|
myron73 favorited a video
(1 day ago)
White House bypasses Senate to ink agreement that could allow Chinese companies to demand ISPs remove web content in US with no legal oversight
Paul...
more
White House bypasses Senate to ink agreement that could allow Chinese companies to demand ISPs remove web content in US with no legal oversight
Paul Joseph Watson
http://www.prisonplanet.com/
http://www.infowars.com/
http://www.prisonplanet.tv/
Thursday, January 26, 2012
Months before the debate about Internet censorship raged as SOPA and PIPA dominated the concerns of web users, President Obama signed an international treaty that would allow companies in China or any other country in the world to demand ISPs remove web content in the US with no legal oversight whatsoever.
The Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement was signed by Obama on October 1 2011, yet is currently the subject of a White House petition demanding Senators be forced to ratify the treaty. The White House has circumvented the necessity to have the treaty confirmed by lawmakers by presenting it an as "executive agreement," although legal scholars have highlighted the dubious nature of this characterization.
The hacktivist group Anonymous attacked and took offline the Federal Trade Commission's website yesterday in protest against the treaty, which was also the subject of demonstrations across major cities in Poland, a country set to sign the agreement today.
Under the provisions of ACTA, copyright holders will be granted sweeping direct powers to demand ISPs remove material from the Internet on a whim. Whereas ISPs normally are only forced to remove content after a court order, all legal oversight will be abolished, a precedent that will apply globally, rendering the treaty worse in its potential scope for abuse than SOPA or PIPA.
A country known for its enforcement of harsh Internet censorship policies like China could demand under the treaty that an ISP in the United States remove content or terminate a website on its server altogether. As we have seen from the enforcement of similar copyright policies in the US, websites are sometimes targeted for no justifiable reason.
The groups pushing the treaty also want to empower copyright holders with the ability to demand that users who violate intellectual property rights (with no legal process) have their Internet connections terminated, a punishment that could only ever be properly enforced by the creation of an individual Internet ID card for every web user, a system that is already in the works.
"The same industry rightsholder groups that support the creation of ACTA have also called for mandatory network-level filtering by Internet Service Providers and for Internet Service Providers to terminate citizens' Internet connection on repeat allegation of copyright infringement (the "Three Strikes" /Graduated Response) so there is reason to believe that ACTA will seek to increase intermediary liability and require these things of Internet Service Providers," reports the Electronic Frontier Foundation.
The treaty will also mandate that ISPs disclose personal user information to the copyright holder, while providing authorities across the globe with broader powers to search laptops and Internet-capable devices at border checkpoints.
In presenting ACTA as an "international agreement" rather than a treaty, the Obama administration managed to circumvent the legislative process and avoid having to get Senate approval, a method questioned by Senator Wyden.
"That said, even if Obama has declared ACTA an executive agreement (while those in Europe insist that it's a binding treaty), there is a very real Constitutional question here: can it actually be an executive agreement?" asks TechDirt. "The law is clear that the only things that can be covered by executive agreements are things that involve items that are solely under the President's mandate. That is, you can't sign an executive agreement that impacts the things Congress has control over. But here's the thing: intellectual property, in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution, is an issue given to Congress, not the President. Thus, there's a pretty strong argument that the president legally cannot sign any intellectual property agreements as an executive agreement and, instead, must submit them to the Senate.".
26 European Union member states along with the EU itself are set to sign the treaty at a ceremony today in Tokyo. Other countries wishing to sign the agreement have until May 2013 to do so.
Critics are urging those concerned about Obama's decision to sign the document with no legislative oversight to demand the Senate be forced to ratify the treaty.
http://www.infowars.com/obama-signs-g...
less
|
|
| |
|
|
myron73 favorited a video
(1 day ago)
White House bypasses Senate to ink agreement that could allow Chinese companies to demand ISPs remove web content in US with no legal oversight
Paul...
more
White House bypasses Senate to ink agreement that could allow Chinese companies to demand ISPs remove web content in US with no legal oversight
Paul Joseph Watson
http://www.prisonplanet.com/
http://www.infowars.com/
http://www.prisonplanet.tv/
Thursday, January 26, 2012
Months before the debate about Internet censorship raged as SOPA and PIPA dominated the concerns of web users, President Obama signed an international treaty that would allow companies in China or any other country in the world to demand ISPs remove web content in the US with no legal oversight whatsoever.
The Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement was signed by Obama on October 1 2011, yet is currently the subject of a White House petition demanding Senators be forced to ratify the treaty. The White House has circumvented the necessity to have the treaty confirmed by lawmakers by presenting it an as "executive agreement," although legal scholars have highlighted the dubious nature of this characterization.
The hacktivist group Anonymous attacked and took offline the Federal Trade Commission's website yesterday in protest against the treaty, which was also the subject of demonstrations across major cities in Poland, a country set to sign the agreement today.
Under the provisions of ACTA, copyright holders will be granted sweeping direct powers to demand ISPs remove material from the Internet on a whim. Whereas ISPs normally are only forced to remove content after a court order, all legal oversight will be abolished, a precedent that will apply globally, rendering the treaty worse in its potential scope for abuse than SOPA or PIPA.
A country known for its enforcement of harsh Internet censorship policies like China could demand under the treaty that an ISP in the United States remove content or terminate a website on its server altogether. As we have seen from the enforcement of similar copyright policies in the US, websites are sometimes targeted for no justifiable reason.
The groups pushing the treaty also want to empower copyright holders with the ability to demand that users who violate intellectual property rights (with no legal process) have their Internet connections terminated, a punishment that could only ever be properly enforced by the creation of an individual Internet ID card for every web user, a system that is already in the works.
"The same industry rightsholder groups that support the creation of ACTA have also called for mandatory network-level filtering by Internet Service Providers and for Internet Service Providers to terminate citizens' Internet connection on repeat allegation of copyright infringement (the "Three Strikes" /Graduated Response) so there is reason to believe that ACTA will seek to increase intermediary liability and require these things of Internet Service Providers," reports the Electronic Frontier Foundation.
The treaty will also mandate that ISPs disclose personal user information to the copyright holder, while providing authorities across the globe with broader powers to search laptops and Internet-capable devices at border checkpoints.
In presenting ACTA as an "international agreement" rather than a treaty, the Obama administration managed to circumvent the legislative process and avoid having to get Senate approval, a method questioned by Senator Wyden.
"That said, even if Obama has declared ACTA an executive agreement (while those in Europe insist that it's a binding treaty), there is a very real Constitutional question here: can it actually be an executive agreement?" asks TechDirt. "The law is clear that the only things that can be covered by executive agreements are things that involve items that are solely under the President's mandate. That is, you can't sign an executive agreement that impacts the things Congress has control over. But here's the thing: intellectual property, in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution, is an issue given to Congress, not the President. Thus, there's a pretty strong argument that the president legally cannot sign any intellectual property agreements as an executive agreement and, instead, must submit them to the Senate.".
26 European Union member states along with the EU itself are set to sign the treaty at a ceremony today in Tokyo. Other countries wishing to sign the agreement have until May 2013 to do so.
Critics are urging those concerned about Obama's decision to sign the document with no legislative oversight to demand the Senate be forced to ratify the treaty.
http://www.infowars.com/obama-signs-g...
less
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
myron73 favorited a video
(1 day ago)
A group that makes Pinocchio look honest. TSA officials are seemingly unable to the tell the truth. The lies against Rand Paul following his most r...
more
A group that makes Pinocchio look honest. TSA officials are seemingly unable to the tell the truth. The lies against Rand Paul following his most recent encounter with TSA goons only serves as yet another example of blatant lies and rampant corruption from the Homeland Security-branch agency dedicated to disavowing the Bill of Rights and dismantling the economy and spirit of America-- all under the pretext of fighting a foreign enemy.
From lies about the harmful radiation of the body scanners, to the dishonesty about groping children and the elderly, to lies about the false flags that dictate future policy, to the disregard for employee and passenger safety and much more, TSA has used deception at every turn to undermine travel, tourism and the American way.
http://www.infowars.com/tsa-greatest-...
TSA: Greatest Liars On Earth
------
Kurt Nimmo
Infowars.com
January 27, 2012
In the following video, Alex Jones takes the TSA to task for its pathological lying about the danger of naked body porno scanners.
But as Jones notes, it is not simply the TSA that continually lies. The entire government is perpetually and habitually involved in all kinds of lies and fabrications -- from George Bush's deadly lie about WMDs in Iraq (that cost over a million Iraqis their lives) to countless sundry lies on all kinds of government activity (most recently the lies told to us about the government's gun running operation to the banker drug cartels in Mexico).
In the video, Alex breaks down the lie told by government and its compliant corporate media propaganda tool about the outrageous and unconstitutional detainment of Kentucky Senator Rand Paul at the airport in Nashville.
The cops in Tennessee insisted Paul was "irate" about his illegal detainment, but a security video later released shows the Senator sitting calmly in a chair waiting for the TSA and the cops to let him travel. Of course, after insisting Paul was angry and uncooperative, the corporate media lie machine did not bother to pick up on the story published by The Tennessean.
Government -- from the local cop shop and city council to Congress and the president -- habitually lie. Government lies are about as dependable as the sun coming up in the morning.
History is sickeningly replete with all kinds of instances of government lying to the American people and the world at large.
President Woodrow Wilson lied us into World War One (35 million people slaughtered), the North Vietnamese didn't attack the U.S. military in the Gulf of Tonkin (the Vietnam War: around 4 million killed), the Teflon president Reagan knew about about Iran-Contra, Bush Senior lied about no new taxes, Bill Clinton lied about not inhaling and having sex with that woman, Nixon was indeed a crook, the government lied when it said children were molested at the Branch Davidian complex in Waco (and thus proceeded to barbeque them), Bush and his neocon cronies lied about the Taliban harboring Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein's nuclear and chemical weapons programs, the passengers of Flight 93 overtook box-cutter terrorists, and fire brought down WTC 1, 2 and 7.
There are more lies told by the government as it conducts its sordid criminal business. It would take a book the size of the New York Metro White Pages to tell them all.
I am exaggerating... but not much.
less
|
|
| |
|
|
myron73 favorited a video
(2 days ago)
Alien Invasion Matthew 24 abomination of desolation Joel's army and all the other stuff that equals Alien Invasion. Prepare your hearts Accept Jesu...
more
Alien Invasion Matthew 24 abomination of desolation Joel's army and all the other stuff that equals Alien Invasion. Prepare your hearts Accept Jesus Christ
less
|
|
Jesus told us plainly to confront our brother to his face. I obeyed Jesus in confronting Dawn with her sin of gossip and possibly libel. She disobeyed Jesus by critcizing Todd FIRST to the public. This cannot be justified with Scripture. Why don't you understand that?
It's a rhetorical question for you to consider. The self-righteous have a standard answer. They think they're doing God and the Church a service. When people operate in self-righteousness, they don't feel the need to get God's approval and forget their own propensity to deceive themselves. As a prophet used to tell me, "A word to the wise is usually sufficient."
I have a lot more to say but you're probably not interested in hearing it.
Jesus is Lord of all and His Word is Truth.
Good stuff mate....Peace from Scotland : )