Philippines Adopts ‘dictatorial’ Cyber crime Law

BANGKOK POST | OCTOBER 3, 2012

The Philippine government faced a barrage of protests on Wednesday as a cyber crime law went into effect that critics said had imposed dictator-style monitoring and policing of the Internet.

Major news outlets, bloggers, rights groups and other critics turned their social media profile pages black to express outrage over the law, which could see people face long jail terms for posting defamatory comments online.

Thousand of furious tweets were posted on Twitter, with the hashtag #notocybercrimelaw becoming the top trend on the microblogging site in the Philippines on Wednesday.

“This law works against ordinary netizens and disregards, among other things, our right to privacy and freedom of expression,” tweeted Noemi Dado, a prominent Manila blogger who edits a citizen media site called Blog Watch.

Senator Teofisto Guingona, one of the few members of parliament who opposed the bill that President Benigno Aquino signed into law last month, also stepped up his campaign to have it overturned.

“The implementation of the law… will take back our citizens to the Dark Ages where freedom of speech and expression were not recognised,” he said in a statement.

Many provisions of the cyber crime law aim to fight a range of online crimes not deemed controversial, such as fraud, identity theft, spamming and child pornography.

However one provision makes any libellous comments posted online a criminal offence, with a penalty of up to 12 years in jail, much tougher than for traditional media.

Equally controversially, the Department of Justice also now has the power to close down websites and monitor online activities, such as email, instant messaging or video chats, without a warrant.

The Philippines has had one of Asia’s most vibrant democracies and robust media environments since a people power revolution led by Aquino’s mother toppled dictator Ferdinand Marcos in 1986.

Social media has also flourished in recent years. Nearly a third of the population of 100 million people has access to the Internet, and 96 percent of Filipino web users use Facebook, according to industry figures.

But critics of the law have said it echoes tactics to silence and monitor dissenters employed by Marcos when he imposed martial law in the 1970s.

“The Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 is the worst assault on free expression since Ferdinand Marcos declared martial law,” Luis Teodoro, a journalism professor at the University of the Philippines, wrote in a blog.

Joaquin Bernas, a Jesuit priest and lawyer who helped draft the country’s post-dictatorship constitution in 1987, voiced similar sentiments in an article published this week outlining his concerns about the law.

“There are very valid reasons for being frightened by this,” Bernas wrote in the Philippine Daily Inquirer, highlighting the government’s new authority to monitor and close down suspect websites without a warrant.

“I for one recall the law on search and seizure in effect during the past martial law period.”

Aquino’s spokespeople have repeatedly defended the law as necessary to fight cyber crime, while insisting his administration would uphold freedom of speech online.

They also said a spate of hacking on government websites in protest over the law highlighted the need for it.

But amid the backlash, some of the politicians who voted for the bill said they would were willing to get rid of the controversial provisions.

“At the end, we should be humble enough to admit we may have made a mistake and we can still amend the law,” said Congressman Sonny Angara, whose father, Senator Edgardo Angara, authored the cyber crime bill.

Critics have also filed petitions to the Supreme Court calling on it to rule that the law is unconstitutional.

United Nations Precipitously Falls into Irrelevance

By LUIS MIRANDA | THE REAL AGENDA | SEPTEMBER 27, 2012

How Corrupt Is the World Food Program? Click and learn more.

How do you know when an organization has lived beyond its days? When even its minion members do not attend what is portrayed as the most relevant meeting of the year. The decay of the United Nations is not new. The globalist-founded entity lost its credibility pretty much since it was created by ignoring crime and corruption all over the planet.

On its charter, the United Nations fancies itself as an organization that was founded to: maintain world peace and security, develop friendly relations among nations, achieve international co-operation in solving international problems and to be a centre for harmonizing the actions of nations.

One fact that the Charter does not say is who really founded the U.N. and how its founders never mean to achieve any of the goals listed above, which is why this irrelevant entity has never come even close to achieving anything positive. So, even though we’ve reported tirelessly about the real origin of the United Nations, let’s review it quickly again.

The United Nations was created back in 1945. The key proponent of the U.N. was Alger Hiss, an American lawyer and communist spy for the Stalin regime, as testified in Congress under oath by Whittaker Chambers, a former Communist Party member. Other founders of the U.N. include the Rockefeller family, and some other 30 or 40 members of the Council on Foreign Relations members, among others. Rockefeller himself donated the land on which the U.N. building sits today.

Upon its creation, the U.N. attempted to become relevant by producing a Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which is only valid as long as those rights “do not oppose the purposes and principles of the United Nations.” This Declaration though, was not created to bring freedom and liberty. It has the purpose of giving people the right “to a social and international order”, as explained on article 28 of the U.N. document.

Anyone mildly informed about current events is pretty well aware of the United Nations actions and its core globalist principles, so let’s  review a number of ‘accomplishments’ that the U.N. has accumulated throughout the years. Going from the most recent to oldest of its actions, the U.N. works hard to convince people that they and their governments need to be disarmed.

The U.N. is also a champion pusher of a global tax to finance its illegitimate operations. An initiative presented by the U.N.’s President of the Economic and Social Council, Milos Koterec, calls for the imposition of a global tax in an attempt to globally institutionalize socialism as a way to solve every single problem there is. His plan was presented at a forum whose main focus was the non-existent right of people to have “universal access to basic social protection and social services.” This is not to say that people in need should be left to die, but that an international institution without legitimacy like the U.N. does not have the legal standing to do such a thing.

The United Nations is known for financing eugenics programs all over the world with the monies it already receives from developed nations from across the planet as well as fake philanthropists such as John D. Rockefeller, Henry Ford, Edward Harriman, Andrew Carnegie, William Gates, George Soros, Ted Turner, Oprah Winfrey, Prince Charles and many others. Bill Gates and Ted Turner have publicly expressed their desire to depopulate the planet and they use their tax exempted foundations to finance their eugenics programs.

“First we got population. The world today has 6.8 billion  people. That’s headed up to about 9 billion. Now if we do a really great job on  new vaccines, health care, reproductive health  services, we lower that by perhaps 10 or 15  percent.”  – Bill Gates at California TED 2010 Conference.

“A total population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal.”  – Ted Turner

“In the event that I am reincarnated, I would like to return as a deadly virus, in order to contribute something to solve overpopulation.”  – Prince Philipe quote from Deutsche Press Agentur (DPA), August, 1988.

Prince Philip helped start the World Wildlife Fund in 1961 with former Nazi SS Officer Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands, who is closely affiliated with the founders of the Bilderberg Group, and Sir Julian Huxley, who was also the President of the British Eugenics Society.

The U.N. is also a promoter of government-controlled access to health and medicine, pushing a global set of rules to manage what people eat and don’t eat. This initiative is known as Codex Alimentarius, a set of policies that let’s the U.N. govern over nutrition and access to traditional or alternative medical treatments and food.

Instead of actually dedicating its efforts to ending poverty and bringing health and services to the neediest, the U.N. has used its budget to push for a socialist agenda which includes taking possession of government-owned lands as well as privately kept properties all around the world. Through its proposed Agenda 21 initiative, the U.N. intends to socialize land ownership not to give it to the poorest, but to hoard it. As explained in a recent article, the United Nations is infiltrating developing nations to convince its leaders and citizens that they should not aspire to enjoy the benefits of the land and the industry. Instead, U.N. accomplices say, people should seek to be in peace with themselves while letting their countries and their people live in denigrating conditions.

For these and many other reasons, the United Nations has become increasingly irrelevant even for people like Vladimir Putin and Angela Merkel, who missed the 2012 meeting happening now in New York City. “The concept of a world of nation-states, which dates to the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648, and the idea that they have a monopoly on international relations and on the conduct of war, is no longer valid,” said Max Manwaring, a professor at the Strategic Studies Institute of the U.S. Army War College in Carlisle, to the Wall Street Journal.

While the globalist organizations tell us that independent nation-states are obsolete, it seems that the only antique entity around here is their main instrument to centralize power and control — the U.N.. Despite the fact that their sham is falling in pieces, globalist minions like Barack Obama attempt to challenge real constitutional rights and freedoms by saying that “at a time when anyone with a cell phone can spread offensive views around the world with the click of a button, the notion that we can control the flow of information is obsolete.” Do you see the double speech?

The appearance of social media that helped democratize information, and although they remain in the hands of corporations, these media now threaten to destroy the ‘monopoly of truth’ in the hands of the establishment. That is why the U.N. is also attacking the right of people to say what they think. The United Nations is one of the strongest pushers of internet censorship and bans on free speech.

But don’t forget about the United Nations push for the Nazi inspired Environmentalist movement. The Nazi environmental program was the base for the creation of the U.N.’s Global Biodiversity Assessment Report. The complete program of sustainability is based on an effort to change human behavior to states that ordinarily humans would not approve or enjoy. This changes in human behavior are mostly brought upon by instigating fear. Fear of global warming, climate change, natural disasters, wars, famine, droughts and so on. This is a technique used throughout history by establishment globalists to ease people into their deadly social, political and economic models.

The United Nations is not a scapegoat as suggested by Flavia Krause-Jackson of the Wall Street Journal. She implies that the fact only 5 countries make all the decisions in the security council has somehow handicapped the U.N.. There is a reason why the United Nations was never opened to more nations to participate of the decision-making process: The U.N. was never meant to be what Ms. Jackson and those she interviewed for her article think. It was meant to be just another globalist-controlled entity that serves as a tool to torture the planet into a super concentrated state of tyranny.

The Real Agenda encourages the sharing of its original content ONLY through the use of the tools provided at the bottom of every article. Please DON’T copy articles from The Real Agenda and redistribute by email or post to the web, unless you request and receive written permission to do so. If permission is granted, you must publish the article EXACTLY as it appears on The Real Agenda.

ACTA Rejected in European Union Vote

BBC | JULY 4, 2012

The European Parliament has voted to reject the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (Acta).

The proposed agreement sought to curb piracy, but internet campaigners said it posed a threat to online freedoms.

The rejection vote followed a failed attempt to postpone the decision because of ongoing investigations into Acta by the European Court of Justice.

Euro MP David Martin said: “It’s time to give [Acta] its last rites.”

Twenty-two EU member states, including the UK, had signed the Acta treaty – but it had not been formally ratified.

Outside the EU, the treaty also had the support of the US, Australia, Canada, Japan, Morocco, New Zealand, Singapore and South Korea.

However, following significant protests, several countries chose not to back it.

Wednesday’s vote is seen by most observers as the final blow to the treaty in its current form. It means no member states will be able to join the agreement.

A total of 478 MEPs voted against the deal, with 39 in favour. There were 165 abstentions.

Read Full Article →

How Bad is CISPA when a Giant Tech Company Cries Foul?

By DARA KERR | CNET | MAY 2, 2012

Despite big name tech companies — such as Facebook, Microsoft, and Oracle — supporting the controversial Internet surveillance bill that passed in the House last week, Mozilla has come out against the legislation.

“While we wholeheartedly support a more secure Internet, CISPA has a broad and alarming reach that goes far beyond Internet security,” the tech company wrote to Forbes reporter Andy Greenberg. “The bill infringes on our privacy, includes vague definitions of cybersecurity, and grants immunities to companies and government that are too broad around information misuse.”

Mozilla is the first major tech company to unreservedly speak out against the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act, or CISPA.

The day after the U.S. House of Representatives passed the bill in a 248-168 vote, Microsoft said that its support was abating and any new law must allow “us to honor the privacy and security promises we make to our customers.” However, it still hasn’t withdrawn support for the legislation.

Other tech companies that support the bill are Facebook, Oracle, Symantec, Verizon, AT&T, Intel, and trade association CTIA, which counts representatives of T-Mobile, Sybase, Nokia, and Qualcomm as board members.

If passed by the Senate, CISPA would not formally grant the NSA or Homeland Security any additional surveillance authority. But it would usher in a new era of information sharing between companies and government agencies — with limited oversight and privacy safeguards.

In its e-mail to Forbes, Mozilla wrote, “We hope the Senate takes the time to fully and openly consider these issues with stakeholder input before moving forward with this legislation.”

US House Approves CISPA Bill

Although Obama had expressed concerns about the power of the new legislation, he’s said he will sign it anyways.

By PETE KASPEROWICZ | THE HILL | APRIL 27, 2012

The House on Thursday approved controversial cybersecurity legislation that the Obama administration has threatened to veto.

Members approved the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection (CISPA) act, H.R. 3523, in a 248-168 vote that split both parties somewhat. The bill was supported by 42 Democrats, while 28 Republicans opposed it.

The House approved the bill after making a number of changes aimed at limiting the way the government could use the information that companies provide.

CISPA would make it easier for companies to share information with the government about the threats facing their networks. Supporters — Republicans and Democrats alike — said the proposal is a reasonable compromise between the need for privacy and security.

“The intelligence community has the ability to detect these cyber threats, these malicious codes and viruses, before they are able to attack our networks,” said Intelligence Committee ranking member Dutch Ruppersberger (D-Md.). “But right now, federal law prohibits our intelligence community from sharing the classified cyber threat with the companies that will protect us that control the network, the AT&Ts, the Verizons, the Comcasts, those groups.

“We have the ability to give them the information to protect us, but yet we have to pass a law to do that.”

The bill enjoyed strong bipartisan support before the administration issued a veto threat and sided with privacy advocates who argue the bill does not do enough to protect consumers’ private information. The White House also wants regulatory mandates for critical infrastructure providers, which are not contained in CISPA.

Ruppersberger said earlier Thursday that Obama’s veto threat of his bill was like a “kick in the solar plexus“.

It also seemed to have the effect of peeling Democrats off the bill, as several Democrats took up Obama’s arguments during floor debate.

“In an effort to foster information sharing, this bill would erode the privacy protections of every single American using the Internet,” said Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.). “It would create a Wild West of information sharing, where any certified business can share with any government agency, who can then use the information for any national security purpose and grant the business immunity from virtually any liability.”

Rep. Jared Polis (D-Colo.) added that the bill is an “unprecedented, sweeping piece of legislation that would waive every single privacy law ever enacted in the name of cybersecurity.”

Republicans did allow several amendments to be considered that narrowed the scope of the bill, including proposals from members of both parties. One from Rep. Ben Quayle (R-Ariz.) would allow the government to use the information it collects only for five purposes, all related to protecting people and prosecuting crimes.

Others would prohibit the government from using certain electronic data as it works to fight cyber threats, narrow the definition of what information can be shared, and encourage the government to create procedures to protect privacy.

Even before those amendments, supporters argued that the bill has enough safeguards in it to ensure the privacy of consumer data.

“The bill includes significant safeguards to protect personal and private information,” Rep. Rich Nugent (R-Fla.) said. “It significantly limits the federal government’s use of that information that the private companies voluntarily provide, including the government’s authority to search data.”

The bill is one of four cybersecurity bills the House is expected to consider this week. The others are the Federal Information Security Amendments act (H.R. 4257), the Cybersecurity Enhancement act (H.R. 2096), and the Advancing America’s Networking and Information Technology Research and Development act (H.R. 3834). House Republicans have put these three bills on the suspension calendar, a process usually reserved for non-controversial bills that will require them to pass by a two-thirds majority vote.