The Fight for the Net – Cyber Security Awareness and Rockefeller – The Snare – Scarecrows and Scare Tactics

Dearest Friends,

Becoming aware of the system of domination and control that has been imposed on us entails exercising our civil rights and our civil liberties, by being aware of what it is that we are facing, with discernment.

Blessed are the people that can take an informed decision or a discerned decision, should I say.

In this article I would like to share with you a practical case-study to do with how Lucifer, his gang and his terrain adepts (earthlings) work. The Snare that has been set by Satan through many years of working behind the scenes began as gentle misleading and has, through the years, taken a winding path to the valley of full deception. They try to infiltrate good movements, with traps that are deceptively attractive and with the intention to dominate and control them by outright lies and falsity.

They also try to gain control of movements by waving the fear of a threat which normally they create themselves behind the scenes. This is where your HEART discernment is of vital importance to guide you.

Let’s take the Internet as an example. The web has been the one thing that has ground to a halt the elite’s plans to enslave mankind. The plan based on lies and deception has always been counting on the control of media, secrecy and the manipulation of history through blackmail and corruption. Free circulation of independent information has deeply hurt the distorted lies that support their agenda. Nothing kills a lie like the truth. And so now they try to control the web. They have already infiltrated Google, Yahoo, Youtube, but this is doing it yet because still info is circulating freely. And so, knowing this, have a look below at this classic approach of spreading fear in order to bring about restrictions to our liberties.

Below you find some statistics about internet threats with real numbers :

And so the web of lies continues in the name of “protecting the consumers”:

But who is this Rockefeller anyway? Let’s listen to this testimony:

Since 24th of July Sen Rockfeller has presented an amendement to the Bill that establishes a National Institute of Standards and Technology to further the psychotic’s agenda. In appendix you will find all references and the Technology Bill full version, edited by me, with the insertion of the relevant amendment paragraphs into its original, for clarity. The message here is gain control in small steps for multi-generational control that is difficult to track. The key move here is the assertion of an executive authority that can exert small power now with the application of small changes in the not so distant future.

s. 1353 cybersecurity act of 2013 introduced July 24 2013 by sen J Rockefeller (link:, which is an amendment to 15 USC 272-Sec 272 Establishment, functions and activities of US Code – Title 15: commerce and trade 2011 (Link:

It is impossible to understand the snare from his amendment (obviously) so I have inserted the changes into the commerce and trade Bill and you will find the whole document below.

Rockfeller’s changes are in red and the snare is underlined red.

15 USC 272-Sec 272 Text plus inserted proposed amendments:

§272. Establishment, functions, and activities

(a) Establishment of National Institute of Standards and Technology

There is established within the Department of Commerce a science, engineering, technology, and measurement laboratory to be known as the National Institute of Standards and Technology (hereafter in this chapter referred to as the “Institute”).

(b) Functions of Secretary and Institute

The Secretary of Commerce (hereafter in this chapter referred to as the “Secretary”) acting through the Director of the Institute (hereafter in this chapter referred to as the “Director”) is authorized to take all actions necessary and appropriate to accomplish the purposes of this chapter, including the following functions of the Institute—

(1) to assist industry in the development of technology and procedures needed to improve quality, to modernize manufacturing processes, to ensure product reliability, manufacturability, functionality, and cost-effectiveness, and to facilitate the more rapid commercialization, especially by small- and medium-sized companies throughout the United States, of products based on new scientific discoveries in fields such as automation, electronics, advanced materials, biotechnology, and optical technologies;

(2) to develop, maintain, and retain custody of the national standards of measurement, and provide the means and methods for making measurements consistent with those standards;

(3) to compare standards used in scientific investigations, engineering, manufacturing, commerce, industry, and educational institutions with the standards adopted or recognized by the Federal Government and to coordinate the use by Federal agencies of private sector standards, emphasizing where possible the use of standards developed by private, consensus organizations;

(4) to enter into contracts, including cooperative research and development arrangements, and grants and cooperative agreements, in furtherance of the purposes of this chapter;

(5) to provide United States industry, Government, and educational institutions with a national clearinghouse of current information, techniques, and advice for the achievement of higher quality and productivity based on current domestic and international scientific and technical development;

(6) to assist industry in the development of measurements, measurement methods, and basic measurement technology;

(7) to determine, compile, evaluate, and disseminate physical constants and the properties and performance of conventional and advanced materials when they are important to science, engineering, manufacturing, education, commerce, and industry and are not available with sufficient accuracy elsewhere;

(8) to develop a fundamental basis and methods for testing materials, mechanisms, structures, equipment, and systems, including those used by the Federal Government;

(9) to assure the compatibility of United States national measurement standards with those of other nations;

(10) to cooperate with other departments and agencies of the Federal Government, with industry, with State and local governments, with the governments of other nations and international organizations, and with private organizations in establishing standard practices, codes, specifications, and voluntary consensus standards;

(11) to advise government and industry on scientific and technical problems;

(12) to invent, develop, and (when appropriate) promote transfer to the private sector of measurement devices to serve special national needs; and

(13) to coordinate Federal, State, and local technical standards activities and conformity assessment activities, with private sector technical standards activities and conformity assessment activities, with the goal of eliminating unnecessary duplication and complexity in the development and promulgation of conformity assessment requirements and measures.

(c) Implementation activities

In carrying out the functions specified in subsection (b) of this section, the Secretary, acting through the Director 1 may, among other things—

(1) construct physical standards;

(2) test, calibrate, and certify standards and standard measuring apparatus;

(e) Cyber Risks-

‘(1) IN GENERAL- In carrying out the activities under subsection (c)(15), the Director–

‘(A) shall–

‘(i) coordinate closely and continuously with relevant private sector personnel and entities, critical infrastructure owners and operators, sector coordinating councils, Information Sharing and Analysis Centers, and other relevant industry organizations, and incorporate industry expertise;

‘(ii) consult with the heads of agencies with national security responsibilities, sector-specific agencies, State and local governments, the governments of other nations, and international organizations;

‘(iii) identify a prioritized, flexible, repeatable, performance-based, and cost-effective approach, including information security measures and controls, that may be voluntarily adopted by owners and operators of critical infrastructure to help them identify, assess, and manage cyber risks;

‘(iv) include methodologies–

‘(I) to identify and mitigate impacts of the cybersecurity measures or controls on business confidentiality; and

‘(II) to protect individual privacy and civil liberties;

‘(v) incorporate voluntary consensus standards and industry best practices;

‘(vi) align with voluntary international standards to the fullest extent possible;

‘(vii) prevent duplication of regulatory processes and prevent conflict with or superseding of regulatory requirements, mandatory standards, and related processes; and

‘(viii) include such other similar and consistent elements as the Director considers necessary; and

‘(B) shall not prescribe or otherwise require–

‘(i) the use of specific solutions;

‘(ii) the use of specific information or communications technology products or services; or

‘(iii) that information or communications technology products or services be designed, developed, or manufactured in a particular manner.

‘(2) LIMITATION- Information shared with or provided to the Institute for the purpose of the activities described under subsection (c)(15) shall not be used by any Federal, State, tribal, or local department or agency to regulate the activity of any entity.

(3) study and improve instruments, measurement methods, and industrial process control and quality assurance techniques;

(4) cooperate with the States in securing uniformity in weights and measures laws and methods of inspection;

(5) cooperate with foreign scientific and technical institutions to understand technological developments in other countries better;

(6) prepare, certify, and sell standard reference materials for use in ensuring the accuracy of chemical analyses and measurements of physical and other properties of materials;

(7) in furtherance of the purposes of this chapter, accept research associates, cash donations, and donated equipment from industry, and also engage with industry in research to develop new basic and generic technologies for traditional and new products and for improved production and manufacturing;

(8) study and develop fundamental scientific understanding and improved measurement, analysis, synthesis, processing, and fabrication methods for chemical substances and compounds, ferrous and nonferrous metals, and all traditional and advanced materials, including processes of degradation;

(9) investigate ionizing and nonionizing radiation and radioactive substances, their uses, and ways to protect people, structures, and equipment from their harmful effects;

(10) determine the atomic and molecular structure of matter, through analysis of spectra and other methods, to provide a basis for predicting chemical and physical structures and reactions and for designing new materials and chemical substances, including biologically active macromolecules;

(11) perform research on electromagnetic waves, including optical waves, and on properties and performance of electrical, electronic, and electromagnetic devices and systems and their essential materials, develop and maintain related standards, and disseminate standard signals through broadcast and other means;

(12) develop and test standard interfaces, communication protocols, and data structures for computer and related telecommunications systems;

(13) study computer systems (as that term is defined in section 278g–3(d) 2 of this title) and their use to control machinery and processes;

(14) perform research to develop standards and test methods to advance the effective use of computers and related systems and to protect the information stored, processed, and transmitted by such systems and to provide advice in support of policies affecting Federal computer and related telecommunications systems;

‘(15) on an ongoing basis, facilitate and support the development of a voluntary, industry-led set of standards, guidelines, best practices, methodologies, procedures, and processes to reduce cyber risks to critical infrastructure (as defined under subsection (e));’.

(15) determine properties of building materials and structural elements, and encourage their standardization and most effective use, including investigation of fire-resisting properties of building materials and conditions under which they may be most efficiently used, and the standardization of types of appliances for fire prevention;

(16) undertake such research in engineering, pure and applied mathematics, statistics, computer science, materials science, and the physical sciences as may be necessary to carry out and support the functions specified in this section;

(17) compile, evaluate, publish, and otherwise disseminate general, specific and technical data resulting from the performance of the functions specified in this section or from other sources when such data are important to science, engineering, or industry, or to the general public, and are not available elsewhere;

(18) collect, create, analyze, and maintain specimens of scientific value;

(19) operate national user facilities;

(20) evaluate promising inventions and other novel technical concepts submitted by inventors and small companies and work with other Federal agencies, States, and localities to provide appropriate technical assistance and support for those inventions which are found in the evaluation process to have commercial promise;

(21) demonstrate the results of the Institute’s activities by exhibits or other methods of technology transfer, including the use of scientific or technical personnel of the Institute for part-time or intermittent teaching and training activities at educational institutions of higher learning as part of and incidental to their official duties; and

(22) undertake such other activities similar to those specified in this subsection as the Director determines appropriate.

(d) Management costs

In carrying out the extramural funding programs of the Institute, including the programs established under sections 278k, 278l, and 278n of this title, the Secretary may retain reasonable amounts of any funds appropriated pursuant to authorizations for these programs in order to pay for the Institute’s management of these programs.

(Mar. 3, 1901, ch. 872, §2, 31 Stat. 1449; July 22, 1950, ch. 486, §1, 64 Stat. 371; Pub. L. 92–317, §3(b), June 22, 1972, 86 Stat. 235; Pub. L. 100–235, §3(1), Jan. 8, 1988, 101 Stat. 1724; Pub. L. 100–418, title V, §5112(a), Aug. 23, 1988, 102 Stat. 1428; Pub. L. 102–245, title II, §201(e), Feb. 14, 1992, 106 Stat. 19; Pub. L. 104–113, §12(a), (b), Mar. 7, 1996, 110 Stat. 782; Pub. L. 110–69, title III, §§3002(c)(2)(A), 3013(b), Aug. 9, 2007, 121 Stat. 586, 598.)

References in Text

Section 278g–3 of this title, referred to in subsec. (c)(13), was amended, and no longer defines the term “computer systems”.


2007—Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 110–69, §3002(c)(2)(A)(i), struck out “and, if appropriate, through other officials,” before “is authorized” in introductory provisions.

Subsec. (b)(4). Pub. L. 110–69, §3013(b), inserted “and grants and cooperative agreements,” after “arrangements,”.

Subsec. (c). Pub. L. 110–69, §3002(c)(2)(A)(ii), struck out “and, if appropriate, through other appropriate officials,” before “may,” in introductory provisions.

1996—Subsec. (b)(2). Pub. L. 104–113, §12(a)(1), struck out “, including comparing standards used in scientific investigations, engineering, manufacturing, commerce, industry, and educational institutions with the standards adopted or recognized by the Federal Government” after “consistent with those standards”.

Subsec. (b)(3) to (12). Pub. L. 104–113, §12(a)(2), (3), added par. (3) and redesignated former pars. (3) to (11) as (4) to (12), respectively.

Subsec. (b)(13). Pub. L. 104–113, §12(b)(3), added par. (13).

1992—Subsec. (d). Pub. L. 102–245 added subsec. (d).

1988—Pub. L. 100–418 amended section generally, substituting provisions relating to establishment, functions and activities of the National Institute of Standards and Technology and the Secretary of Commerce for provisions which authorized Secretary to undertake certain enumerated functions and activities related to the National Bureau of Standards and for which need might arise in operations of Government agencies, scientific institutions, and industrial enterprises.

Par. (20). Pub. L. 100–235 added par. (20).

1972—Par. (19). Pub. L. 92–317 inserted provisions authorizing use of National Bureau of Standards personnel for teaching and training activities without additional compensation.

1950—Act July 22, 1950, provided basic authority for performance of certain functions and activities of Department of Commerce.

Enhancement of Science and Mathematics Programs

Pub. L. 105–309, §6, Oct. 30, 1998, 112 Stat. 2936, provided that:

“(a) Definitions.—In this section—

“(1) Educationally useful federal equipment.—The term ‘educationally useful Federal equipment’ means computers and related peripheral tools and research equipment that is appropriate for use in schools.

“(2) School.—The term ‘school’ means a public or private educational institution that serves any of the grades of kindergarten through grade 12.

“(b) Sense of the Congress.—

“(1) In general.—It is the sense of the Congress that the Director of the National Institute of Standards and Technology should, to the greatest extent practicable and in a manner consistent with applicable Federal law (including Executive Order No. 12999 [40 U.S.C. 549 note]), donate educationally useful Federal equipment to schools in order to enhance the science and mathematics programs of those schools.

“(2) Reports.—

“(A) In general.—Not later than 1 year after the date of the enactment of this Act [Oct. 30, 1998], and annually thereafter, the Director of the National Institute of Standards and Technology shall prepare and submit to the President a report. The President shall submit the report to Congress at the same time as the President submits a budget request to Congress under section 1105(a) of title 31, United States Code.

“(B) Contents of report.—The report prepared by the Director under this paragraph shall describe any donations of educationally useful Federal equipment to schools made during the period covered by the report.”

Transmittal of Plan for Standards Conformity to Congress

Pub. L. 104–113, §12(c), Mar. 7, 1996, 110 Stat. 783, provided that: “The National Institute of Standards and Technology shall, within 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act [Mar. 7, 1996], transmit to the Congress a plan for implementing the amendments made by this section [amending this section and enacting provisions set out as a note below].”

Utilization of Consensus Technical Standards by Federal Agencies

Pub. L. 104–113, §12(d), Mar. 7, 1996, 110 Stat. 783, as amended by Pub. L. 107–107, div. A, title XI, §1115, Dec. 28, 2001, 115 Stat. 1241, provided that:

“(1) In general.—Except as provided in paragraph (3) of this subsection, all Federal agencies and departments shall use technical standards that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies, using such technical standards as a means to carry out policy objectives or activities determined by the agencies and departments.

“(2) Consultation; participation.—In carrying out paragraph (1) of this subsection, Federal agencies and departments shall consult with voluntary, private sector, consensus standards bodies and shall, when such participation is in the public interest and is compatible with agency and departmental missions, authorities, priorities, and budget resources, participate with such bodies in the development of technical standards.

“(3) Exception.—If compliance with paragraph (1) of this subsection is inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical, a Federal agency or department may elect to use technical standards that are not developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies if the head of each such agency or department transmits to the Office of Management and Budget an explanation of the reasons for using such standards. Each year, beginning with fiscal year 1997, the Office of Management and Budget shall transmit to Congress and its committees a report summarizing all explanations received in the preceding year under this paragraph.

“(4) Expenses of government personnel.—Section 5946 of title 5, United States Code, shall not apply with respect to any activity of an employee of a Federal agency or department that is determined by the head of that agency or department as being an activity undertaken in carrying out this subsection.

“(5) Definition of technical standards.—As used in this subsection, the term ‘technical standards’ means performance-based or design-specific technical specifications and related management systems practices.”

International Standards

Pub. L. 100–519, title I, §112, Oct. 24, 1988, 102 Stat. 2592, provided that:

“(a) Program.—The Secretary, acting through the Director of the National Institute of Standards and Technology and other appropriate officials, shall seek funding for and establish, within 6 months after the date of the enactment of this Act [Oct. 24, 1988], a program to assist other countries in the development of their domestic standards which are compatible with standards in general use in the United States. After the program is established, it shall be funded through voluntary contributions from the private sector to fully reimburse the United States for expenses incurred during fiscal years 1989 and 1990. The program shall begin on a pilot basis focusing on one or two countries or groups of countries which are major United States trading partners and have expressed interest in such program. The Secretary shall ensure that contributions which are earmarked by country are spent to assist the development of standards by that country or group of countries.

“(b) Long-Term Plan.—No later than June 30, 1989, the Secretary shall submit to the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate a long-term plan for assistance under this section for each nation or group of nations which annually has imports of at least $1,000,000,000 from the United States (or has the potential for being a major importer from the United States) and which desires such assistance. The plan shall include a description of the resources needed to provide such assistance, the appropriate and likely sources of such funds, and the appropriate relationship between the program established under this section and private sector standards organizations. Special consideration is to be given to the feasibility of establishing a data base and other methods for making standards information developed in cooperation with one country available to other countries.”

Initial Organization Plan for Institute

Pub. L. 100–418, title V, §5112(d), Aug. 23, 1988, 102 Stat. 1431, provided that:

“(1) At least 60 days before its effective date and within 120 days after the date of the enactment of this Act [Aug. 23, 1988], an initial organization plan for the National Institute of Standards and Technology (hereafter in this part [see Short Title of 1988 Amendment note set out under section 271 of this title] referred to as the ‘Institute’) shall be submitted by the Director of the Institute (hereafter in this part referred to as the ‘Director’) after consultation with the Visiting Committee on Advanced Technology, to the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate. Such plan shall—

“(A) establish the major operating units of the Institute;

“(B) assign each of the activities listed in section 2(c) of the Act of March 3, 1901 [15 U.S.C. 272(c)], and all other functions and activities of the Institute, to at least one of the major operating units established under subparagraph (A);

“(C) provide details of a 2-year program for the Institute, including the Advanced Technology Program;

“(D) provide details regarding how the Institute will expand and fund the Inventions program in accordance with section 27 of the Act of March 3, 1901 [former 15 U.S.C. 278m]; and

“(E) make no changes in the Center for Building Technology or the Center for Fire Research.

“(2) The Director may revise the organization plan. Any revision of the organization plan submitted under paragraph (1) shall be submitted to the appropriate committees of the House of Representatives and the Senate at least 60 days before the effective date of such revision.

“(3) Until the effective date of the organization plan, the major operating units of the Institute shall be the major operating units of the National Bureau of Standards that were in existence on the date of the enactment of this Act [Aug. 23, 1988] and the Advanced Technology Program.”

National Institute of Standards and Technology; Small Business Plan

Pub. L. 100–418, title V, §5163(b), Aug. 23, 1988, 102 Stat. 1450, provided that: “The Director of the National Institute of Standards and Technology shall prepare a plan detailing the manner in which the Institute will make small businesses more aware of the Institute’s activities and research, and the manner in which the Institute will seek to increase the application by small businesses of the Institute’s research, particularly in manufacturing. The plan shall be submitted to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate and the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology of the House of Representatives not later than 120 days after the date of the enactment of this Act [Aug. 23, 1988].”

Construction of Radio Laboratory Building

Act Oct. 25, 1949, ch. 703, 63 Stat. 886, provided for the construction and equipment of a suitable radio laboratory building, together with necessary utilities and appurtenances thereto, under a limit of cost of $4,475,000, for the National Bureau of Standards.

Construction of a Guided-Missile Research Laboratory

Act Oct. 25, 1949, ch. 728, 63 Stat. 905, provided for the construction and equipment of a research laboratory building, suitable for use as a guided-missile laboratory, together with necessary utilities and appurtenances thereto, under a limit of cost of $1,900,000, for the National Bureau of Standards.

1 So in original. Probably should be followed by a comma.

2 See References in Text note below.

Why Don’t We Set Up a World Wide Referendum Against Surveillance?

The United States and its key intelligence allies are quietly working behind the scenes to kneecap a mounting movement in the United Nations to promote a universal human right to online privacy, according to diplomatic sources and an internal American government document obtained by The Cable.

The diplomatic battle is playing out in an obscure U.N. General Assembly committee that is considering a proposal by Brazil and Germany to place constraints on unchecked internet surveillance by the National Security Agency and other foreign intelligence services. American representatives have made it clear that they won’t tolerate such checks on their global surveillance network. The stakes are high, particularly in Washington — which is seeking to contain aninternational backlash against NSA spying — and in Brasilia, where Brazilian President Dilma Roussef is personally involved in monitoring the U.N. negotiations.

The Brazilian and German initiative seeks to apply the right to privacy, which is enshrined in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), to online communications. Their proposal, first revealed by The Cable, affirms a “right to privacy that is not to be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with their privacy, family, home, or correspondence.” It notes that while public safety may “justify the gathering and protection of certain sensitive information,” nations “must ensure full compliance” with international human rights laws. A final version the text is scheduled to be presented to U.N. members on Wednesday evening and the resolution is expected to be adopted next week.

A draft of the resolution, which was obtained by The Cable, calls on states to “to respect and protect the right to privacy,” asserting that the “same rights that people have offline must also be protected online, including the right to privacy.” It also requests the U.N. high commissioner for human rights, Navi Pillay, present the U.N. General Assembly next year with a report on the protection and promotion of the right to privacy, a provision that will ensure the issue remains on the front burner.

Publicly, U.S. representatives say they’re open to an affirmation of privacy rights. “The United States takes very seriously our international legal obligations, including those under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights,” Kurtis Cooper, a spokesman for the U.S. mission to the United Nations, said in an email. “We have been actively and constructively negotiating to ensure that the resolution promotes human rights and is consistent with those obligations.”

But privately, American diplomats are pushing hard to kill a provision of the Brazilian and German draft which states that “extraterritorial surveillance” and mass interception of communications, personal information, and metadata may constitute a violation of human rights. The United States and its allies, according to diplomats, outside observers, and documents, contend that the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights does not apply to foreign espionage.

In recent days, the United States circulated to its allies a confidential paper highlighting American objectives in the negotiations, “Right to Privacy in the Digital Age — U.S. Redlines.” It calls for changing the Brazilian and German text so “that references to privacy rights are referring explicitly to States’ obligations under ICCPR and remove suggestion that such obligations apply extraterritorially.” In other words: America wants to make sure it preserves the right to spy overseas.

The U.S. paper also calls on governments to promote amendments that would weaken Brazil’s and Germany’s contention that some “highly intrusive” acts of online espionage may constitute a violation of freedom of expression. Instead, the United States wants to limit the focus to illegalsurveillance — which the American government claims it never, ever does. Collecting information on tens of millions of people around the world is perfectly acceptable, the Obama administration has repeatedly said. It’s authorized by U.S. statute, overseen by Congress, and approved by American courts.

“Recall that the USG’s [U.S. government’s] collection activities that have been disclosed are lawful collections done in a manner protective of privacy rights,” the paper states. “So a paragraph expressing concern about illegal surveillance is one with which we would agree.”

The privacy resolution, like most General Assembly decisions, is neither legally binding nor enforceable by any international court. But international lawyers say it is important because it creates the basis for an international consensus — referred to as “soft law” — that over time will make it harder and harder for the United States to argue that its mass collection of foreigners’ data is lawful and in conformity with human rights norms.

“They want to be able to say ‘we haven’t broken the law, we’re not breaking the law, and we won’t break the law,'” said Dinah PoKempner, the general counsel for Human Rights Watch, who has been tracking the negotiations. The United States, she added, wants to be able to maintain that “we have the freedom to scoop up anything we want through the massive surveillance of foreigners because we have no legal obligations.”

The United States negotiators have been pressing their case behind the scenes, raising concerns that the assertion of extraterritorial human rights could constrain America’s effort to go after international terrorists. But Washington has remained relatively muted about their concerns in the U.N. negotiating sessions. According to one diplomat, “the United States has been very much in the backseat,” leaving it to its allies, Australia, Britain, and Canada, to take the lead.

There is no extraterritorial obligation on states “to comply with human rights,” explained one diplomat who supports the U.S. position. “The obligation is on states to uphold the human rights of citizens within their territory and areas of their jurisdictions.”

The position, according to Jamil Dakwar, the director of the American Civil Liberties Union’s Human Rights Program, has little international backing. The International Court of Justice, the U.N. Human Rights Committee, and the European Court have all asserted that states do have an obligation to comply with human rights laws beyond their own borders, he noted. “Governments do have obligation beyond their territories,” said Dakwar, particularly in situations, like the Guantanamo Bay detention center, where the United States exercises “effective control” over the lives of the detainees.

Both PoKempner and Dakwar suggested that courts may also judge that the U.S. dominance of the Internet places special legal obligations on it to ensure the protection of users’ human rights.

“It’s clear that when the United States is conducting surveillance, these decisions and operations start in the United States, the servers are at NSA headquarters, and the capabilities are mainly in the United States,” he said. “To argue that they have no human rights obligations overseas is dangerous because it sends a message that there is void in terms of human rights protection outside countries territory. It’s going back to the idea that you can create a legal black hole where there is no applicable law.” There were signs emerging on Wednesday that America may have been making ground in pressing the Brazilians and Germans to back on one of its toughest provisions. In an effort to address the concerns of the U.S. and its allies, Brazil and Germany agreed to soften the language suggesting that mass surveillance may constitute a violation of human rights. Instead, it simply deep “concern at the negative impact” that extraterritorial surveillance “may have on the exercise of and enjoyment of human rights.” The U.S., however, has not yet indicated it would support the revised proposal.

The concession “is regrettable. But it’s not the end of the battle by any means,” said Human Rights Watch’s PoKempner. She added that there will soon be another opportunity to corral America’s spies: a U.N. discussion on possible human rights violations as a result of extraterritorial surveillance will soon be taken up by the U.N. High commissioner.


RE: NSA Spying, Breaching of Civil Liberties, UK

Discussion at the UK Parliament regarding civil rights versus security agencies spying. 

Few items I wish to point out: 

  1. You can see how the deputies not in governmental position defend civil liberties of the people 🙂
  2. You can see how the government deputies have been briefed to keep the same line of speech (see my video published here about D Cameron on NSA)
  3. The internet and our freedom is one of the things that have hurt the cabal the most and I ask for your support in keeping yourselves informed and firmly voicing your opinions.

What are your thoughts?

Blessings /Shogun


How Important is your personal DATA

They are desperate to get hold of your data.
You have to say chapeau to the ways they come up with to get in there.
In full-blown NSA scandal this is what is in the pipeline…
The way it is reported is very reassuring too :-).
Who you are, what you think, where you go and what you do is extremely important to this bunch.
When does the need to know about an individual arise?
Does it come from an empowering thought?
Or does it come from the will to dominate and control?