Want the *U*freakin'*N* regulating the 'Net???

[Sir_Winston54]

I was going to put this in the Pissed Off thread, but thought, no, it deserves its own space, just like the SOPA/PIPA thread. And the author has a point: There was a *huge* outcry when SOPA/PIPA were proposed... where's the outcry on this?

Where's the outcry on the U.N. push to regulate the Internet?

The bureaucrats at the United Nations, prodded by developing countries and exemplars of democracy like Russia and China, have hit on an enticing new way to control global communication and commerce: They want to regulate the Internet.

It's one of those rare issues in this heated campaign season that is uniting the political left, right, and middle in Washington. Business leaders beyond Silicon Valley would be smart to sit up and take notice, too -- and fast. American opponents are being seriously outpaced by U.N. plans to tax and regulate that are already grinding forward in advance of a December treaty negotiation in Dubai.

"Having the U.N. or any international community regulate the Internet only means you're going to have the lowest common denominator of 193 countries," notes Richard Grenell, who served as spokesman and adviser to four U.S. ambassadors to the U.N. between 2001 and 2009.

+_+_+_+_

The conduit is a little known U.N. agency called the International Telecommunication Union, which coordinates cross-border issues such as radio spectrum and satellite orbits. At the December 2012 World Conference on International Telecommunications in Dubai (bureaucratically titled the WCIT-12) the ITU will consider expanding its purview to the Internet. That may be six months away -- but ITU working groups are already laying the groundwork.

Behind the effort are efficient censor machines like China, and autocrats like Russian President Vladimir Putin, who last year declared his desire to establish "international control" of the Internet. These are "not exactly bastions of Internet freedom," as Florida Republican Senator Marco Rubio put it during a hearing last month. "Any place that bans certain terms from search should not be a leader in an international Internet regulatory framework."​

There's a LOT more in the original CNN/Fortune article linked through the headline above. If you're concerned about *your* freedoms on the internet, no matter in what country, on what continent you live, please read this article and contact your government's representatives, and every company you know of that conducts internet business, and raise the alarm.

Even such things as "Will Literotica be allowed to live?" could fall under the control of this soon-to-be-mandated "authority" of the U.N.

 

[catalina_francisco]

I think it's disgusting, though can't say I am surprised. Unfortunately we have been moving toward this moment for at least 25 years, but people have been too blind to see and recognise the liberties they have been losing one at a time, all in the name of protecting the public. It has reached the point of apathy for most which unfortunately will result in us falling further and further under the watchful gaze of Big Brother and controlled by those who run the machine. Sadly it is also a result of information which may get in the way of this progress being buried in an effort to control those who do stand up and say something. Friends of mine took part in a rally this week protesting some proposed government funding cuts which could have a negative effect on public health, and in particular the gay community. Though there were thousands who marched and rallied to raise awareness and try to reverse the decision, I couldn't find a mention of it in the next day's major newspapers. Sad, but unless people begin to take notice and speak out, and support those who do (Julian Assange comes to mind), we will all fall victim to the plan our governments and privileged have to suppress information and control the masses by doing so.

Catalina

 

[Primalex]

Well....

The US isn't quite a bastion of Internet freedom either. Every country extends their traditional laws to the Internet, whether this makes sense or not.

So, yes, free speech is important for the US, not for China, so it's better when China doesn't "rule" the Internet, when it comes down to free speech on the Internet, but then again, data privacy of the individual is seen just as an obstacle to hunt down terrorists and criminals in the US, so it would be better, too, if the US doesn't "rule" the Internet regarding data privacy topics.

So, what is better?

The lowest common denominator of 193 countries might also result in:
China and Russia can't prevent free speech, because US wouldn't agree.
US can't install global spy networks, because China and Germany wouldn't agree.
And so on and so on.

Hell, if we really take the lowest common denominator of 193 countries, we will basically have the most free Internet possible. I mean, half of the 193 countries don't even ban child porn.

 

[Licia]

I predict the internet will suffer censorship as society evolves. Catalina and Primalex have both brought good argument to the table, and I'd up the ante--people in dastardly power positions must keep their techniqes secret 'lest the community rise as a whole and topple their tower.

Hailing pond-side United States, my perception is what it is. I recall well the outrage over SOPA, (how 'twas put into law against the will of the people) and I understand that artists are entitled to monies and copyright protections generated by their work.

All of us know the danger--the threat which is a promise--of losing the right to free speech and free information. Society has already lived those realities. What SOPA told me was clear: an outcry isn't always heard by our representative government. Katrina's occurance and aftermath? What a fucking nightmare.

So, no.

I will not go gently into that good night.

 

[Primalex]

I predict the internet will suffer censorship as society evolves.

I don't think there is much to predict.

http://www.google.com/transparencyreport/removals/government/countries/

(The important part is imo the percentage, as it tells, how Google viewed the request. If Google denies nearly every second removal request from a government body of the U.S., I conclude that they try very hard to censor - to have content removed without proper justification.)

 

[Licia]

I don't think there is much to predict.

http://www.google.com/transparencyreport/removals/government/countries/

(The important part is imo the percentage, as it tells, how Google viewed the request. If Google denies nearly every second removal request from a government body of the U.S., I conclude that they try very hard to censor - to have content removed without proper justification.)

Heh. Me either. "Predict" is poking fun at me being accused of being *drumroll*

A Witch!

A Blacksheep!

A wolf in sheep's clothing!



Anyway, back on point.

Fascinating stuff, the ratios.

Greece <10:100%
Germany 125:86%
Hong Kong (no data)
Switzerland <10:100%
China 3:67%
USA 92:63%

Needless to say I think I was the only American who was horrified {besides one democratic congressman (paraphrased from C-span)}--'...Mr. President (Bush) even your father saw fit to keep congress informed during wartime...'-- that a small circle being privy to the disclosure warfare acitivties is a huge problem. Besides, unless my civics are backward--they aren't, infact--Congress itself is to declare war.

http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2008/07/12/only-congress-can-declare-war/

It would seem natural that the same Congress would be kept informed on said war.

Paranoia got in the way, and we ended up with the Patriot act. "Patriot act" wheeled in an elderly dissident from WV, Timothy Mcveigh style. He was/is not a tewwowist. He was just an older guy with an opinion, and that clear statement lit a fire under the asses of some of Bush's staunchest wingnuts: they failed to see God and Country through the exercise.

Horrah for reason!

But when I deduced that Obama would win, I was apparently suffering from "spidey senses".

Whatever.

I can hear a national outcry when it arises.

Those of us with full faculties learn from history.

Some of us were born dissidents. Ben Franklin comes to mind.