Russia, with the backing of China, has had a resolution passed to see the establishment of a panel to look at the use of the internet for illegal purposes. The panel will work to set up “a comprehensive international convention on countering the use of information and communications technologies for criminal purposes,” the resolution said.
However the US, Europe and other western nations fear the purpose of any restrictions would be to limit freedom of speech.
“It is precisely our fear that (a new convention) would allow the codification at an international and global level of these types of controls that’s driving our opposition and our concerns about this resolution,” a US official said.
Human Rights Watch called the UN resolution’s list of sponsors “a rogue’s gallery of some of the earth’s most repressive governments.”
The countries who have backed the resolution have a history of repression of free speech, and actively try to restrict their citizens access to the internet. China for example blocks internet searches they deem harmful to their regime. India cut off the internet to muslim-majority Kashmir earlier this year; and Iran took most of their nation off-line for a time amid protests.
The (San Francisco) Bay Area Center For Voting Research itemized highly conservative and highly liberal cities nationwide. This was done by how they voted, either republican or liberal in the 2004 presidential election.
Also, votes for the Libertarian and Constitution Parties were considered conservative. Votes for the Green, Peace and Freedom Parties were counted as liberal.
The top 15 cities of each are listed below… with their violent crime rates. Note, the national average is 4 violent crimes per 1000 residents.
Detroit, Michigan – 24 violent crimes per 1,000 residents
Gary, Indiana – 15 violent crimes per 1,000 residents
Berkeley, California – 5 violent crimes per 1,000 residents
Washington, DC – 13 violent crimes per 1,000 residents
Oakland, California – 16 violent crimes per 1,000 residents
Inglewood, California – 8 violent crimes per 1,000 residents
Newark, New Jersey – 11 violent crimes per 1,000 residents
Cambridge, Massachusetts – 5 violent crimes per 1,000 residents
San Francisco, California – 7 violent crimes per 1,000 residents
Flint, Michigan – 24 violent crimes per 1,000 residents
Cleveland, Ohio – 14 violent crimes per 1,000 residents
Hartford, Connecticut – 13 violent crimes per 1,000 residents
Paterson, New Jersey – 11 violent crimes per 1,000 residents
Baltimore, Maryland – 15 violent crimes per 1,000 residents
New Haven, Connecticut – 15 violent crimes per 1,000 residents
Provo, Utah – 2 violent crimes per 1,000 residents
Lubbock, Texas – 9 violent crimes per 1,000 residents
Abilene, Texas – 5 violent crimes per 1,000 residents
Hialeah, Florida – 4 violent crimes per 1,000 residents
Plano, Texas – 2 violent crimes per 1,000 residents
Colorado Springs, Colorado – 5 violent crimes per 1,000 residents
Gilbert, Arizona – 1 violent crime per 1,000 residents
Bakersfield, California – 6 violent crimes per 1,000 residents
Lafayette, Louisiana – 8 violent crimes per 1,000 residents
Orange, California – 1 violent crime per 1,000 residents
Escondido, California – 4 violent crimes per 1,000 residents
Allentown, Pennsylvania – 6 violent crimes per 1,000 residents
Mesa, Arizona – 4 violent crimes per 1,000 residents
Arlington, Texas – 5 violent crimes per 1,000 residents
Peoria, Arizona – 2 violent crimes per 1,000 residents
The new GOOGLE policy links the information stored about a person, from all the google platforms into one profile. So if you have a gmail account, a blogger account and a youtube account, for example, google will store all the information about you from these different services together, regardless of how you use them.
The French internet regulatory body CNIL and EU data authorities believes the move breaches EU data protection laws. Furthermore a coalition of agencies from Europe and America have written the the chief executive of Google urging him to delay the changes, Trans Atlantic Consumer Dialogue (TACD) have said, “This move has been widely criticized by US lawmakers, US Attorneys General, European lawmakers, European privacy officials, technical experts, and privacy organisations”.
Currently Google and other organisation harvest user data and store them on their servers. Google has logged every search ever conducted by their users. This information is highly valuable commercially. By building a profile up of their users using all the available data they will know you intimately. Do we really want corporations having access to that level of data about us?
Since 9/11 homeland security has been at the top of the political agenda. The threat from Al Qaeda and affiliated groups remains high; and clearly, America’s enemies are not necessarily living in some far off land, but on her very soil. The threat from home grown terrorists is very real.
Consequently the recently passed Bill 1867 National Defence Authorization Act, has integrated national security with homeland security. On the face of things this may appear a good idea, if it keeps America safe. However, the bill has caused widespread alarm due to it’s wider implications.
S 1867 now defines American soil as part of “the battlefield”, and American citizens deemed to be “at war” with America can be detained without charge or trial. The protection offered citizens under the Constitution therefore will be removed.
The language of the bill is so vague it could be open to abuse, and could be used against US citizens; in a worst case scenario paving the way for internment camps.
Such legislation has the appearance of wisdom, but will do very little to protect against the types of terrorist attacks we have seen. What protects a region against destruction is the Presence of God, exposing wickedness, and renewing the minds of those who seek to perpetrate such crimes.
It was Prophet TV bringing the mantle into New York which stopped the Times Square bomb in May 2010. It was Prophet TV establishing an International Church Of The Gates (ICOTG) in Manhattan New York, which brought about the miracle on the Hudson, when a passenger plane landed on the icy Hudson River with no casualties. Scientifically, that plane ought to have crashed resulting in disaster, so this truly was a miracle. However, it is always God’s desire to save.
Such legislation as S 1867 only removes freedom, and could be used to oppress; only the Presence of God truly protects. Partner with Prophet TV, and partake of the mantle on this ministry.
Random Events, Free Will, Pre-destiny or Something Darker ?