GBTV - Where the Truth Lives

Election Season 2014

And it has brought us to this trainwreck called ObamaCare and we have bankrupted our kids and grandkids!

We are now headed into the 2014 Election Season and common sense and conservatism are on the rise. Please stand-up and be counted!

Reading Collusion: How the Media Stole the 2012 Election is a great place to start!

The Founding Father's Real Reason for the Second Amendment

And remember the words of Thomas Jefferson "The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." See Video of Suzanna Gratia-Hupp’s Congressional Testimony: What the Second Amendment is REALLY For, below (u-tube HERE).

The Leaders Are Here... Palin, Cruz, Lee, Paul, Chaffetz....

T'S A WONDERFUL LIFE

Can You Really Still Believe That None of These People Would Have Done a Better Job???

Bloggers' Rights at EFF

SIGN THE PETITION TODAY...

Showing posts with label cybersecurity. Show all posts
Showing posts with label cybersecurity. Show all posts

Friday, July 27, 2012

Bombshell Alert: U.N. Arms Trade Treaty Negotiations - ATT DRAFT! LEAKED – Treaty Does Ban Guns

Bombshell: Leaked UN Treaty Does Ban GunsTreacherous wording upholds “States” gun rights but not individuals… Is anyone really surprised??

Aaron Dykes - Infowars.com - July 26, 2012

101_ATT00001_thumb[1]The text of the anticipated and hotly-contested United Nations Arms Trade Treaty has been leaked, with the treaty itself is set to be adopted and signed by member States as early as today, July 27.

President Obama, today joining the chorus for gun control inside the United States in the wake of the Batman massacre, has previously indicated that he would sign the treaty along with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, would then have to be ratified by the Senate.

Masked behind the language of promoting peace in an international world by preventing genocide, the UN has unleashed a great Trojan Horse that calls upon States to enact national legislation sufficient to meet the minimum goals outlined in this treaty– including gun registries, background checks, import/export controls and more for arms of all types, including small & conventional weapons.

“Each State Party shall adopt national legislation or other appropriate national measures regulations and policies as may be necessary to implement the obligations of this Treaty,” the treaty text states in part.

It makes specific note that the treaty places no limit upon greater gun control efforts within individual nations, and additionally places no expiration on the agreement. The scope of this language proves the analysis by Infowars (1, 2, 3, 4), writers at Forbes and many other publications that have been warning about this deceptive encroachment to be correct– there is an effort to disarm America underway.

---------------

The devil, as usual, is in the details.

Repeatedly, the treaty obligates States to establish “national control systems” to meet the particulars of the treaty. While the phrase “within national laws and regulations” appears to suggest that the 2nd Amendment would limit the implementation, properly read in the context of the wording and history itself, it really only invites new “regulations” where no “law” can be established.

These international goals will undoubtedly pressure changes in the executive branches’ many policies, as we have already seen with the ATF, who are trying to outlaw most types of shotguns, and who separately placed greater reporting burdens on gun shops in the Southwest border states as a response to the Fast & Furious set-up by Eric Holder & co. to demonize and destroy gun ownership.

The first “principle” outlined in the preamble reads: “1. The inherent rights of all States to individual or collective self-defense.” While the language of the treaty appears to recognize the legal right to keep such arms, the text actually recognizes the “inherent right of States” to “individual and collective” self-defense.

This is NOT the same as individual persons’ inherent right to keep and bear arms as recognized and enumerated in the United States’ Bill of Rights. Instead, it puts the collectivist unit known as the State above the individual, in complete defiance of the system set-up in the United States. Individual defense for a State, for instance, refers to what is known on the international scene as “unilateral war,” while collective defense is recognize in such actions as that of NATO or other allied bodies. The States’ right to maintain internal order has also been recognized by the UN, but all other purposes for arms ownership are seen as illegitimate.

It specifically recognizes [only] the “lawful private ownership and use of conventional arms exclusively for, inter alia, recreational, cultural, historical and sporting activities for States where such ownership and use are permitted or protected by law.” There’s been a great deal of rhetoric from gun grabbers over the years attempting to emphasize gun ownership for legitimate sporting uses, but the real purpose of arms ownership is a balance of power at the individual level in order to discourage tyranny at the State level. THAT is what the founding fathers intended, and that is the historical legacy Americans cherish.

NO SPECIFIC PROTECTION for individual persons is contained in this dangerous treaty, though the same media who’ve been demonizing critics of the UN’s effort as delusional and paranoid will attempt to argue otherwise, clinging to deliberately inserted clauses herein that look like stop-guards and protections for gun rights, but properly read, do no such thing.

While the UN advises States to keep within the scope of their own laws, the end-run assault against American’s 2nd Amendment is unmistakeable.

The text was released two days ago, but has received almost no attention in the press. The International Association for the Protection of Civilian Arms Rights and The Examiner have analyzed the treaty, while pointing out that member states like France have “let slip that their ultimate goal is to regulate legitimately-owned ‘weapons.’”

The United Nations has a sordid history of pursuing “general and complete disarmament,” and individual arms including legally owned arms have always been part of that focus. The United Nations treaty from 2001, known as the “SADC Protocol: Southern African Development Community” is, according to the UN’s own disarmament website, a “regional instrument that aims to curtail small arms ownership and illicit trafficking in Southern Africa along with the destruction of surplus state weapons. It is a far-reaching instrument, which goes beyond that of a politically binding declaration, providing the region with a legal basis upon which to deal with both the legal and the illicit trade in firearms.”

As we have previously noted, U.S. troops have been trained to confiscate American guns, while the confiscation in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina has already set the precedent. The deception over aiming for legal guns while pretending to target “illicit” weapons is continued here in this 2012 monster treaty.

Below is the text in full, as it has been proposed and released. Any changes in the signed version will be noted when that time comes:

————————

UNITED NATIONS ARMS TRADE TREATY TEXT

PREAMBLE

The States Parties to this Treaty.

Guided by the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations.

Recalling that the charter of the UN promotes the establishment and maintenance of international peace and security with the least diversion for armaments of the world’s human and economic resources;

Reaffirming the obligation of all State Parties to settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered, in accordance with the Charter of the UN;

Underlining the need to prevent, combat and eradicate the illicit trade of conventional arms and to prevent their diversion to illegal and unauthorized end use, such as terrorism and organized crime;

Recognizing the legitimate political, security, economic and commercial rights and interests of States in the international trade of conventional arms;

Reaffirming the sovereign right and responsibility of any State to regulate and control transfers of conventional arms that take place exclusively within its territory pursuant to its own legal or constitutional systems;

Recognizing that development, human rights and peace and security, which are three pillars of the United Nations, are interlinked and mutually reinforcing.

Recalling the United Nations Disarmament Commission guidelines on international arms transfers adopted by the General Assembly;

Noting the contribution made by the 2001 UN Programme of Action to preventing combating and eradicating the illicit trade in small arms and light weapons in all its aspects, as well as the 2001 Protocol against the illicit manufacturing of and trafficking in Firearms, their parts and components and ammunition, supplementing the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime;

Recognizing the security, social, economic and humanitarian consequences of the illicit trade in and unregulated trade of conventional arms;

Recognizing the challenges faced by victims of armed conflict and their need for adequate care, rehabilitation and social and economic inclusion;

Bearing in mind that the women and children are particularly affected in situations of conflict and armed violence;

Emphasizing that nothing in this treaty prevents States from exercising their right to adopt additional more rigorous measures consistent with the purpose of this Treaty;

Recognizing the legitimate international trade and lawful private ownership and use of conventional arms exclusively for, inter alia, recreational, cultural, historical and sporting activities for States where such ownership and use are permitted or protected by law;

Recognizing the active role that non-governmental organizations and civil society can play in furthering the goals and objectives of this Treaty; and

16. Emphasizing that regulation of the international trade in conventional arms should not hamper international cooperation and legitimate trade in material, equipment and technology for peaceful purposes;

Have agreed as follows:

Principles

Guided by the Purposes and Principles of the Charter of the United Nations, States Parties, In promoting the goals and objectives of this Treaty and implementing its provisions, shall act in accordance with the following principles:

The inherent rights of all States to individual or collective self-defense;

2. Settlement of individual disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered;

3. The rights and obligations of States under applicable international law, including international humanitarian law and international human rights law;

4. The responsibility of all States, in accordance with their respective international obligations, to effectively regulate and control international transfer of conventional arms as well as the primary responsibility of all States to in establishing and implementing their respective national export control systems; and

5. The necessity to implement this Treaty consistently and effectively and in a universal, objective and non-discriminatory manner.

Article 1
Goals and Objectives

Cognizant of the need to prevent and combat the diversion of conventional arms into the illicit market or to unauthorized end users through the improvement of regulation on the international trade in conventional arms,

The goals and objectives of this Treaty are:

- For States Parties to establish the highest possible common standards for regulating or improving regulation of the international trade in conventional arms;

- To prevent, combat and eradicate the illicit trade in conventional arms and their diversion to illegal and unauthorized end use;

In order to:

- Contribute to international and regional peace, security and stability;

- Avoid that the international trade in conventional arms contributes to human suffering;

- Promote cooperation, transparency and responsibility of States Parties in the trade in conventional arms, thus building confidence among States Parties,

Article 2

- A. Covered Items

- 1. This Treaty shall apply to all conventional arms within the following categories:

- a. Battle Tanks

- b. Armored combat vehicles

- c. Large-caliber Artillery systems

- d. Combat aircraft

- e. Attack helicopters

- f. Warships

- g. Missiles and missile launchers

- h. Small Arms and Light Weapons

- 2. Each State Party Shall establish and Maintain a national control system to regulate the export of munitions to the extent necessary to ensure that national controls on the export of the conventional arms covered by Paragraph a1 (a)-(h) are not circumvented by the export of munitions for those conventional arms.

- 3. Each State Party shall establish and maintain a national control system to regulate the export of parts and components to the extent necessary to ensure that national controls on the export of the conventional arms covered by Paragraph A1 are not circumvented by the export of parts and components of those items.

- 4. Each State Party shall establish or update, as appropriate, and maintain a national control list that shall include the items that fall within Paragraph 1 above, as defined on a national basis, based on relevant UN instruments at a minimum. Each State Party shall publish its control list to the extent permitted by national law.

- B. Covered Activities

- 1. This Treaty shall apply to those activities of the international trade in conventional arms covered in paragraph a1 above, and set out in Articles 6-10, hereafter referred to as “transfer.”

- 2. This Treaty shall not apply to the international movement of conventional arms by a State Party or its agents for its armed forces or law enforcement authorities operating outside its national territories, provided they remain under the State Party’s ownership.

Article 3
Prohibited Transfers

A State Party shall not authorize any transfer of conventional arms within the scope of this Treaty if the transfer would violate any obligation under any measure adopted by the United Nations Security Council acting under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations, in particular arms embargoes.

A State Party shall not authorize any transfer of conventional arms within the scope of this Treaty if the transfer would violate its relevant international obligations, under international agreements, to which it is a Party, in particular those relating to the international transfer of, or illicit trafficking in, conventional arms.

A State Party shall not authorize a transfer of conventional arms within the scope of this Treaty for the purpose of facilitating the commission of genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes constituting grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions of 1949, or serious violations of Common Article 3 of the Geneva Convention of 1949.

Article 4
National Assessment

Each State Party, in considering whether to authorize an export of conventional arms within the scope of this Treaty, shall, prior to authorization and through national control systems, make an assessment specific to the circumstances of the transfer based on the following criteria:

Whether the proposed export of conventional arms would:

Be used to commit or facilitate serious violations of international humanitarian law;
Be used to commit or facilitate serious violations of international human rights law;
Contribute to peace and security;
Be used to commit or facilitate an act constituting an offense under international conventions and protocols relating to terrorism or transnational organized crime, to which the transferring State is a Party;

In making the assessment, the transferring State Party shall apply the criteria set out in Paragraph 2 consistently and in an objective and non-discriminatory manner and in accordance with the principles set out in this Treaty, taking into account relevant factors, including information provided by the importing State.

4. In assessing the risk pursuant to Paragraph 2, the transferring State Party may also take into consideration the establishment of risk mitigation measures including confidence-building measures and jointly developed programs by the exporting and importing State.

5. If in the view of the authorizing State Party, this assessment, which would include any actions that may be taken in accordance with Paragraph 4, constitutes a substantial risk, the State Party shall not authorize the transfer.

Article 5
Additional Obligations

Each State Party, when authorizing an export, shall consider taking feasible measures, including joint actions with other States involved in the transfer, to avoid the transferred arms:
being diverted to the illicit market;
be used to commit or facilitate gender-based violence or violence against children;
become subject to corrupt practices; or
adversely impact the development of the recipient State.

Article 6
General Implementation

Each State Party shall implement this Treaty in a consistent, objective and non-discriminatory manner in accordance with the goals and objectives of this Treaty;

The implementation of this Treaty shall not prejudice previous or future obligations undertaken with regards to international instruments, provided that those obligations are consistent with the goals and objectives of this Treaty. This Treaty shall not be cited as grounds for voiding contractual obligations under defense cooperation agreements concluded by States Parties to this Treaty.

Each State Party shall take all appropriate legislative and administrative measures necessary to implement the provisions of this Treaty and designate competent national authorities in order to have an effective, transparent and predictable national control system regulating the transfer of conventional arms;

Each State Party shall establish one or more national contact points to exchange information on matters related to the implementation of this Treaty. A State Party shall notify the Implementation Support Unit (See Article 13) of its national contact point(s) and keep the information updated.

State Parties involved in a transfer of conventional arms shall, in a manner consistent with the principles of this Treaty, take appropriate measures to prevent diversion to the illicit market or to unauthorized end-users. All State Parties shall cooperate, as appropriate, with the exporting State to that end.

If a diversion is detected the State or States Parties that made the decision shall verify the State or States Parties that could be affected by such diversion, in particulate those State Parties that are involved in the transfer, without delay.

Each State Party shall take the appropriate measures, within national laws and regulations, to regulate transfers of conventional arms within the scope of the Treaty.

Article 7
Export

Each State Party shall conduct risk assessments, as detailed in Articles 4 and 5, whether to grant authorizations for the transfer of conventional arms under the scope of this Treaty. State Parties shall apply Articles 3-5 consistently, taking into account all relevant information, including the nature and potential use of the items to be transferred and the verified end-user in the country of final destination.

Each State Party shall take measures to ensure all authorizations for the export of conventional arms under the scope of the Treaty are detailed and issued prior to the export. Appropriate and relevant details of the authorization shall be made available to the importing, transit and transshipment State Parties, upon request.

Article 8
Import

Importing State Parties shall take measures to ensure that appropriate and relevant information is provided, upon request, to the exporting State Party to assist the exporting State in its criteria assessment and to assist in verifying end users.

State Parties shall put in place adequate measures that will allow them, where necessary, to monitor and control imports of items covered by the scope of the Treaty. State Parties shall also adopt appropriate measures to prevent the diversion of imported items to unauthorized end users or to the illicit market.

Importing State Parties may request, where necessary, information from the exporting State Party concerning potential authorizations.

Article 9
Brokering

Each State Party shall take the appropriate measures, within national laws and regulations, to control brokering taking place under its jurisdiction for conventional arms within the scope of this Treaty.

Article 10
Transit and Transshipment

Each State Party shall adopt appropriate legislative, administrative or other measures to monitor and control, where necessary and feasible, conventional arms covered by this Treaty that transit or transship through territory under its jurisdiction, consistent with international law with due regard for innocent passage and transit passage;

Importing and exporting States Parties shall cooperate and exchange information, where feasible and upon request, to transit and transshipment States Parties, in order to mitigate the risk of discretion;

Article 11
Reporting, Record Keeping and Transparency

Each State Party shall maintain records in accordance with its national laws and regardless of the items referred to in Article 2, Paragraph A, with regards to conventional arms authorization or exports, and where feasible of those items transferred to their territory as the final destination, or that are authorized to transit or transship their territory, respectively.

Such records may contain: quantity, value, model/type, authorized arms transfers, arms actually transferred, details of exporting State(s), recipient State(s), and end users as appropriate. Records shall be kept for a minimum of ten years, or consistent with other international commitments applicable to the State Party.

States Parties may report to the Implementation Support Unit on an annual basis any actions taken to address the diversion of conventional arms to the illicit market.

Each State Party shall, within the first year after entry into force of this Treaty for that State Party, provide an initial report to States Parties of relevant activities undertaken in order to implement this Treaty; including inter alia, domestic laws, regulations and administrative measures. States Parties shall report any new activities undertaken in order to implement this Treaty, when appropriate. Reports shall be distributed and made public by the Implementation Support Unit.

Each State Party shall submit annually to the Implementation Support Unit by 31 May a report for the preceding calendar year concerning the authorization or actual transfer of items included in Article 2, Paragraph A1. Reports shall be distributed and made public by the Implementation Support Unit. The report submitted to the Implementation Support Unit may contain the same type of information submitted by the State Party to other relevant UN bodies, including the UN Register of Conventional Arms. Reports will be consistent with national security sensitivities or be commercially sensitive.

ARTICLE 12
ENFORCEMENT

Each State Party shall adopt national legislation or other appropriate national measures regulations and policies as may be necessary to implement the obligations of this Treaty.

ARTICLE 13
IMPLEMENTATION SUPPORT UNIT

This Treaty hereby establishes an Implementation Support Unit to assist States Parties in its implementation.
The ISU shall consist of adequate staff, with necessary expertise to ensure the mandate entrusted to it can be effectively undertaken, with the core costs funded by States Parties.
The implementation Support Unit, within a minimized structure and responsible to States Parties, shall undertake the responsibilities assigned to it in this Treaty, inter alia:
Receive distribute reports, on behalf of the Depository, and make them publicly available;
Maintain and Distribute regularly to States Parties the up-to-date list of national contact points;
Facilitate the matching of offers and requests of assistance for Treaty implementation and promote international cooperation as requested;
Facilitate the work of the Conference of States Parties, including making arrangements and providing the necessary service es for meetings under this Treaty; and
Perform other duties as mandated by the Conference of States Parties.

ARTICLE 14
INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION

States Parties shall designate national points of contact to act as a liaison on matters relating to the implementation of this Treaty.
States Parties shall cooperate closely with one another, as appropriate, to enhance the implementation of this Treaty consistent with their respective security interests and legal and administrative systems.

States Parties are encouraged to facilitate international cooperation, including the exchange of information on matters of mutual interest regarding the implementation and application of this Treaty in accordance with their national legal system. Such voluntary exchange of information may include, inter alia, information on national implementation measures as well as information on specific exporters, importers and brokers and on any prosecutions brought domestically, consistent with commercial and proprietary protections and domestic laws, regulations and respective legal and administrative systems.

4. Each State Party is encouraged to maintain consultations and to share information, as appropriate, to support the implementation of this Treaty, including through their national contact points.

5. States Parties shall cooperate to enforce the provisions of this Treaty and combat breaches of this Treaty, including sharing information regarding illicit activities and actors to assist national enforcement and to counter and prevent diversion. States Parties may also exchange information on lessons learned in relation to any aspect of this Treaty, to develop best practices to assist national implementation.

Article 15
International Assistance

In fulfilling the obligation of this Treaty, States Parties may seek, inter alia, legal assistance, legislative assistance, technical assistance, institutional capacity building, material assistance or financial assistance. States, in a position to do so, shall provide such assistance. States Parties may contribute resources to a voluntary trust fund to assist requesting States Parties requiring such assistance to implement the Treaty.

States Parties shall afford one another the widest measure of assistance, consistent with their respective legal and administrative systems, in investigations, prosecutions and judicial proceedings in relation to the violations of the national measures implemented to comply with obligations under of the provisions of this Treaty.

Each State Party may offer or receive assistance, inter alia, through the United Nations international, regional, subregional or national organizations, non-governmental organizations or on a bi-lateral basis. Such assistance may include technical, financial, material and other forms of assistance as needed, upon request.

Article 16
Signature, Ratification, Acceptance, Approval or Accession

This Treaty shall be open for signature on [date] at the United Nations Headquarters in New York by all States and regional integration organizations.
This Treaty is subject to ratification, acceptance or approval of the Signatories.
This Treaty shall be open for accession by any state and regional integration organization that has not signed the Treaty.

4. The instruments of ratification, acceptance, approval or accession shall be deposited with the Depositary.

5. The Depositary shall promptly inform all signatory and acceding States and regional integration organizations of the date of each signature, the date of deposit of each instrument of ratification, acceptance, approval or accession and the date of the entry into force of this Treaty, and of the receipt of notices.

6. “Regional integration organization” shall mean an organization constituted by sovereign States of a given region, to which its Member States have transferred competence in respect of matters governed by this Treaty and which has been duly authorized, in accordance with its internal procedures, to sign, ratify, accept, approve or accede to it.

7. At the time of its ratification, acceptance, approval or accession, a regional integration organization shall declare the extent of its competence with respect to matters governed by this Treaty. Such organizations shall also inform the Depositary of any relevant modifications in the extent of it competence.

8. References to “State Parties” in the present Treaty shall apply to such organizations within the limits of their competence.

Article 17
Entry into Force

This Treaty shall enter into force thirty days following the date of the deposit of the sixty-fifth instrument of ratification, acceptance or approval with the Depositary.

For any State or regional integration organization that deposits its instruments of accession subsequent to the entry into force of the Treaty, the Treaty shall enter into force thirty days following the date of deposit of its instruments of accession.

For the purpose of Paragraph 1 and 2 above, any instrument deposited by a regional integration organization shall not be counted as additional to those deposited by Member States of that organization.

Article 18
Withdrawal and Duration

This Treaty shall be of unlimited duration.

Each State Party shall, in exercising its national sovereignty, have the right to withdraw from this Convention. It shall give notice of such withdrawal to all other States Parties from this Convention. It shall give notice of such withdrawal to all other States Parties and to the Depositary. The instrument of withdrawal shall include a full explanation of the reasons motivating this withdrawal.

A state shall not be discharged, by reason of its withdrawal, from the obligations arising from this treaty while it was a party to the Treaty, including any financial obligations, which may have accrued.

Article 19
Reservations

Each State party, in exercising its national sovereignty, may formulate reservations unless the reservation is incompatible with the object and purpose of this Treaty.

Article 20
Amendments

At any time after the Treaty’s entry into force, a State Party may propose an amendment to this Treaty.

Any proposed amendment shall be submitted in writing to the Depository, which will then circulate the proposal to all States Parties, not less than 180 days before next meeting of the Conference of States Parties. The amendment shall be considered at the next Conference of States Parties if a majority of States Parties notify the Implementation Support Unit that they support further consideration of the proposal no later than 180 days after its circulation by the Depositary.

Any amendment to this Treaty shall be adopted by consensus, or if consensus is not achieved, by two-thirds of the States Parties present and voting at the Conference of States Parties. The Depositary shall communicate any amendment to all States Parties.

A proposed amendment adopted in accordance with Paragraph 3 of this Article shall enter into force for all States Parties to the Treaty that have accepted it, upon deposit with the Depositary. Thereafter, it shall enter into force for any remaining State Party on the date of deposit of its instrument of accession.

Article 21
Conference of States Parties

The Conference of States Parties shall be convened not later than once a year following the entry into force of this Treaty. The Conference of States Parties shall adopt rules of procedure and rules governing its activities, including the frequency of meetings and rules concerning payment of expenses incurred in carrying out those activities.

The Conference of States Parties shall:
a. Consider and adopt recommendations regarding the implementation of this Treaty, in particular the promotion of its universality; TR

b. Consider amendments to this Treaty;

c. Consider and decide the work and budget of the Implementation Support Unit;

d. Consider the establishment of any subsidiary bodies as may be necessary to improve the functioning of the Treaty;

e. Perform any other function consistent with this Treaty.

3. If circumstances merit, an exceptional meeting of the State Parties may be convened if required and resources allow.

Article 22
Dispute Settlement

States Parties shall consult and cooperate with each other to settle any dispute that may arise with regard to the interpretation or application of this Treaty.
States Parties shall settle any dispute between them concerning the interpretation or application of this Treat though negotiations or other peaceful means of the Parties mutual choice.
States Parties may pursue, by mutual consent, third party arbitration to settle any dispute between them, regarding issues concerning the implementation of this Treaty.

Article 23
Relations with States not party to this Treaty

States Parties shall apply Articles 3-5 to all transfers of conventional arms within the scope of this Treaty to those not party to this Treaty.

Article 24
Relationship with other instruments

States Parties shall have the right to enter into agreements on the trade in conventional arms with regards to the international trade in conventional arms, provided that those agreements are compatible with their obligations under this Treaty and do not undermine the objects and purposes of this Treaty.

Article 25
Depositary and Authentic Texts

The Secretary-General of the United Nations is the Depositary of this Treaty.
The original text of this Treaty, of which the Arabic, Chinese, English, Russian and Spanish texts are equally authentic.

(Word is that the Koreans don’t like it!)

(Emphasis in bold added by this author for help in analysis)

Video: NRA News at the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty Negotiations: Tom Mason - July 26

author goes through the document, links below

Video: LEAKED ON THE NET - ATT DRAFT! (ARMS TRADE TREATY)

Video:  Troops Ordered To Kill All Americans Who Do Not Turn In Guns

Video: The UN History of Gun Disarmament with Austin Texas Businessman Bob Dacy

And look at this… What snakes! Cyber bill has gun control amendment

Cyber bill has gun control amendment [Video at link]

Posted on Thursday, July 26, 2012 8:46:43 PM – the Hill

Democratic senators included an amendment in the cybersecurity bill that would limit the purchase of high capacity gun magazines for some consumers.

Shortly after the Cybersecurity Act gained Senate approval to proceed to amendments and a vote next week, Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), a sponsor of the gun control amendment, came to the floor to defend the idea of implementing some “reasonable” gun control measures.

The amendment was sponsored by Democratic Sens. Frank Lautenberg (N.J.), Barbara Boxer (Calif.), Jack Reed (R.I.), Bob Menendez (N.J.), Kirsten Gillibrand (N.Y.), Schumer and Dianne Feinstein (Calif.). S.A. 2575 would make it illegal to transfer or possess large capacity feeding devices such as gun magazines, belts, feed stripes and drums of more than 10 rounds of ammunition with the exception of .22 caliber rim fire ammunition.

The amendment would only affect sales and transfers after the law took effect.

Schumer defended the Brady law and assault weapons ban on the floor Thursday evening, perhaps in preparation for the coming fight for Republicans and gun rights activists.

Schumer suggested that both the left and right find common ground.

“Maybe we could come together on guns if each side gave some,” Schumer said.

He suggested that Democrats make it clear that their goal is not to repeal the Second Amendment.

“The basic complaint is that the Chuck Schumers of the world want to take away your guns,” Schumer said of the argument made by gun lobbies. “I think it would be smart for those of us who want rational gun control to make it know that that’s not true at all.”

Schumer also pointed out that it would be reasonable for the right to recognize that background checks on those buying guns is necessary — as called for in the Brady law. He also said average Americans don’t need an assault weapon to go hunting or protect themselves.

“We can debate where to draw the line of reasonableness, but we might be able to come to an agreement in the middle,” Schumer said. “Maybe, maybe, maybe we can pass some laws that might, might, might stop some of the unnecessary casualties … maybe there’s a way we can some together and try to break through the log jam and make sure the country is a better place.”

Next week the Senate is expected to debate and vote on amendments to the Cybersecurity bill.

@ CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE Page 5402, right column

SA 2575. Mr. LAUTENBERG (for himself, Mrs. BOXER, Mr. REED, Mr. MENENDEZ, Mrs. GILLIBRAND, Mr. SCHUMER, and Mrs. FEINSTEIN) submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill S. 3414, to enhance the security and resiliency of the cyber and communications infrastructure of the United States; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:

At the appropriate place, insert the following

SEC. ll. PROHIBITION ON TRANSFER OR POSSESSION OF LARGE CAPACITY AMMUNITION FEEDING DEVICES.
(a) DEFINITION.—Section 921(a) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after paragraph (29) the following:
‘‘(30) The term ‘large capacity ammunition feeding device’—
‘‘(A) means a magazine, belt, drum, feed strip, or similar device that has a capacity of, or that can be readily restored or converted to accept, more than 10 rounds of ammunition; but
‘‘(B) does not include an attached tubular device designed to accept, and capable of operating only with, .22 caliber rimfire ammunition.’’.
(b) PROHIBITIONS.—Section 922 of such title is amended by inserting after subsection (u) the following:
‘‘(v)(1)(A)(i) Except as provided in clause
(ii), it shall be unlawful for a person to transfer or possess a large capacity ammunition feeding device.

It continues on Page 5403.

How does imposing this "prohibition" in any way "enhance the security and resiliency of the cyber and communications infrastructure of the United States"?

Note: Cybersecurity bill: Recruit federal employees using 9th grade talent competition

Page 167 -169 – UNITED NATIONS

Civil Liberties infringed – Video: CSA 2012 EXPLANATION - WILL BE VOTED ON VERY SOON

Prior video – background of bill – moving through system – Video: CSA2012 - VOTE COMING UP FRIDAY!!! UPDATE...CYBERSECURITY ACT 2012

Related:

CFR Says Don’t Worry About Hillary’s Small Arms Treaty

Why Do They Want Us Disarmed?

SWISS TV FORECASTS DEFEAT FOR TIGHTER GUN LAW – UPDATE

Video: The British Want Their Guns Back

Video: Troops Ordered to Kill Americans

Gun-Free Zones Are a Magnet for Attacks Like the Tragedy In Binghamton

Columbine Father 12 Years Later… In the Wake of Another Tragedy

The Aurora, Colorado shootings: Gun Rights vs. Gun Confiscation: You Decide!

The Darkest Knight – the Anarchist Butterfly Effect

Why Do They Want Us Disarmed?

Hillary & Barack will BAN GUNS during the UN GUN TREATY on JULY 27, 2012!!!!

Hillary’s Small Arms Treaty Swindle

Misleading gun owners on the Arms Trade Treaty

How To Beat UN Gun Control

Congressional Warning: Small Arms Treaty Threatens U.S. Sovereignty, Violates 2nd Amendment

The 2nd Amendment Transcends The U.N. Arms Trade Treaty

Is Posse Comitatus Now Irrelevant?

Breaking Hillaryland News: New Evidence Shows Hillary a Mastermind Behind Gunwalker as Her Welcome in Egypt Not So Good

Today, July 27 2012, fly your American Flag upside down in protest of the UN gun bill.

In case no one knows… flying the flag upside down means the Country is in distress.

Then Call Your Senator(s) and tell them to vote NO… Do not ratify this treaty!!

Friday, April 20, 2012

Red Alert: Draconian CISPA Bill Picking Up Sponsors Ahead of Vote Next Week

Kurt Nimmo  -  Infowars.com  -  April 19, 2012

Video:  Red Alert – Draconian CISPA Bill Picking Up Sponsors Ahead of Vote Next Week

CISPA, the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act, is picking up sponsors and it looks like the legislation will make it to the House floor for a vote next week. CISPA emerged from the House Intelligence Committee with an overwhelming vote of 17-1.

When Pelosi says “special interests,” she means the interests of those opposed to establishment Democrats. Clear Channel is a corporation. So is Fox News. There are thousands of websites, newspapers, think tanks and political action committees that Pelosi and the Democrats consider corporations.

In Citizens v. Federal Election Commission, the Supreme Court ruled that the free speech of corporations is protected by the First Amendment. Corporations that produce political books, documentaries, and other materials have the same freedom of speech rights as individuals.

See Video:  Nancy Pelosi Wants to Amend the First Amendment

Pelosi and the Democrats want a constitutional amendment to overturn the Supreme Court’s ruling. It is part of a “three-pronged strategy that also includes promoting the DISCLOSE Act, which would increase disclosure requirements for organizations running political ads,” writes Terence P. Jeffrey of CNSNews.

In order to sell the scheme, Pelosi and the Democrats have tied it to campaign finance reform.

“We have a clear agenda in this regard: Disclose, reform the system reducing the roll of money in campaigns, and amend the Constitution to rid it of this ability for special interests to use secret, unlimited, huge amounts of money flowing to campaigns,” Pelosi said on Thursday.

In ruling in favor if a First Amendment right for corporations, the “Supreme Court had unleashed a predator that was oozing slime into the political system, and that, indeed, is not an exaggeration,” said Pelosi. “Our Founders had an idea. It was called democracy. It said elections are determined by the people, the voice and the vote of the people, not by the bankrolls of the privileged few. This Supreme Court decision flies in the face of our Founders’ vision and we want to reverse it.”

Pelosi was joined by the usual suspects, including People for the American Way and Common Cause.

Both are globalist assets: People for the American Way is funded by the Rockefeller Brothers (Republican Progressives and Globalists) and Common Cause is a Soros operation.

Video ALERT:  CISPA Another Fascist Takeover of the Internet

Similar Posts:

  1. CISPA: Draconian Bill Would Forces Companies to Spy for The FED
  2. Activists plan week of protests against new House cybersecurity legislation
  3. CISPA – HR 3523: The New SOPA
  4. CISPA: Congress Takes Another Run at the Internet
  5. SOPA’s Evil Twin Sister – CISPA
  6. Cybersecurity Bill Authors Defend Legislation Against ‘Privacy Disaster’ Claims
  7. Obama Uses Staged Cyber Attack To Sell Draconian Cybersecurity Bill
  8. House Committee Rushing to Approve Dangerous “Information Sharing” Bill
  9. Cybersecurity bill would establish ‘federal big brother’
  10. DHS takes the lead in Senate cybersecurity bill
  11. Activists Aim To Crush Internet Censorship Bill
  12. Cybersecurity bill introduced in Senate

Not up on CISPA???

CISPA: Son Of SOPA Threatens Internet Freedom

Originally Posted April 5, 2012 - By Michael Patrickson – Addicting Info

Congress is trying to censor the Internet, again. Only months after SOPA, the Stop Online Piracy Act, was defeated by an online popular uprising, a new bill is quietly working its way through Congress; a bill that threatens the future of the Internet, a bill that threatens everyone’s digital rights.

CISPA, the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (H.R. 3523), is a draconian measure that would allow the feds and other corporate interests to monitor and even censor online activity without due process or even probable cause.

If passed, the legislation would give companies and the government new powers to monitor and censor communications, all in the name of “cybersecurity.” In particular, the legislation could be used to silence whistleblower websites like WikiLeaks.

CISPA, H.R. 3523, is meant “to provide for the sharing of certain cyber threat intelligence and cyber threat information between the intelligence community and cybersecurity entities, and for other purposes.”

According to a press release issued last week, the bill already has over a 100 congressional co-sponsors. CISPA is currently enjoying wide bi-partisan support, as did SOPA, the Stop Online Piracy Act, and PIPA, the Protect IP Act, which came before.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation, an online advocacy group, reports:

“(CISPA) would let companies spy on users and share private information with the federal government and other companies with near-total immunity from civil and criminal liability. It effectively creates a ‘cybersecurity’ exemption to all existing laws.”

Indeed, critics complain the legislation is so broad and vague that almost anything might be monitored and censored in the name of “cybersecurity.” Under CISPA, Internet service providers and other companies could be forced to share user data with government agencies and others with apparently no restriction on what can be collected and how it can be used, provided the action is motivated by “cybersecurity.”

Such entities as Google, Facebook, Twitter and others would be allowed to intercept your emails and text messages, send copies to one another and to the government, and modify those communications or prevent them from reaching their destination, all in the nebulous name of “cybersecurity.”

Here’s the video:

Congress wants to use the threat of “cybersecurity” to undermine our digital rights. Tell your lawmakers that we won’t stand for dangerous, unsupervised information sharing in this bill or any bill like it. Take action. Follow the link to the Electronic Frontier Foundation, and let your Representatives know: Don’t Let Congress Use “Cybersecurity” Fears to Erode Digital Rights.

Please call, fax and email you congressperson today and tell them no on CISPA and then help flood Congress with faxes and calls.

Monday, March 19, 2012

NO PLACE TO HIDE AFTER THE 2012 ELECTION

This video series presents where we were just five short years ago.

No Place To Hide part 1

http://youtu.be/fIOc2YpxhxI

No Place To Hide part 2

http://youtu.be/WAA59LPuVfE

No Place To Hide part 3

http://youtu.be/qvkr9RxSot4

No Place To Hide part 4

http://youtu.be/LF8_hrpGQpI

The Obama regime and DHS have come a long way since then...

“We Are This Far From A Turnkey Totalitarian State" - Big Brother Goes Live September 2013

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/%E2%80%9Cwe-are-far-turnkey-totalitarian-state-big-brother-goes-live-september-2013

"George Orwell was right. He was just 30 years early.

In its April cover story, Wired has an exclusive report on the NSA's Utah Data Center, which is a must read for anyone who believes any privacy is still a possibility in the United States: "A project of immense secrecy, it is the final piece in a complex puzzle assembled over the past decade. Its purpose: to intercept, decipher, analyze, and store vast swaths of the world’s communications as they zap down from satellites and zip through the underground and undersea cables of international, foreign, and domestic networks.... Flowing through its servers and routers and stored in near-bottomless databases will be all forms of communication, including the complete contents of private emails, cell phone calls, and Google searches, as well as all sorts of personal data trails—parking receipts, travel itineraries, bookstore purchases, and other digital “pocket litter.”... The heavily fortified $2 billion center should be up and running in September 2013." In other words, in just over 1 year, virtually anything one communicates through any traceable medium, or any record of one's existence in the electronic medium, which these days is everything, will unofficially be property of the US government to deal with as it sees fit.

The codename of the project: Stellar Wind"... Read more on Stellar Wind Here

Wired: NSAs New Data Collection Center and Details on Its Public Eavesdropping Capabilites

An interesting look at Derek Smith; he was the CEO of Choicepoint (as shown in the video). Guess what this globalist is up to these days... global pre-science...

Derek V. Smith

http://geek.net/index.php/about/directors/derek-smith/

Chairman and CEO, Institute of Global Prescience

"Derek Smith is Chairman and CEO of the Institute of Global Prescience, an interdisciplinary non-profit research, education and service organization dedicated to the pursuit of prescience – foreknowledge that anticipates global events and trends that are yet unseen. The Institute seeks to harness the passion of individuals to anticipate issues through clue detection engines that identify inflection points in technological, financial and social systems"...

Smith goes from CEO to futurist

http://www.bizjournals.com/atlanta/stories/2009/04/20/story3.html

"At the institute, students are using computer models to study such topics as whether bandwidth will be able to keep up with the growth of data flow and when the United States might elect its first atheist president.

Other topics include the future of cell phones, obesity, how attitudes will affect climate change and when the world will run out of oil"...

Take a look at the Institute of Global Prescience Board of Directors HERE. (http://www.prescienceintl.com/cti_ab.html) Notice the Federal and state government connections:

à Amy Zimpfer, Regional Deputy Director, EPA

à Anthony Eggert, Senior Policy Advisor, Office of the Chair California Air Resources Board

à Jeffrey Byron, Commissioner, CEC

à Paul Douglas, Supervisor, Renewable Procurement and Resource Planning, California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC)

à Trina Martynowicz, Clean Air Emerging Technologies and West Coast Collaborative, Clean Energy and Climate Change Office, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

Google and PG&E (think ‘SMART Meters’) are also represented.

The Institute of Global Prescience is but one of many, many non-profits, NGO’s and individuals seeking to destroy our country from within.

Is it the intention of American tax-payers to have their hard earned dollars spent on the development of a turnkey Totalitarian State? Do we support massive government spending on programs that are in direct violation of our right to privacy under the 4th Amendment? Do Americans understand that current elected officials are facilitating and funding these endeavors with our tax dollars? Will enough Americans wake up, organize and vote the career politicians out of office in November?

The real revolution must take place at the ballot box. Until enough of us can vote against the career politicians who are aiding and abetting the overthrow of our Constitutional Republic, we will have no place to hide once they turn that key. What you do for the 2012 election will determine our fate and that of future generations.

By AJ - h/t to MJ

**We all know that Big Brother is watching us 24/7 with cameras almost everywhere and through our TV cable box and the GPS system in your car, but today on Fox, Shep Smith pointed out and discussed with Judge Napolitano that Panetta and the CIA verified that they can also monitor us through our refrigerator, microwaves and other appliances.  (Have not been able to find the video yet, but check back later).

Related: Glenn Beck Talks About ’1984′ & Big Brother Technology

Thursday, January 26, 2012

To Google, Facebook, Twitter… Or NOT? - Perhaps Time to Assess Your Use and Membership? - Updated

googile_irish_hq_thumb[2]

Google

Many of you may have received the email below…

Dear Google user,

We're getting rid of over 60 different privacy policies across Google and replacing them with one that's a lot shorter and easier to read. Our new policy covers multiple products and features, reflecting our desire to create one beautifully simple and intuitive experience across Google.

We believe this stuff matters, so please take a few minutes to read our updated Privacy Policy and Terms of Service at http://www.google.com/policies. These changes will take effect on March 1, 2012.

One policy, one Google experience

Easy to work across Google

Our new policy reflects a single product experience that does what you need, when you want it to. Whether reading an email that reminds you to schedule a family get-together or finding a favorite video that you want to share, we want to ensure you can move across Gmail, Calendar, Search, YouTube, or whatever your life calls for with ease.

Tailored for you

If you're signed into Google, we can do things like suggest search queries – or tailor your search results – based on the interests you've expressed in Google+, Gmail, and YouTube. We'll better understand which version of Pink or Jaguar you're searching for and get you those results faster.

Easy to share and collaborate

When you post or create a document online, you often want others to see and contribute. By remembering the contact information of the people you want to share with, we make it easy for you to share in any Google product or service with minimal clicks and errors.

Protecting your privacy hasn't changed

Our goal is to provide you with as much transparency and choice as possible, through products like Google Dashboard and Ads Preferences Manager, alongside other tools. Our privacy principles remain unchanged. And we'll never sell your personal information or share it without your permission (other than rare circumstances like valid legal requests).

Understand how Google uses your data

If you want to learn more about your data on Google and across the web, including tips and advice for staying safe online, check out http://www.google.com/goodtoknow

Got questions?
We got answers.

Visit our FAQ at http://www.google.com/policies/faq to read more about the changes. (We figured our users might have a question or twenty-two.)

Notice of Change

March 1, 2012 is when the new Privacy Policy and Terms will come into effect. If you choose to keep using Google once the change occurs, you will be doing so under the new Privacy Policy and Terms of Service.

Please do not reply to this email. Mail sent to this address cannot be answered. Also, never enter your Google Account password after following a link in an email or chat to an untrusted site. Instead, go directly to the site, such as mail.google.com or www.google.com/accounts. Google will never email you to ask for your password or other sensitive information.

Many people are thinking of leaving Google and its tentacle services because this is just another consolidated grouping of information for Big Brother to monitor us and Google, like facebook, and others turn all their (your) information to the government.

Remaining with them or changing is something everyone should consider!

Here some really helpful links.  If you want to close your account, from what I read, they will delete everything… at least that is what they claim… guess we will see if they really do or if if you information ends up in digital space forever:


How to close your Google Account

FAQ: Google’s new privacy policy

Poll: Will you cancel your account?

Google faces backlash over privacy changes

Rea lMan's Computer Room_thumb[3]

The continuing onslaught against individual freedoms and the intrusion of government into our lives has inspired computer room like this one…

Additional Information:

Google announces privacy settings change across products; users can't opt out

Global Search - Cuil!
http://www.cuil.pt/
Search
Is not powered by google, and not hosted in USA.
Every .com is.
http://www.cuil.pt/
Use Scroogle - very cool.
https://ssl.scroogle.org/
Read about it here:
www.scroogle.org
https://ixquick.com/
USE https://ixquick.com/ FOR PRIVACY
www.startpage.com
I've been using duckduckgo.com recently instead of Google and I like it.
www.duckduckgo.com
and their privacy policy[link to donttrack.us]
http://freenetproject.org/
http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message1764993/reply29288017

Not sure if this has been mentioned or not...

But I work in a web agency and EVERY single one of the sites we produce uses google hosted code. Its mainly for analytic data for our customers. If you've ever seen google analytic data and understand that 100% of our sites (and I'm sure its almost 100% of any other agency's sites) use this code... that means the scope of this is so huge I can't think straight! Google can very easily track people's web usage through this analytic code.

It doesn't matter if you are on a google made site or not, if the use google hosted code then they know!

Heck even GLP uses it. If you know how to view source look at the bottom of this site.
https://apis.google.com/js/plusone.js
http://www.google.com/enterprise/government/

Google announces privacy changes across products; users can’t opt out
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/technology/google-tracks-consumers-across-products-users-cant-opt-out/2012/01/24/gIQArgJHOQ_story.html

Google will soon know far more about who you are and what you do on the Web.

The Web giant announced Tuesday it is planning to follow the activities of users across nearly all of its ubiquitous sites, including YouTube, Gmail and its leading search engine.

Google has already been collecting some of this information. But for the first time, it is combining data across its Web sites to stitch together a fuller portrait of users.

Consumers won’t be able to opt out of the changes, which take effect March 1. And experts say the policy shift will invite greater scrutiny from federal regulators of the company’s privacy and competitive practices.

The move will help Google better tailor its ads to people’s tastes. If someone watches an NBA clip online and lives in Washington, the firm could advertise Washington Wizards tickets in that person’s Gmail account.

Consumers could also benefit, the company said. When someone is searching for the word “jaguar,” Google would have a better idea of whether the person was interested in the animal or the car. Or the firm might suggest e-mailing contacts in New York when it learns you are planning a trip there.

But, say consumer advocates, the new policy might upset people who never expected their information would be shared across so many different Web sites.

A user, for instance, may not want Google to use your social network to alert estranged friends — or your boss — that you are around the corner at a bar.

“Google’s new privacy announcement is frustrating and a little frightening,” said Common Sense Media chief executive James Steyer. “Even if the company believes that tracking users across all platforms improves their services, consumers should still have the option to opt out — especially the kids and teens who are avid users of YouTube, Gmail and Google Search.”

Google can collect information about users when they activate an Android mobile phone, sign into their accounts online or enter search terms. It can also store cookies on people’s computers to see which Web sites they visit or use its popular maps program to estimate their location.

The change to its privacy policies come as Google is facing stiff competition for the fickle attention of Web surfers. It recently disappointed investors for the first time in several quarters, failing last week to meet earnings predictions. Apple, in contrast, reported record earnings Tuesday that blew past even the most optimistic expectations.

Some analysts said Google’s move is aimed squarely at Apple and Facebook — which have been successful in building unified ecosystems of products that capture people’s attention. Google, in contrast, has adopted a more scattered approach, but an executive said in interviews that the company wants to create a much more seamless environment across its various offerings.

“If you’re signed in, we may combine information you’ve provided from one service with information from other services,” Alma Whitten, Google’s director of privacy for product and engineering wrote in a blog post.

“In short, we’ll treat you as a single user across all our products which will mean a simpler, more intuitive Google experience,” she said.

Google said it would notify its hundreds of millions of users of the change through an e-mail and a message on its Web sites. It will apply to all of its services except for Google Wallet, Chrome browser and Google Books.

The company said the change would simplify the company’s privacy policy — a move that was encouraged by regulators.

Still, some consumer advocates and lawmakers remained skeptical.

“There is no way anyone expected this,” said Jeffrey Chester, executive director of privacy advocacy group the Center for Digital Democracy. “There is no way a user can comprehend the implication of Google collecting across platforms for information about your health, political opinions and financial concerns.”

Added Rep. Edward J. Markey (D-Mass): “It is imperative that users will be able to decide whether they want their information shared across the spectrum of Google’s offerings.”

Google has increasingly been a focus of Washington regulators.

The company recently settled a privacy complaint by the Federal Trade Commission after it allowed users of its now defunct social network Google Buzz to see contacts lists from its e-mail program.

And a previous decision to use its social network data in search results has been included in a broad Federal Trade Commission investigation, according to a person familiar with the matter who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the investigation is private.

Federal officials are also looking at whether Google is running afoul of antitrust rules by using its dominance in online search to favor its other business lines.

Claudia Farrell, a spokeswoman at the FTC, declined to comment on any interaction between Google and regulators on its new privacy changes.

More on this story:

How to close your Google Account

FAQ: Google’s new privacy policy

Poll: Will you cancel your account?

Google faces backlash over privacy changes

PHOTOS | What products are impacted by new policy?

Twitter, Facebook, MySpace cry foul on Google search

Google updates social-networking name policy

European privacy proposal includes ‘right to be forgotten’

A couple of comments that I thought were interesting.

http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message1764993/reply29288156

Google has been doing this all along as does Apple, MS and so on. Limit or don't use their services in your first line of defense. If not possible then learn all you can about your device and take FULL control of it, flash it, root it, kernel secure it and spank those apps and daemons who are like little children leaking sensitive info about you to these data collectors without your knowledge.

Don't forget to learn to really disable gps, mic and your cam when necessary cause they are bugged. At this point you will be half way secure and well on your way to freedom. However there is a whole another world of hidden service, exploit and leak potentials within your device that are publically unspoken of and that you will need to discover over time.

Last piece of advice, learn to game the algorithm that is at all times trying to predict who you are and what your next move is.
http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message1764993/reply29289587   (Did you know could block a website this way?)
I just went to my internet options and blocked www.google.com signed out of you tube and tried signing back in, got a notice, you have disabled your cookies please turn them back on..But it is not March 1, yet is it?

Facebook

Look at timing with Google’s announcement—perhaps time to flee them both!

Facebook Timeline Mandatory For All Users - With Just 7 Days To 'Clean Up'

Facebook's Timeline - a new look for people's Profile pages which exposes their entire history on the site - will become mandatory for all users.

The 'new look' has been voluntary up until now.

From now, users will simply be notified that they are being 'updated' via an announcement at the top of their home page, which users click on to activate Timeline.

As with voluntary switches to Timeline, those who are 'updated' will have just seven days to select which photos, posts and life events they want to advertise to the world.

Via the official Facebook blog, the site announced, 'Last year we introduced timeline, a new kind of profile that lets you highlight the photos, posts and life events that help you tell your story.'

'Over the next few weeks, everyone will get timeline. When you get timeline, you'll have 7 days to preview what's there now.

'This gives you a chance to add or hide whatever you want before anyone else sees it.'

Timeline has been criticized for showing off pictures and posts that people might have wanted to forget.

The new look also pairs with 'timeline apps', such as Spotify, which post every time people listen to a song, or eat a recipe or visit somewhere.

'You can learn more about these new features by taking the quick tour available at the top of your timeline,' says Facebook.

'If you want to get timeline now, go to the Introducing Timeline page and click 'Get Timeline.'Or you can wait until you see an announcement at the top of your home page.'

Mark Zuckerberg described timeline as letting you 'tell the whole story of your life on a single page'.

The redesigned pages have a more magazine-like photo-heavy feel, with a large 'cover photo' at the top of the page.

On the right of the page there will be a timeline that breaks down all posts from a person's time on Facebook and allows viewers to jump back to people's earliest posts with a break down month-by-month.

Some were puzzled by the abrupt roll-out of the change, which is one of the biggest changes to Facebook - all the more so when paired with the new Timeline apps, such as Spotify, which posts a continuous stream of all songs listened to to your Timeline.

A user listening to Spotify on a smartphone, for instance, will default to posting every song to their Timeline for all to see. As with all Timeline features, there are various opt-outs, but they can be fiddly to find and use.

Likewise, e-book readers such as Kobo and video services such as Netflix can post every book and film people consume to Timeline.

Many sites published guides to how to 'hide' controversial content. Twitter users had mixed reactions.

Reactions included, 'I don’t want a timeline on my facebook - why do you force me to have one?' and 'I hate Facebook timeline design with a vengeance. More frippery and less function. Why are they forcing it on us?'

Many were shocked by how rapidly timeline had become compulsory.

Tech site Mashable said, 'Facebook must know that putting a ticking clock in front of users is bound to make very few of them happy, yet here it is, stop watch in hand. Here’s my theory.'
'Timeline apps aren't very effective without it. Conducting most of your day-to-day activities, like watching movies, sharing content, reading news, eating out, and more — that’s new. None of this has quite the same impact without Timeline.'

So far, Facebook has announced a few dozen Timeline apps.

Many sites recommend vetting apps carefully to see what they will post, and creating lists of friends to 'share' certain updates with, rather than bombarding your whole friends list.
Tech site CNET warns, 'Once you install an app and authorize it to post stories on your profile and News Feed, it'll never ask for your permission again.'

'If you love to cook, you can add the Foodily app to your timeline and share your latest dishes. If your friends have added the Foodily app, you can discover new recipes with each other, as you'll see their updates in the ticker and their timeline, and possibly News Feed.'
Facebook says that more Timeline apps, covering more interests will launch soon.

'Our vision for Timeline and our vision for the application platform is whatever you love and whatever story you want to tell, you can add that to your Timeline,' said Carl Sjogreen, Facebook's product management director.

Facebook Timeline with Apps and Ticker:
'Our message to developers is 'start your engines',' said Sjogreen.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2091735/Facebook-Timeline-mandatory-users--just-7-days-clean-up.html#ixzz1kb0jJtmF

SIDEBAR

PROTECTING YOUR PROFILE FROM PRYING EYES - WHAT TO DO IN THE SEVEN DAYS FACEBOOK ALLOWS YOU

Once timeline is activated on your profile, you have seven days to 'clean up' - and you will probably want to.

Things from your past that may have been previously hidden deep within your photos or timeline can be much more visible.

If there is anything particularly you don’t want shown, such as your relationship status from five years ago - which will be public by default - you’re best to click on the right hand side to the year it occurred, such as 2006, find the post and choose to either delete or hide it.

It all has to be done manually.

You can now choose directly from the right-hand side of nearly every section on profile who sees what for individual sections (such as photos, posts, likes etc). When you click on the item, you can choose whether it is seen publicly, by friends or by a customized list.

If you enable any timeline apps, be sure to read their privacy policies thoroughly - many will not ask again before posting information to your profile. Spotify, for instance, will default to filling your timeline with what you listen to, unless you tell it not to.

Facebook now has the ‘View profile as’ feature on the main page, rather than in privacy settings. This lets you check how different people can see your profile so you can then customize it as you wish.

For those looking to DELETE their facebook accounts permanently not just deactivate remove the spaces and copy paste this into your browser

If your doing it too replace your existing facebook account make sure your change your email address and password to something else first so you can use your original email. Funny how they hide this form.... HAH found youuuu!


https://ssl.facebook.com/help/contact.php?show_form=delete_account

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2091735/Facebook-Timeline-mandatory-users--just-7-days-clean-up.html#ixzz1kb125TKI

Updated 1.27.12:

· Twitter to selectively 'censor' tweets by country

Friday, January 27, 2012 2:42:33 AM · by EnglishCon · 4 replies

BBC News ^ | 01/27/12 | BBC News

Twitter has announced that it now has the technology to selectively block tweets on a country by country basis. In its blog, Twitter said it could "reactively withhold content from users in a specific country". But it said the removed content would be available to the rest of the world. Previously when Twitter deleted a tweet, it would disappear worldwide. --- In its blog post, Twitter explained that its international growth meant entering countries "that have different ideas about the contours of freedom of expression", citing France or Germany which ban pro-Nazi content as examples.

Monday, January 16, 2012

SOPA And PIPA Sponsors Caving In To Opposition

Stop Online Piracy Act. Here is an article - there might be better articles out there, but it will give you some info on it:
Why We Must Stop SOPA

Wikipedia to Join Web Blackout Boycott Protesting SOPA Boycott
TPMIdeaLab

SOPA And PIPA Sponsors Caving In To OppositionRep. Lamar Smith (R-TX), sponsor of the 'Stop Online Piracy Act.'Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX), sponsor of the 'Stop Online Piracy Act.'

Carl Franzen January 13, 2012, 7:12 PM434237

As more and more actions are planned in protest of the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and the PROTECT IP Act (PIPA), the dual pieces of anti-online piracy legislation moving through Congress, the architects and supporters of these bills have finally begun tiptoeing back.

PIPA co-sponsor Sen. Ben Cardin (D-MD) on late Friday released a statement saying: “I would not vote for final passage of PIPA, as currently written, on the Senate floor.”

However, Cardin said he would remain a co-sponsor because it would give him “the opportunity to be an active participant in the process of addressing the most serious concerns raised by my constituents.”

Meanwhile, six other Republican Senate co-sponsors of PIPA — Sens. Chuck Grassley (R-IA), Orrin Hatch (R-UT), Jeff Sessions (R-AL), John Cornyn (R-TX), Mike Lee (R-UT), and Tom Coburn (R-OK) — sent a letter to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) on Friday asking him to delay the impending full Senate vote on PIPA scheduled for January 24.

As the letter (which was cc’ed to Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY)) reads:

Since the mark-up, we have increasingly heard from a large number of constituents and other stakeholders with vocal concerns about possible unintended consequences of the proposed legislation, including breaches in cybersecurity, damaging the integrity of the Internet, costly and burdensome litigation, and dilution of First Amendment rights. Moreover, in light of potential cybersecurity implications, we believe hearing from the Administration and relevant agencies is imperative.

Reid in mid December filed cloture, breaking a block on PIPA that was put in place by Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR) to prevent the legislation from moving forward. Reid’s move meant that the full Senate would have to quickly vote on PIPA despite the rising tide of opposition to the bill and calls to slow the process down.

As Donny Shaw points out at OpenCongress: The letter marks an “incredible turn of events,” given that support for PIPA seemed so high just a few short weeks ago.

And in perhaps the best sign yet that the online protests started by Reddit are having their intended affect, SOPA sponsor Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX) and PIPA sponsor Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) both released statements on their official websites over the past 48 hours announcing that they would be at least delaying the implementation of one of the more reviled aspects shared by both SOPA and PIPA, the one that would force Internet Service Providers (companies including AT&T, Comcast, Verizon and Time Warner) to impose Domain Name Service (DNS) blocking on foreign webpages accused of hosting pirated content. Essentially, the DNS blocking provisions would force ISPs to show an error message when consumers try to navigate to a website accused of piracy.

After hearing from various constituents and industry personnel who pointed out that the provision would essentially break the Internet for U.S. users, both lawmakers decided it is time to put the breaks on at least that part of the anti-piracy effort.

Smith was the more reactive of the two to these complaints, saying he would remove entirely the DNS blocking provision from SOPA.

“After consultation with industry groups across the country, I feel we should remove Domain Name System blocking from the Stop Online Piracy Act so that the [House Judiciary] Committee can further examine the issues surrounding this provision,” Smith wrote in a statement posed on his website Friday. “We will continue to look for ways to ensure that foreign websites cannot sell and distribute illegal content to U.S. consumers.”

Critically, Smith’s statement doesn’t say that the DNS provision will be eliminated entirely, only that it will be temporarily removed until “further examination” occurs.

That would likely entail more hearings involving “technical experts,” aka “the nerds,” Web entrepreneurs and engineers like Reddit founder Alexis Ohanian, who are due to testify in a hearing on January 18 at a separate committee, the House Oversight Committee, which is chaired by stalwart SOPA critic Rep. Darrell Issa.

And the rest of Smith’s statement continues to explain just why SOPA was needed and why it was the perfect solution to cracking down on online piracy. Apparently, it just needed a little tweaking.

Intriguingly, this is actually the second major tweak Smith has made to SOPA on his own volition since he introduced it into the House in late October 2011. Smith also introduced a manager’s amendement in December attempting to narrow the definitions of what could be considered a “rogue” website under the bills, but critics weren’t satisfied, pointing out numerous other problems the remaining over-broad language.

Still, Smith’s turnabout is impressive, and especially rich given that less than 24 hours prior, he gave an interview to Reuters defying his critics and vowing to pass the legislation.

Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT), sponsor of PIPA, couched his words even more. On Thursday, his office released a statement to the following effect:

“I remain confident that the ISPs - including the cable industry, which is the largest association of ISPs - would not support the legislation if its enactment created the problems that opponents of this provision suggest. Nonetheless, this is in fact a highly technical issue, and I am prepared to recommend we give it more study before implementing it.

“As I prepare a managers’ amendment to be considered during the floor debate, I will therefore propose that the positive and negative effects of this provision be studied before implemented, so that we can focus on the other important provisions in this bill, which are essential to protecting American intellectual property online, and the American jobs that are tied to intellectual property.”

As SOPA critic and IP expert Mike Masnick pointed out at Techdirt, however, “That is NOT removing the DNS blocking provisions. It is merely delaying them.” Still, Masnick was more celebratory about the late Friday developments, writing “All of this, by the way, is because tons of you (tons!) have stepped up and reached out to your Reps. and Senators and let them know that these bills are unacceptable. Let’s see if Harry Reid, Patrick Leahy and Lamar Smith finally admit that they, too, can hear you.”

Markham Erickson, executive director of Net Coalition, a Web industry group that represents Google, Facebook and numerous other leading brands, released a statement Friday applauding the move but saying it didn’t go far enough: “”While we await details on revisions to the House and Senate legislation, we wish to underscore that significant amendments still need to be made. Significant concerns with the private right of action, mandated search filtering, and legal risk and uncertainty still remain.”

Indeed, as Sherwin Siy, deputy legal director of Public Knowledge, an online citizens’ rights organization, said in a statement released to the press late Friday: “While we are pleased that some progress is being made, we are also firm in our opposition to both bills because some very bad provisions remain. The bills are still over-broad in their reach, for example (as in the Senate bill) allowing court orders against anyone a providing ‘directory, index, reference, pointer, or hypertext link.’ Both bills still include a private right of action with few protections from abuse, meaning that sites can be killed without ever being proven to violate copyright.”

And as Andrew Rasiej, Chair of NY Tech Meetup’s Board told TPM via telephone: “If Reid decides to cancel the vote, we’ll turn our protest into a celebration.”

Related:

How SOPA 2.0 Sneaks In A Really Dangerous Private Ability To Kill Any Website (including FR)

House Budget Chair, Paul Ryan (R-Wi) announces he no longer supports SOPA

Take a moment to first sign the TPN Stop SOPA petition

Also, A request to the American People- Nationwide Protest against NDAA- ACTION ALERT - Seems the Occupy Protestors are jointing the Tea Party and other conservative groups in this endeavor.  SOPA is believed to work hand in had with NDAA.