U.S.: Big Fear Monger Brother on your Phone

New Yorkers soon to get government fear mongering through cell phone alerts

NewYorkDailyNews
May 10, 2011

Emergency officials will soon be able to blast critical alerts to anyone with a cell phone in a certain section of the city.

If Times Square needs to be evacuated because of a bomb threat or if a hurricane is bearing down on Queens, warnings will be bounced from cell towers.

“Making sure that [people] get useful and life-saving information, quickly and easily, right on their mobile phones, will help more people get out of harm’s way when a threat exists,” said Federal Emergency Management Agency Administrator W. Craig Fugate.

Fugate and Federal Communications Commissioner Chair Julius Genachowski plan to announce the new system at the World Trade Center site Tuesday in a press conference with Mayor Bloomberg and top phone company execs.

The system – called PLAN or Personal Localized Alerting Network – uses cell phone towers to send messages to everyone currently in a certain area, regardless of whether they’re visiting from out of town or have a phone registered elsewhere. People won’t have to register in advance to receive the alerts.

The messages, including urgent blasts from the president, information on imminent threats and Amber Alerts about missing children, will supercede all other phone traffic so they won’t be stalled or delayed.

They system is expected to be up and running in New York and Washington by the end of the year – months before the rest of the country.

Mayor Bloomberg called the alerts a “quantum leap forward in using technology to help keep people safe.”

Where does this requirement come from? The Federal Communications Act of 1996, that also mandated telecom companies to spy on users just like Apple, Google and all the other companies have been doing ever since the federal oversight legislation was passed.

A Trojan Horse called Net Neutrality

By David Kravets
Wired.com
February 4, 2011

The Federal Communications Commission’s net-neutrality decision opens the FCC to “boundless authority to regulate the internet for whatever it sees fit,” the Electronic Frontier Foundation is warning.

Image: wired.com

The civil rights group says the FCC’s action in December, which was based on shaky legal authority, creates a paradox of epic proportions. The EFF favors net neutrality but worries whether the means justify the ends.

“We’re wholly in favor of net neutrality in practice, but a finding of ancillary jurisdiction here would give the FCC pretty much boundless authority to regulate the internet for whatever it sees fit. And that kind of unrestrained authority makes us nervous about follow-on initiatives like broadcast flags and indecency campaigns,” Abigail Phillips, an EFF staff attorney, wrote on the group’s blog Thursday.

And the paradox grows.

In a Friday telephone interview, Phillips was unclear how to solve the problem. What about an act of Congress? How about reclassifying broadband to narrow the FCC’s control if it?

“I’m not sure what I think the right solution is,” she answered.

The agency’s December action has already been attacked on multiple fronts, including two lawsuits.

One side of the debate has focused on claims the FCC overstepped its authority by adopting the principle that wireline carriers treat all internet traffic the same. A chorus of others complain that the FCC wimped out and didn’t go far enough when it comes to wireless carriers.

And the entire debate is littered with competing interests, including the mobile-phone carriers, internet service providers, private enterprise, developers, Congress and, last but not least, the public.

“In general, we think arguments that regulating the internet is ‘ancillary’ to some other regulatory authority that the FCC has been granted just don’t have sufficient limitations to stop bad FCC behavior in the future and create the ‘Trojan horse’ risk we have long warned about,” Phillips said.

But who can be trusted in this debate?

The answer opens Pandora’s box.

Brasil lidera Movimento para Criar Regime Global da Internet

Luiz Inácio da Silva, é o “peão” dos globalistas para censurar a Internet.

Por Luis R. Miranda
The Real Agenda
Janeiro 3, 2010

As Nações Unidas e alguns de seus estados mais opressivos estão pedindo a regulação global da Internet, incluindo a censura. Para esse fim, a ONU está trabalhando para estabelecer um “grupo de trabalho intergovernamental” para encontrar maneiras de controlar melhor a rede mundial de computadores e para “harmonizar” as políticas de conteúdo da Internet.

Censura em Internet

Dirigido pela delegação brasileira, chefiada pelo “antigo” marxista revolucionário Luiz Inácio “Lula” da Silva, a ONU está defendendo um novo regime de Internet e os membros que apoiam este plano inclui alguns dos governos mais despóticos da terra. Entre eles: China comunista e as ditaduras islâmicas da Arábia Saudita e Irã. Outros países que apóiam a idéia são a Índia ea África do Sul.

National Public Radio citou alguns funcionários do governo empurrando a ideia. “Os governos estão no meio desse processo”, disse o representante do Ministério chinês da Indústria da Informação, Tang Zicai. “Esse processo não pode avançar sem a participação significativa dos governos.” O regime comunista da China é conhecido por, entre outras coisas, a censura da Internet, a repressão brutal da dissidência, e até mesmo abortos forçados.

O regime islâmico iraniano, que também é conhecido por esmagar a oposição política, apoiou o movimento das Nações Unidas. “O progresso não apoiou o crescimento dos países em desenvolvimento em questões relacionadas à política de Internet”, disse o representante da ditadura, Mohammed Hussain Nejad. “Os países desenvolvidos monopolizam a formulação de políticas sobre questões como tratados mutuamente exclusivos, enquanto marginalizam ainda mais os outros países, principalmente os em desenvolvimento.”

A ditadura islâmica que governa o país norte Africano da Mauritânia, que tomou o poder após a interrupção do governo despótico anterior, também expressou esperanças para a censura na Internet em todo o mundo. Durante as conversações da ONU em Nova York, os tiranos da Mauritânia sugeriram que “a política internacional no ambiente da Internet deve incentivar cada país para assegurar o controle de conteúdos na Internet.” O propósito da censura de seu mandato como o representante do regime, seria para evitar o aparecimento de conteúdos na Internet “não autorizados pelas leis da moralidade” no território de qualquer outro governo. Em outras palavras, se o governo da Mauritânia pensa que qualquer conteúdo não é moral, este seria proibido de acessar em outros países.

Global esforços de regulação têm o apoio de uma resolução adoptada pelo Conselho Económico e Social, que se destinava a “pedir consultas abertas e inclusivas envolvendo todos os Estados-Membros e demais partes interessadas para ajudar no processo de cooperação reforçada para permitir aos governos em igualdade de condições realizar seus deveres e responsabilidades no que diz respeito às questões de política pública relacionados com a Internet … ”

O Fórum de Internet da ONU vai expirar em breve, e a corrida para manter e construir o que foi alcançado em termos de controle da Internet já coemcou. Até agora, a Comissão de Ciência e Tecnologia para o Desenvolvimento do plano da ONU planeja a próxima fase do plano de governo. E desta vez, este plano inclui somente os governos.

Houve alguns protestos de pequena parte de alguns governos e grupos industriais. Mas a maioria das reclamações são sobre o processo, não sobre a censura e regulação.

“O pior cenário seria a instituição de formas de controle das Nações Unidas na Internet”, disse o coordenador de Política Internacional de Comunicações e Informação do Departamento de Estado os EUA, Philip Verveer. “Inevitavelmente, a lentidão vai trazer enormes problemas em termos de tomar decisões críticas, não seria possível tomar decisões entre as nações porque tomariam muito tempo. O processo de definição da arquitectura da Internet, a adoção de tecnologias ou de acordos comerciais ao redor do local seria muito lenta. ”

Verveer, a seu crédito, manifestou alguma preocupação com a censura. “[Estes governos] não gostam da idéia de livre fluxo de informações e o controle governamental seria uma forma de controlar o conteúdo que passa através da Internet, pedindo um tratado e outras administrações para cooperar em termos da remoção do conteúdo que não se entende como moral”, disse ele. Mas para a maioria, o processo de regulamentação e de exclusão foram identificados como problemas, e não o começo da supressão da expressão.

O governo da Austrália também expressou sua oposição, apesar de não abordar especificamente a vontade de ditaduras e das Nações Unidas para censurar a web. “Minha preocupação é que, se fôssemos fazer um movimento para formar um órgão do governo, enviamos uma mensagem a sociedade civil que a sua valiosa contribuição não é necessária ou não esta sendo procurada”, disse ele na reunião das Nações Unidas em Nova Iorque. Vários outros governos expressaram preocupação sobre o processo.

“A beleza da Internet está em que não é controlada por um único grupo”, escreveu a gigante da web, Google, em seu blog. “Sua estrutura é de baixo para cima – com os acadêmicos, organizações sem fins lucrativos, empresas e governos que trabalham para melhorar a maravilha tecnológica do mundo moderno. Este modelo fez a internet muito aberta – é um campo de testes para a inovação por qualquer pessoa, em qualquer lugar – o que também impediu a interesses especiais assumir o controle “.

Muitos outros grupos publicaram uma carta conjunta condenando o movimento, incluindo o Conselho de Controle da Internet, Internet Society, a Câmara de Comércio Internacional, e muitos mais, o Google anunciou que estava apoiando uma petição para parar o ONU e os seus companheiros. “Nós não acreditamos que os governos deveriam ter um monopólio na internet. O financiamento actualmente em vigor e trabalha protegem os usuários dos interesses existentes e permitem uma rápida inovação. Nós vamos lutar para mantê-lo dessa maneira. ”

Naturalmente, o Google está trabalhando em separado com o governo dos EUA para efetivamente assumir o controle total da web.

As revelações de Wikileaks são uma das razões citadas para justificar as ambições de regulamentação, e as revelações foram especificamente mencionadas pelo governo brasileiro, que está encabeçando o movimento para a censura. Mas enquanto alguns elementos do governo dos EUA oferecem uma sentença leve do sistema proposto, o Departamento de “Homeland Security” apreendeu sites pelo que chamaram “violações de direitos autorais” sem nenhuma prova, e sem ter processado os alegados autores desses crimes nos tribunais. Enquanto isso, a Comissão Federal de Comunicações está trabalhando febrilmente sobre a aprovação e aplicação de normas inconstitucionais que penalizam Internet – tradicionalmente livre e aberta – sem sequer obter a aprovação do Congresso.

Mas os comentaristas conservadores nos EUA estão correndo para entrar no ringue. “A ONU está respondendo às preocupações dos governos dos países membros, incluindo os Estados Unidos, a internet permitiu a criação de empresas como WikiLeaks, enquanto que a FCC está mais preocupada com mídia conservadora na Internet que minam as tentativas do governo para controlar a notícia através de sua mídia corporativa”, escreveu o jornalista e escritor Jerome Corsi. “O que está em jogo é o futuro dos direitos electrónicos e a liberdade de expressão. Governos de todo o mundo percebem que eles têm menos controle sobre a mídia alternativa e críticas podem operar livremente na internet. “Ele concluiu explicando que” as Nações Unidas estão preocupadas com a Internet que porque não podem controla-la. ”

Legisladores nos Estados Unidos também reagiram com indignação à tentativa de aquisição das Nações Unidas. Representante Mary Bono Mack, apresentou uma resolução que condena os esforços da ONU. “[A] Internet progrediu e prosperou precisamente porque não foi submetida à mão pesada e sufocante de uma organização governamental. As Nações Unidas tentam controlar algo tão fundamental para nossa economia – como a Internet – é ofensivo e totalmente fora de lugar “, disse ele na introdução do projeto. “É dificil o suficiente tentar controlar a Comissão Federal de Comunicações e de suas iniciativas na internet, imagine ter de convencer os governos, como Síria, Irã e Venezuela … Apelo ao Presidente e seu governo se opor a qualquer tentativa de transferir o controle da Internet para os Estados Unidos, as Nações Unidas ou de outras entidades internacionais governamentais. ”

Os tiranos de todas as variedades percebem que uma Internet livre é uma ameaça ao seu controle, por isso não é necessariamente surpreendente que direcionem esforços para regular e censurar. O que é ainda mais alarmante, porém, é a falta de protesto sério no “mundo livre” – que até agora está trabalhando em seus próprios sistemas a nível nacional e internacional para pôr fim ao que poderia ser a última esperança da liberdade de expressão sem censura em todo o mundo.

Para que a liberdade sobreviva e se expanda no mundo, as pessoas devem opor os planos dos tiranos e seus parceiros internacionais para continuar com esse pesadelo.

Brazil heading calls for Global Internet Regime

Marxist Luiz Inacio Da Silva is serving as the globalists’ pawn to bring about internet governance

By Alex Newman
The New American

Outgoing Brazilian President Luiz Da Silva

The United Nations and some of its most oppressive member states are clamoring for global regulation of the Internet, including possible censorship. Toward that end, the UN is working to set up an “intergovernmental task force” to figure out how to better control the web at the international level and how to “harmonize” policing of Internet content.

Led by the Brazilian delegation, headed by “former” Marxist revolutionary Luiz Inacio “Lula” da Silva, advocates for the new Internet regime include some of the most despotic governments on earth. Among them: communist China and the Islamic dictatorships of Saudi Arabia and Iran. Other regimes backing the plot include India and South Africa.

National Public Radio quoted some of the governmental representatives pushing the issue. “The governments are located in the center of this process,” claimed Chinese Ministry of Industry and Information representative Tang Zicai. “This process cannot be accomplished without the meaningful participation of the governments.” The regime in communist China is known for, among other things, its censorship of the Internet, brutal suppression of dissent, and even forced abortions.

The Islamic Iranian regime, which is also famous for squashing political opposition, backs the UN-led moves as well. “Developments have not been supportive of increasing the leverage of developing countries in policy issues pertaining to the Internet,”explained the dictatorship’s representative, Mohammed Hussain Nejad. “The few developed countries are either monopolizing policymaking on such issues or entering into exclusive treaties among themselves, while further marginalizing other countries, mainly developing ones.”

The Islamic military dictatorship ruling the north-African country of Mauritania, which seized power by arresting the nation’s previous despots, also expressed high hopes for global Internet censorship. During the UN talks in New York, the Mauritian tyrants suggested that “international policy in the field of Internet should urge each country to ensure control of Internet content.” The purpose of the mandated censorship, according the regime’s representative, would be to prevent the appearance of internet content “not authorized by law and morality” in any other government’s territory. In other words, if the government of Mauritania objects to something, Americans would be prohibited from seeing it as well.

The global regulatory efforts had help from a resolution passed by the UN Economic and Social Council which was intended to “convene open and inclusive consultations involving all Member States and all other stakeholders with a view to assisting the process towards enhanced cooperation in order to enable Governments on an equal footing to carry out their roles and responsibilities in respect of international public policy issues pertaining to the Internet…”

With the UN’s Internet Governance Forum set to expire soon, the rush is on to build upon what has already been accomplished in terms of Internet governance. So now, the UN’s “Commission on Science and Technology for Development” is plotting the next phase of the governance scheme. And this time, it will consist of only governments.

There have been some minor protests from certain governments and industry groups. But most of those objections have surrounded the process, not the censorship and regulation, per se.

“The worst case scenario would be the imposition of U.N. types of governance over the Internet,” said Coordinator of International Communication and Information Policy at the U.S. State Department Philip Verveer. “[It would] inevitably bring with it tremendous slowness in terms of reaching critical decisions, because you can’t have decisions taken among nations on anything that won’t take a very long time. It would potentially [slow] changes in the architecture of the Internet, the adoption of technology, or the commercial arrangements that surround interconnection.”

Verveer, to his credit, did express some concern about censorship. “[These governments] don’t like the idea of the free flow of information, and intergovernmental controls would be a way of controlling the content that passes over the Internet by requiring, by treaty if you will, other administrations to cooperate in terms of suppressing speech that they didn’t like,” he said. But for the most part, the regulatory process and exclusion were identified as the problems, not the principle of suppressing speech.

A representative of the Australian government expressed objections too, though not specifically dealing with the desire of dictatorships and the UN to censor the web. “My concern is that if we were to make a move to form a governmental-only body then that would send a very strong signal to civil society that their valuable contribution was not required or was not being looked for,” he told the UN meeting in New York. Several other governments voiced concerns about the process as well.

Industry giants and civil groups protested too, though mostly they were upset about not being included in future Internet governance discussions.

“The beauty of the Internet is that it’s not controlled by any one group,” wrote search-engine giant Google on its blog. “Its governance is bottoms-up — with academics, non-profits, companies and governments all working to improve this technological wonder of the modern world. This model has not only made the Internet very open — a testbed for innovation by anyone, anywhere — it’s also prevented vested interests from taking control.”

Noting that numerous other groups had issued a joint letter condemning the move, including the Internet Governance Caucus, the Internet Society, the International Chamber of Commerce, and many more, Google said it was supporting a petition to stop the UN and its cohorts. “[W]e don’t believe governments should be allowed to grant themselves a monopoly on Internet governance. The current bottoms-up, open approach works — protecting users from vested interests and enabling rapid innovation. Let’s fight to keep it that way.”

WikiLeaks revelations are one of the reasons being cited to justify the regulatory ambitions, and the leaks were specifically mentioned by the Brazilian government, which is helping lead the censorship charge. But while some elements of the U.S. government have offered mild condemnation of the proposed scheme, the Department of “Homeland Security” has been busy seizing websites over alleged “copyright violations” while the Federal Communications Commission works feverishly on enacting and implementing unconstitutional regulations that would stifle the traditionally free and open Internet — without even obtaining Congressional approval.

But conservative commentators in the U.S. are already jumping on the case as well. “The U.N. is reacting to concerns of member governments, including the United States, that the Internet has made companies like WikiLeaks possible, while the FCC is more concerned about conservative news outlets on the Internet that are increasingly undermining government attempts to control the news through sympathetic mainstream media outlets,” wrote author and journalist Jerome Corsi. “What is at stake is the future of electronic free-speech rights, as governments around the world realize how much less control government authorities have with a robust and critical press able to operate freely on the Internet.” He concluded by explaining that “the U.N. is uncomfortable with anything like the Internet that the globalists cannot control.”

U.S. legislators have also responded furiously to the UN’s attempted takeover of the web. Rep. Mary Bono Mack even introduced a resolution condemning the efforts and calling for the UN to back off. “[T]he Internet has progressed and thrived precisely because it has not been subjected to the suffocating effect of a governmental organization’s heavy hand. The attempt of the United Nations to overtake something that is so central to our economy — like the Internet — is offensive and completely out of line,” she said while introducing the bill. “We have a hard enough time keeping the Federal Communications Commission’s hands off the Internet; imagine having to convince governments like Syria, Iran and Venezuela … I call on the President and his Administration to oppose any effort to transfer control of the Internet to the United Nations or any other international governmental entity.”

Tyrants of all varieties perceive an unregulated Internet as a threat to their control, so it is not necessarily surprising that they would spearhead efforts to regulate and censor it. What is even more alarming, however, is the lack of serious protest from the supposed “Free World” — which even now is working on its own schemes at national and international levels to end what could be humanity’s last best hope for free speech and uncensored expression worldwide.

For freedom to survive and expand around the world, people must stop international would-be tyrants and associated national dictatorships from moving forward with this nightmarish plan.

Net Neutrality: Last Step Towards Complete Tyranny

World Wide Web lock down begins in the USA

By Robert McDowell

Tomorrow morning the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) will mark the winter solstice by taking an unprecedented step to expand government’s reach into the Internet by attempting to regulate its inner workings. In doing so, the agency will circumvent Congress and disregard a recent court ruling.

How did the FCC get here?

For years, proponents of so-called “net neutrality” have been calling for strong regulation of broadband “on-ramps” to the Internet, like those provided by your local cable or phone companies. Rules are needed, the argument goes, to ensure that the Internet remains open and free, and to discourage broadband providers from thwarting consumer demand. That sounds good if you say it fast.

Nothing is broken that needs fixing, however. The Internet has been open and freedom-enhancing since it was spun off from a government research project in the early 1990s. Its nature as a diffuse and dynamic global network of networks defies top-down authority. Ample laws to protect consumers already exist. Furthermore, the Obama Justice Department and the European Commission both decided this year that net-neutrality regulation was unnecessary and might deter investment in next-generation Internet technology and infrastructure.

Analysts and broadband companies of all sizes have told the FCC that new rules are likely to have the perverse effect of inhibiting capital investment, deterring innovation, raising operating costs, and ultimately increasing consumer prices. Others maintain that the new rules will kill jobs. By moving forward with Internet rules anyway, the FCC is not living up to its promise of being “data driven” in its pursuit of mandates—i.e., listening to the needs of the market.

It wasn’t long ago that bipartisan and international consensus centered on insulating the Internet from regulation. This policy was a bright hallmark of the Clinton administration, which oversaw the Internet’s privatization. Over time, however, the call for more Internet regulation became imbedded into a 2008 presidential campaign promise by then-Sen. Barack Obama. So here we are.

Last year, FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski started to fulfill this promise by proposing rules using a legal theory from an earlier commission decision (from which I had dissented in 2008) that was under court review. So confident were they in their case, FCC lawyers told the federal court of appeals in Washington, D.C., that their theory gave the agency the authority to regulate broadband rates, even though Congress has never given the FCC the power to regulate the Internet. FCC leaders seemed caught off guard by the extent of the court’s April 6 rebuke of the commission’s regulatory overreach.

In May, the FCC leadership floated the idea of deeming complex and dynamic Internet services equivalent to old-fashioned monopoly phone services, thereby triggering price-and-terms regulations that originated in the 1880s. The announcement produced what has become a rare event in Washington: A large, bipartisan majority of Congress agreeing on something. More than 300 members of Congress, including 86 Democrats, contacted the FCC to implore it to stop pursuing Internet regulation and to defer to Capitol Hill.

Facing a powerful congressional backlash, the FCC temporarily changed tack and convened negotiations over the summer with a select group of industry representatives and proponents of Internet regulation. Curiously, the commission abruptly dissolved the talks after Google and Verizon, former Internet-policy rivals, announced their own side agreement for a legislative blueprint. Yes, the effort to reach consensus was derailed by . . . consensus.

After a long August silence, it appeared that the FCC would defer to Congress after all. Agency officials began working with House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman on a draft bill codifying network management rules. No Republican members endorsed the measure. Later, proponents abandoned the congressional effort to regulate the Net.

Still feeling quixotic pressure to fight an imaginary problem, the FCC leadership this fall pushed a small group of hand-picked industry players toward a “choice” between a bad option (broad regulation already struck down in April by the D.C. federal appeals court) or a worse option (phone monopoly-style regulation). Experiencing more coercion than consensus or compromise, a smaller industry group on Dec. 1 gave qualified support for the bad option. The FCC’s action will spark a billable-hours bonanza as lawyers litigate the meaning of “reasonable” network management for years to come. How’s that for regulatory certainty?

To date, the FCC hasn’t ruled out increasing its power further by using the phone monopoly laws, directly or indirectly regulating rates someday, or expanding its reach deeper into mobile broadband services. The most expansive regulatory regimes frequently started out modest and innocuous before incrementally growing into heavy-handed behemoths.

On this winter solstice, we will witness jaw-dropping interventionist chutzpah as the FCC bypasses branches of our government in the dogged pursuit of needless and harmful regulation. The darkest day of the year may end up marking the beginning of a long winter’s night for Internet freedom.

Mr. McDowell is a Republican commissioner of the Federal Communications Commission.