UN Calls for Worldwide Internet Surveillance and Data Retention in the Name of Fighting Terrorism

page: 1
56
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
+31 more 
posted on Oct, 30 2012 @ 01:04 PM
link   
In September of this year the UN came out with a 158 page report titled THE USE OF THE INTERNET FOR TERRORIST PURPOSES. I won't lie and tell you that I have read the full report but some of the content is very disturbing but not very surprising considering the way the internet and it's usage has been portrayed over recent years.

This "12160" blog does a good job of breaking it down though, it also includes various links to back up their claims and opinions on this report.

The opening paragraph sums it up pretty good...


The manufactured threat of terrorism has once again been used to push what would otherwise be unthinkable.
In this case, the United Nations is exploiting the irrational fear of terrorism to justify international internet surveillance.


The article also goes on to say...


The UN claims that terrorists are utilizing social networking sites like Facebook, Twitter and YouTube to spread what they call “propaganda.”

This perspective is somewhat similar to that presented by groups like the Homeland Security Policy Institute in claiming that a major threat is the “spread of the [terrorist] entity’s narrative.”

This notion is quite dangerous because the nature of this “propaganda” or “narrative” is never clearly outlined.
Instead, the door is left open to call anything and everything that is different from the manufactured government account of various events “propaganda” or something which spreads the enemy’s “narrative.”

“Potential terrorists use advanced communications technology often involving the Internet to reach a worldwide audience with relative anonymity and at a low cost,” said Yury Fedotov, the executive director of the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC).


The UN and many other organizations are doing everything within their power to broaden their definition of terrorism and their methods of spreading "terror". I do not doubt that there are extremists of all denominations, including our own governments who use the internet to support their terrorist intentions but in my most humble opinion I believe all this demonization of the dangers of the internet is meant to justify tighter regulations on the internet with the intention to control the flow of information between us regular people, the non terrorists.


The report draws some apparently unwarranted conclusions, such as that “one of the major problems confronting all law enforcement agencies is the lack of an internationally agreed framework for retention of data held by ISPs.”

In other words, the UN thinks that one of the greatest problems facing the world in terms of fighting crime is a lack of internet surveillance.


This is happening all over the world, including my country of Canada where our politicians and other organizations are lobbying for access to our internet information without warrant. I recently authored this thread which links to a few other threads on the subject

Canadian police urge Parliament to pass domestic spying bill

Some countries already have similar laws in effect...


Some countries already have data retention laws which mandate the retention of data for a certain period of time, regardless of any criminal activity.

While CNET notes, “Europe, but not the U.S. or most other nations, has enacted a mandatory data-retention law,” in reality the U.S does indeed retain huge amounts of data on Americans without any link to criminal or terrorist activity.

This is evidenced by the rules adopted by the National Counterterrorism Center which “allow private data on Americans to be held when there is no suspicion of them being tied to terrorism for a whopping five years.”


How much data are they retaining?

I'm not exactly sure but I bet it's pretty much anything you can think of. Most of us have seen this coming from all directions for quite a while now but the propaganda campaign certainly has shifted into high gear recently as some examples to include are the "constant threat of an Iranian cyber attack" or "attacks on certain facilities" that we are reminded about on an almost daily basis by our beloved media.

The surveillance factor is also very alarming and I have no doubt that they already surveil pretty much anything you can think of but now they are very courageous and are boasting about it and telling us about it under the portrayal that it is for our own good.

I urge everyone to read the full article I linked below and follow the links it provides. I also recommend that you take a look at the UN report.

Here is a quote from Ban Ki Moon himself:



“The Internet is a prime example of how terrorists can behave in a truly transnational
way; in response, States need to think and function in an equally transnational
manner.”

Ban Ki-moon
Secretary-General of the United Nations


Article Link

My main question is...

Where do we draw the line?



Hopefully all the demonization of the internet and the invasion of our privacy will be enough to wake the people out of their slumber. The whole "I'm not doing anything wrong so why should I care that they are spying on me" outlook is a lame cop out and people need to stand up to this tyranny.

I don't claim to have all the answers, but I do know that this just isn't right.

Peace.
edit on 30-10-2012 by Corruption Exposed because: (no reason given)




posted on Oct, 30 2012 @ 01:10 PM
link   
The amount of information on 'private' (HAHA) citizens being held by the governments of the world is astounding. Simply using the Internet these days is practically inviting Big Brother into your life.

Everything you do leaves a cyber cookie trail when you are online. All the sites you visit. Movie reviews you read. Books you browse on Amazon. Emails you send... Everything. There are of course ways to obfuscate what you are doing, but since most people are decent and not up to anything remotely nefarious, they think they have no need for privacy... like you said OP, the common mentality is "I've done nothing wrong so I have nothing to hide."

Thinking like that is how a free society dies, and not with a bang, but with a compliant whimper.
edit on 30-10-2012 by Dreine because: meh



posted on Oct, 30 2012 @ 01:12 PM
link   
I guess there is no sense on focusing on the American Government. It would be more constructive and more inviting if we went after the UN.

We can all agree that the UN is an enemy of the people of the world. Those that are not aware can be convinced and nobody should be offended because most western nations throw a fair amount in so we all have responsibilty.

I think we are all sick of living in Bizarro World where good is bad and bad is good.
edit on 30-10-2012 by GaiusMarius because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 30 2012 @ 01:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Corruption Exposed
 


Suddenly George Orwell's "Big Brother is watching you" doesn't seem so far fetched now does it.

This was always the intention of this technology I believe - get everyone hooked and then take total control.

Another feather in the NWO's agenda cap.

*RAGE AGAINST THE MACHINE*


The threat to the freedom of the internet comes, he claims, from a combination of governments increasingly trying to control access and communication by their citizens, the entertainment industry's attempts to crack down on piracy, and the rise of "restrictive" walled gardens such as Facebook and Apple, which tightly control what software can be released on their platforms.


Battle for the Internet
edit on 30-10-2012 by Sublimecraft because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 30 2012 @ 01:17 PM
link   
You all really think our countries do not do this already?
Sorry for the short post, its all I have to say on this.



posted on Oct, 30 2012 @ 01:17 PM
link   
The line should have been drawn back in 1996 with the attempt to pass the "Communication Decency Act"


The Communications Decency Act of 1996 (CDA) was the first notable attempt by the United States Congress to regulate pornographic material on the Internet. In 1997, in the landmark cyberlaw case of Reno v. ACLU, the United States Supreme Court struck the anti-indecency provisions of the Act.

The Act was Title V of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. It was introduced to the Senate Committee of Commerce, Science, and Transportation by Senators James Exon (D-NE) and Slade Gorton (R-WA) in 1995. The amendment that became the CDA was added to the Telecommunications Act in the Senate by an 84–16 vote on June 14, 1995.

As eventually passed by Congress, Title V affected the Internet (and online communications) in two significant ways. First, it attempted to regulate both indecency (when available to children) and obscenity in cyberspace. Second, Section 230 of the Act has been interpreted to say that operators of Internet services are not to be construed as publishers (and thus not legally liable for the words of third parties who use their services).

Link

This was the first notable instance when Government tried to regulate the internet. As we have seen over the last few years, as noted in many threads, the continual threat of new proposals being snuck through congress attached to other bills.

The government should have been petitioned back then to oppose any attempt on regulation.

I have a great concern that if this was to pass, regardless of its current positive intentions, it can only act as a precedent for more and more global regulations on the internet, untill one day the only websites we can visit have a .gov domain


edit on 30-10-2012 by MDDoxs because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 30 2012 @ 01:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by boymonkey74
You all really think our countries do not do this already?
Sorry for the short post, its all I have to say on this.


From my OP, in my own words:



This is happening all over the world...


I hope that answers your question.



posted on Oct, 30 2012 @ 01:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Sublimecraft
 




Suddenly George Orwell's "Big Brother is watching you" doesn't seem so far fetched now does it.


In my opinion from what I have seen it was never far fetched but I certainly understand and agree with the point you are trying to make. It's so "in your face" now that it's beyond insane.

Thank you for the link by the way


It was a good read.



posted on Oct, 30 2012 @ 01:44 PM
link   
reply to post by MDDoxs
 


Thanks for the post, I was unaware of the information going back as far as 1996.



I have a great concern that if this was to pass, regardless of its current positive intentions, it can only act as a precedent for more and more global regulations on the internet, untill one day the only websites we can visit have a .gov domain


But it would be for our own protection!



(Please note my sarcasm was not directed towards you
)



posted on Oct, 30 2012 @ 01:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Corruption Exposed
 



Thanks for the post, I was unaware of the information going back as far as 1996.


It appears as though people have been trying to regulate the internet since its inception in the late 80's and early 90's.

Once the religious leaders and political leaders realized it would be used to spread ideas and concept that went against the status quo, they immediately attempted to censor and restrict it.

In my opinion, the internet represents a threat those wishing to impose control over the masses. I am sure many of you share a similar belief. If you look at all the revolutions or opposition to tyrannical governments, it started with the spoken word that spread throughout the masses. The internet has effectively provided a medium for almost instant awareness.

Viva la revolution.


If you think about it, those the UN Coin as "terrorists" can be seen as those against the "Status Quo" and the adoption of these policies will allow for a tighter strangle hold upon them. The fear is, that the definition of "Status Quo" Changes and the UN defines freedom of expression and equality as terrorist ideals
edit on 30-10-2012 by MDDoxs because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 30 2012 @ 02:01 PM
link   
I will not compromise my freedom for safety...phuk the UN.



posted on Oct, 30 2012 @ 04:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by XLR8R
I will not compromise my freedom for safety...phuk the UN.


And the horse they rode in on...



posted on Oct, 30 2012 @ 05:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by MDDoxs
reply to post by Corruption Exposed
 



Thanks for the post, I was unaware of the information going back as far as 1996.


It appears as though people have been trying to regulate the internet since its inception in the late 80's and early 90's.

Once the religious leaders and political leaders realized it would be used to spread ideas and concept that went against the status quo, they immediately attempted to censor and restrict it.

In my opinion, the internet represents a threat those wishing to impose control over the masses. I am sure many of you share a similar belief. If you look at all the revolutions or opposition to tyrannical governments, it started with the spoken word that spread throughout the masses. The internet has effectively provided a medium for almost instant awareness.

Viva la revolution.


If you think about it, those the UN Coin as "terrorists" can be seen as those against the "Status Quo" and the adoption of these policies will allow for a tighter strangle hold upon them. The fear is, that the definition of "Status Quo" Changes and the UN defines freedom of expression and equality as terrorist ideals
edit on 30-10-2012 by MDDoxs because: (no reason given)


Please accept my compliments as your posts are always a worthy contribution even on subjects we don't always completely agree on. I must say you hit it bang on in this post that I quoted...I mean can it be said any better? I honestly don't think so.

Deep down I believe that they planned on showing us this great new tool, get us hooked on it, then use it to control and manipulate us. I mean really, they had to have known to unleash something like the internet to the regular citizens would eventually lead to a loss of their strangle hold on our perception of reality via alternative media and other resources that are available to us over the internet. I think the systematic implementation of all these new laws and restrictions are part of their original plan but regrettably for them it may not be working exactly as they had planned or maybe it is...

Perhaps they weren't ready for the surge of people waking up to the lies we have been conditioned to believe and obey?

Or perhaps this is exactly what they planned because they know what it might lead to?
edit on 30-10-2012 by Corruption Exposed because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 30 2012 @ 06:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Corruption Exposed

Originally posted by XLR8R
I will not compromise my freedom for safety...phuk the UN.


And the horse they rode in on...


And IF your powerless to stop it? Then what? Perhaps they force this through without letting The People have a say in the matter.

We've talked about this in your other thread but I want to see what ATS'ers say about this.

Assume this passes - how do we fight this with technology? How do we become invisible and untraceable? -



posted on Oct, 30 2012 @ 06:32 PM
link   
reply to post by JohnPhoenix
 




Assume this passes - how do we fight this with technology? How do we become invisible and untraceable? -


I'm afraid of discussing certain techniques would be frowned upon.

There are ways though but even if you achieve internet anonymity they have various other ways to track anyone they deem necessary especially since they are aiming towards a cashless society. Some say "just get off the grid" but I have explained in the other thread that that is not an option for me so even if I got rid of my smartphone and cancelled my internet I have an RFID in my bank cards and I'm forced to use them since my work will only do direct deposit.

Do you have any suggestions on how to achieve complete internet anonymity?



posted on Oct, 30 2012 @ 07:08 PM
link   
I wonder if the Youtube video blamed originally for the consulate attacks in Lybia might have been a failed false flag to help sell this to the American public?

Maybe I've been on here to much, but it doesn't seem like a stretch. The American people would have to be "sold" on this, and outrage over a racist video that caused deathes might help.



posted on Oct, 30 2012 @ 07:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Corruption Exposed
reply to post by JohnPhoenix
 




Assume this passes - how do we fight this with technology? How do we become invisible and untraceable? -


I'm afraid of discussing certain techniques would be frowned upon.

There are ways though but even if you achieve internet anonymity they have various other ways to track anyone they deem necessary especially since they are aiming towards a cashless society. Some say "just get off the grid" but I have explained in the other thread that that is not an option for me so even if I got rid of my smartphone and cancelled my internet I have an RFID in my bank cards and I'm forced to use them since my work will only do direct deposit.

Do you have any suggestions on how to achieve complete internet anonymity?


In my book there is only two options. Fight the UN to stop this ( if we are even given a voice) or find ways around it using existing technology, legally.

I don't ever remember the UN giving the citizens of countries the right to vote on these issues, thats what our leaders job is. How does Obama and Romney feel about this? We would have to trust one of those to do the right thing. Actually this would be Susan Rice the US Ambassador to the UN or the secretary of state or the President if need be. en.wikipedia.org... Will Susan represent We The People in the US or the government status quo?

Whats the Canadian Ambassador going to do in your country? Can we petition these people to fight for the common mans rights? Seeing has how both of our countries already have similar proposals, I doubt a petition would do much good. I think some really savvy lawyers need to get involved who can help up use existing laws to fight this.

If not, if we cant vote in any way shape of form the only thing we can do is use existing technology to secure our privacy legally. None of these technologies are 100% foolproof but law abiding citizens should not worry about that.

There are 4 technologies that can help that I know of. Please people feel free to add to this.

1) Https Everywhere - a firefox plugin. Using this will ensure every website you go to is connecting to an encrypted server. All data exchanged between you and the site is encrypted.

2) The Tor Browser Bundle - This firefox based browser comes loaded with plugins for security and anonymity. It also connects to the TOR network and lets you route your internet activity through that network. Everything on this network is encrypted and no logs are kept of your browsing or data. This network uses anonymous ever changing servers to route your data. This is very untraceable.

3) Virtual Private Networks (VPN) - These private networks like the TOR network are encrypted and no logs are kept of your browsing or data. They are not required by law in most places to keep records and most do not simply because they want to be a private service. Most of these are paid for but there are some free VPN's such as VPN Direct has a free server you can use. There are others, just google search.

4) Encryption - You can encrypt certain data or a whole hard drives with such tools as TrueCrypt.

Using all these technologies in conjunction will allow you to surf in a way where your ISP virtually has no data on you. The first thing the ISP will notice is the person used a VPN - the ISP can see you connect to the VPN, but there after that, it's all the data the ISP will have since your internet needs will no longer go through their system. If the Gov goes to the VPN, they wont have any info.. they've already deleted it off the servers. Not to mention your also routing through the secure TOR network when you use the Tor Browser bundle. In both of these services all data is encrypted - double encrypted if you use both together - then it's all deleted. All URL's are encrypted, all data is encrypted then Poof, it's gone.

AFAIK this is the best we can do currently but it's pretty good. It's certainly better than nothing.



posted on Oct, 30 2012 @ 09:17 PM
link   
The internet is going to end up just like television. You'll choose a provider, and you'll only be able to access what they make available.

Its the end of inet freedom, I give it 5 years max.

S&F for keeping on top of this subject CE
edit on 30-10-2012 by VoidHawk because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 30 2012 @ 09:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Corruption Exposed
 


Ok, let's not get our panties in a bunch quite yet. The UN has no authority over your ISP. Your ISP is a business just like any other business, and pays it's taxes just like anyone else.

The US Congress would have to pass a bill to regulate ISPs. Ok, we watch for those, like SOPA, and fight tooth and nail at the local level to make sure those bills don't get passed.

I'm one of those from the pre-interweb days. I'm 44. All we had back then were BBSs to dial-up into at 300 bytes per second. So calm down.

Technology evolves, and so does the software. Remember Kazaa? It was file sharing software, and they took it down, but 20 other file sharing systems took it's place. Open source software tends to change to meet the need, unlike commercial software which changes to meet the demand.

The point?

We are going to see an evolution in our web browsers, and in the ways we surf the internet, brought about by open source products, made by the people, for the people, who care not to be monitored.

This monitoring crap wasn't an issue in the early days, heck, they were just trying to make a set of RFCs that everyone could comply with, and standardize everything. Well, that's done, and now we are faced with considerations that weren't present at the beginning, and now, our computers and broadbands are fast enough to step up to the next level. We'll see software that gives us our privacy become standard.

Unless, of course, they pass a law that makes, for example, "Firefox 23 with encryption" illegal.

And they simply can't go that far.



posted on Oct, 30 2012 @ 10:19 PM
link   
The rich and powerful sure are turning the screws ever harder, aren't they? They must be very afraid for their own safety, because we know they could really give a shlt about ours. Terrorism ... hardy har.





new topics

top topics



 
56
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join