted on Sep, 20 2010 @ 08:35 PM
link   
The article says that the treaty would forbid government from interfering in free speech online. Why is everyone in this thread acting like it says the opposite?



posted on Sep, 20 2010 @ 08:58 PM
link   
i believe this is in response to all the recently established darknets/freenets.

they dont like the fact that we can use their infrastructure, and be out of their control.

an internet service provider is like a middle-man, Darknet/Freenet cuts out that middle man.

so this is how they will attempt to circumvent the darknode workaround, by rallying national effort to secure the infrastructure itself.

a futile effort. once they figure this out they will just shut it down. while its down they will make some drastic changes and when it comes back up nobody will recognize it. it will be like chinas internet. this infrastructure modification will most likely take a awhile and there will be a coordinated effort by the ISP's to lock everybody out until internet 2.0 is up.

meanwhile, back at the ranch. i will be setting up an old dial in style BBS. Hope you saved your modems and landlines!



posted on Sep, 20 2010 @ 09:06 PM
link   
reply to post by SmedleyBurlap
 


Exactly, this is a GOOD thing. This is what we need, or we can kiss the last free and open channel of communication good bye, they are plotting a way to make it happen as we speak, the internet is out of control from their delusional perspective.



edit on 20/9/10 by CHA0S because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 20 2010 @ 09:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by SmedleyBurlap
The article says that the treaty would forbid government from interfering in free speech online. Why is everyone in this thread acting like it says the opposite?


I think the concern is that the net needs no outside interference from Governments or Groups such as happens in China. It is well documentated in their own words that the all too real elite want to control the net and close down any dissenting voices such as Free Independent Media. Google is actually in Cahoots with organisations such as the CIA on how to achieve this. I was shocked and dissapointed to learn that Bill Gates is far from the Humanist he pretends to be and is a proponant of Eugenics as is his buddy Rockerfeller and the rest of the New World Order tribe.
The Rothschilds of course funded the Eugenics programmes in the USA proir to the second worrld war and went on to fund Hitler in his rise to power- he was their champion. So is it much more of a step forward to realise that Google gathers information on people as does Farcebook. FEEMA has compiled a list of so called home land terrorists they include Alternative Media sources, People who display the wrong kind of bumper stickers in fact anyone who does not agree with their evil plan. Why are they training troops to see their own country folk as the enemy why are thet deconstructing the Bill of Rights. Why are they planning a total collapse of the economy - Why do they want you to go onto the steets and say NO MORE - then come down on you with an iron fist.
They want to create as much chaos and misery as they can so they can then come in as the saviour to all our problems that They created in the first place.That is why they hedge their bets so to speak. They support both sides of a war. They run both main political partys - Presidents are mereley puppets that have been groomed by them. They run main stream media medicine and health care and they think you are dumb.
So let them shut down the net for it will only mean people will be more pro active than just sitting in front of a computer screen exchanging ideas.



posted on Sep, 20 2010 @ 09:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by SmedleyBurlap
The article says that the treaty would forbid government from interfering in free speech online. Why is everyone in this thread acting like it says the opposite?

Because that's exactly how this bill would be passed right?
I mean, it's not like they can change it, right?



posted on Sep, 20 2010 @ 09:26 PM
link   
reply to post by artistpoet
 


As mentioned in your post the internet needs no outside interference from government (or other groups).My understanding is this group aims to prevent government interference.A group to hold governments accountable if they are attempting to control it.(internet)
That's the conclusion I came to after reading the linked article and a few more sources, some more in depth than the linked source.



posted on Sep, 20 2010 @ 09:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by hippomchippo

Originally posted by SmedleyBurlap
The article says that the treaty would forbid government from interfering in free speech online. Why is everyone in this thread acting like it says the opposite?

Because that's exactly how this bill would be passed right?
I mean, it's not like they can change it, right?


HA HA I am sure you have read "Animal Farm" once a bill is passed it is easy to amend it and this occurs without your consent. We do not need any Bills re the net - leave it be I say



posted on Sep, 20 2010 @ 09:45 PM
link   
reply to post by hippomchippo
 


I don't think it's a "bill" or is exclusively referring to the USA.I thought it was an independent body created to hold governments accountable should they attempt to interfere with the freedom of it's citizens on the internet.There is no 'bill' to be 'passed' , or altered.Any country that does not wish to participate will simply not sign it.
An international treaty is not the same as a bill.

The way in which International treaties can be altered after signing is completed is extremely limited.
en.wikipedia.org...



edit on 20-9-2010 by mumma in pyjamas because: (no reason given)




edit on 20-9-2010 by mumma in pyjamas because: add link treaty info



posted on Sep, 20 2010 @ 09:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by mumma in pyjamas
reply to post by hippomchippo
 


I don't think it's a "bill" or is exclusively referring to the USA.I thought it was an independent body created to hold governments accountable should they attempt to interfere with the freedom of it's citizens on the internet.There is no 'bill' to be 'passed' , or altered.Any country that does not wish to participate will simply not sign it.
An international treaty is not the same as a bill.


edit on 20-9-2010 by mumma in pyjamas because: (no reason given)



If it is how you describe then Yes it is a good thing - My only concern is it might be a Trogan Horse - I would want to read the small print very carefully.



posted on Sep, 20 2010 @ 10:01 PM
link   
reply to post by artistpoet
 


Not that it will mean anything to those who do not wish to sign it, they will be free to dictate internet content and access as they wish within their own borders , with no fear of being hindered by international protocol.

And yes, I for one am attempting to locate the proposal in full, 12 points, asterisks and all.


edit on 20-9-2010 by mumma in pyjamas because: end note



posted on Sep, 20 2010 @ 10:11 PM
link   
reply to post by ironfalcon
 


I'm always skeptical when any governing body attempts a power grab at the last real bastion of freedom that society has -- the internet.

The proposed measures however seem like a good thing, until you see that they will have " cross co-operation" among nations to deter cyber criminals. This would lead to thousands of people having their information about net usage given to x ammount of countries and 3 letter agencies for review and potential criminal action.

I don't like that one bit.

The internet should stay as it is, unregulated and relatively unexpensive.

~Keeper



posted on Sep, 20 2010 @ 11:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by SmedleyBurlap
The article says that the treaty would forbid government from interfering in free speech online. Why is everyone in this thread acting like it says the opposite?


It's usually monkey-see, monkey-do around here. The OPs interpretation of whatever he posts is generally followed along by the first few mindless conspiracy zombies, until someone such as yourself breaks the spell of stupidity. After that, the thread is only about 75% conspiracy zombie. You can see it happen in most threads, actually.



new topics

top topics



 
2

log in

join