In addition to the Chinese, other multinational “partners” and owners in ICANN include Russia, Iran, Cuba, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, and Venezuela, all of which are not exactly famous for upholding rights of free speech to their citizens…
By Jeremiah Johnson, SHTFPlan:
Saturday, October 1, 2016 was the day that Obama, using the Commerce Department ceded American control over the Internet to foreign nations and the UN. Naysayers can attempt to whitewash this maneuver and claim that ICANN (the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers) is “simply a nonprofit corporation that contracted to manage the Internet when old obligations expired.” That is completely false. Once again Obama has utilized a unilateral action on an issue that should be left up to Congress if for just one reason alone: the complete compromise of national security by transferring control of the Internet to foreign nations.
Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) and other congressman wrote a long and detailed letter to try and halt the transfer and their words fell on deaf ears. The transfer is so heinous and so dangerous to the United States that four states, namely Arizona, Nevada, Oklahoma, and Texas filed a lawsuit with the U.S. District Court in Galveston, TX to try to prevent it a few days before the transfer took place. A federal judge ruled that the transfer could proceed. Why wasn’t this action stopped or even delayed? Because George C. Hanks, Jr., is the Texas federal judge who ruled on Friday there would be no delay regarding the transfer of U.S. control of the Internet to ICANN.
Judge George C. Hanks, Jr. was appointed by President Barack Hussein Obama II.
Why is the transfer heinous and dangerous? For starters, prior to the ruling by the Obama-appointed judge and the actual transfer, a letter was written to both the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Joseph Dunford, and Secretary of Defense Ash Carter two days before the ruling. The letter was composed by 77 experts in the fields of the Internet, cybersecurity, and national security and pleaded for intervention to prevent the transfer. Justification for stopping the move was explained as follows in excerpts from the letter:
“As individuals with extensive, first-hand experience with protecting our national security, we write to urge you to intervene in opposition to an imminent action that would, in our judgment, cause profound and irreversible damage to the United States’ vital interests. Indeed, there is, to our knowledge, no compelling reason for exposing the national security to such a risk by transferring our remaining control of the Internet in this way at this time. “In the absence of U.S. government involvement in IANA it seems possible that, over time, foreign powers – including potentially or actually hostile ones – will be able to influence the IANA process. Even coercing the delay in approving IP addresses could impact military capabilities. From a broader view, given the well-documented ambition of these actors to restrict freedom of expression and/or entrepreneurial activity on the Internet, such a transfer of authority to ICANN could have far-reaching and undesirable consequences for untold numbers of people worldwide. It is profoundly disappointing that the Obama administration has decided to press on with its plan to relinquish United States oversight of crucial Internet functions, even though Congress has not given its approval. For years, there has been a bipartisan understanding that the ICANN transition is premature and that critical questions remain unanswered about the influence of authoritarian regimes in Internet governance, the protection of free speech, the effect on national security, and impacts on consumers, just to name a few.”
To clarify parts of this letter, IANA stands for Internet Assigned Numbers Authority, and the contract made with ICANN was between them and the NTIA, the National Telecommunications and Information Administration, the bureaucratic institution to previously regulate the Internet and assign things such as domain names and identifications, and this overseen by the federal government through the Commerce Department and an almost two decades-old policy of American Internet control.
Obviously the letter did not work. ICANN, as mentioned before, is not a simple nonprofit corporation based in Los Angeles, CA. ICANN has an office in Beijing, China, in the same building where over 30,000 Chinese “employees” work in the State Cybersecurity apparatus. In addition to the Chinese, other multinational “partners” and owners in ICANN include Russia, Iran, Cuba, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, and Venezuela, all of which are not exactly famous for upholding rights of free speech to their citizens as we used to have in the U.S. under the 1stAmendment.
But here’s the gimmick: Obama’s judge denied the transfer’s stoppage in a U.S. court ruling, and the contract (with a multinational firm with international “partners”) is currently in effect and being exercised. Now any legal action would have to come before an international court such as The Hague in the Netherlands to challenge the rights of the foreign “partners” in this Internet takeover
Returning to the actual issues involved with the loss of U.S. oversight to the Internet, an expert in cybersecurity, Bruce Schneier, CTO of IBM’s Resilient and a fellow at Harvard’s Berkman Center, said on 9/25/16 that Chinese cyberwarfare attacks have been on the rise for the past month. He also mentioned that because of the intricacies and complexities of the attacks, they are being performed by a “large state cyberwarfare unit.” Internet infrastructure companies have been experiencing cyberattacks that have been intricate, escalating, and testing components of the companies’ sensitive structures. Schneier mentioned the end goal for these suspected Chinese hackers:
“A global blackout of all websites and e-mail addresses in the most common top-level domains.”
This is a pretty deep statement, especially in light of the fact that now the Chinese don’t have to waste their efforts and energies with hacking, since the Internet is in their hands.
The Center for Security Policy president and founder Frank Gaffney on Septmebr 28 gave an interview to Breitbart News Daily and stated the following critical considerations:
What they’re preparing to do is to cede, or surrender, the last vestige of American control, or even influence, over what is done with critical functions of the Internet.
…the point is, if you think that the freedom of the Internet – whether it’s the ability of people to communicate freely information on it, or whether you think of it as an engine for free enterprise, let alone if you understand the contribution that it makes these days to national security – including, by the way, the operations of our critical infrastructure – you will understand that the United States retaining a measure of quality control as to what’s going on with how the Internet is populated with names and numbers, domains, websites and the like, is a very important thing.
…countries, I should say, like Russia, and China, and Saudi Arabia, and Iran, and North Korea – don’t want us to have any say in this and would like to be able to change things around so that they cannot only restrict all the things the Internet does to help their own people…but they want to take those freedoms – freedom of speech, freedom of expression, freedom of enterprise – away from us, as well.
This will be irreversible. Once this so-called mechanism known as the numbering and naming function is permanently and irreversibly to some multinational non-profit – which will, trust me, be dominated in due course, if not right away, by the Russians, and the Chinese, and the Saudis, and so on – we’re not getting that back. There’s not anything a President Trump is gonna be able to do about it, if he does, in fact, become president.”
Gaffney served as former Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence and is more than well-versed in the actions of the “partners” who have just been gifted with control of the Internet by Obama. And yes, your eyes did read correctly: North Korea and Iran are also “partners” in this tragic giveaway.
Earlier articles pertaining to EMP (Electromagnetic Pulse) weapons and nuclear tests by North Korea, two days before their 9/9/16 nuclear test that was estimated between 20-30 kilotons the company who monitors them by satellite for such actions was hacked into and shut down. The hackers could have been North Korean, Chinese, or Russian. With GridEx 2014 the Russians and Chinese know about our systems to protect the electrical grid in the U.S. and all of the computer systems it relies upon.
And now these countries have control over the Internet.
There have been many recent postings on all of the independent news websites about denied access to major sites, increased difficulties with e-mails and servers, increased time to access a conservative news venue, and other difficulties within the past two weeks. I have experienced similar occurrences, for example, when attempting to view Alex Jones’ site, and even here with SHTFplan…where the screen announces “Yahoo cannot link to this website,” or “Website temporarily unavailable,” or such.
But there’s never a problem logging onto “The Huffington Post,” and no delay reaching the “Washington Post” or any other left-wing site.
Additional concerns will be surfacing with the new SDR (Special Drawing Rights) measures being “accepted” into the U.S. banking system via “partners” such as the IMF and the effects on the U.S. money supply. As the cash is being slowly eliminated toward all accounts being solely in electronic funds, how does this play out with China, Russia, and others controlling the websites and Internet where funds are moved, stored, and accounted for? What will be the effects on inventory and purchases over the Internet? What about online banking and checks that are issued electronically to pay for bills as well as for goods and services?
And what about our defenses and our infrastructure? What will happen with potential response times for missile attacks when DOD servers and computer systems are hacked and shut down? What about the previously-mentioned power grid? Several commenters have suggested that an EMP would not even be needed if they just shut down all of the power to critical infrastructure, and I agree with this in part. They’ll still initiate an attack with an EMP to destroy microcircuits and electronic equipment not dependent upon or interacting with the Internet…what better measure to make military aircraft fall from the skies and “zap” unshielded sources not computer driven or dependent? Hand-in-hand with that EMP, however, would be the crippling cyberattack.
These next few weeks will be revelatory, to say the least, as we find out what measures will be taken by these foreign nations to name and number all users, killing anonymity. We will soon find out what true censorship means, as all of this will have a drastic effect on the independent news media sites. Obama succeeded: he won yet again, by transferring control of the Internet to ICANN. He has won or evaded every battle that has been fought with him. Now he won the battle to deny the U.S. of the only venue of news and communication that was not completely skewed, controlled, or rubbish. October 1, 2016 is potentially the date of another day that will live in infamy…the loss of individual freedoms with the Internet guaranteed under the 1st Amendment has now been given away to ICANN and its consortium of foreign “partners” by Obama.