United Nations to Seek Control of the Internet

[surtur]

just away for them to get money from the people who will be able to pay the higher cost of using the internet , a way to censor the information available and who and how it is accessed, and to make the use of the internet an elite status, pricing out the common folk so only the privileged few can access the wealth of information.

next they will add a travelers tax so if i fly from Canada to Egypt i have to pay a communication tax to be able to share any knowledge or speak to anyone because i came from a different country.

[Ghostsof1915]

Because it's the UN. They are the supreme rulers of the UNIVERSE.

[surtur]

Yeah...but they can't force gun control on the US. So how powerful are they?

[vancanfan]

[Argon]

they won't be able to control the internet. Everything hinges on nude women. Once they propose to do something that makes free porn cease to be, there will be an uprising like no other

[NightHawkSniper]

The fact that they can even discuss this as a possibility shows how powerful they are.

they are trying to limit our ability to communicate to the masses in a unscripted, uncontrolled way.

the major news networks are already controlled and filtered when needed.

[Lancaster]

The UN stopped being relevant ever since a large majority of the countries are dictatorships, have censorship and abuses human rights.

[Armada]

The UN's just mad cause no one ever listens to their angry letters.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UIPSvIz9NDs

[Hobble]

they won't be able to control the internet. Everything hinges on nude women. Once they propose to do something that makes free porn cease to be, there will be an uprising like no other

[surtur]

they won't be able to control the internet. Everything hinges on nude women. Once they propose to do something that makes free porn cease to be, there will be an uprising like no other

[Common sense]

The UN stopped being relevant ever since a large majority of the countries are dictatorships, have censorship and abuses human rights.

[Doubled23]

And my friends wonder why i hate the U.N.

[Kamero89]

lol I love how a bunch of 60 year olds get to decide this. Either way, it just won't work.

[Mountain Man]

They have been working on the definition of genocide for 60+ years. Don't see this really being an issue because the only thing they agree on is disagreeing.

[Jägermeister]

It's okay, I'm sure Russia or China will just veto it anyways.

At least thats how everything else ends up.

[PlayStation]

The UN stopped being relevant ever since a large majority of the countries are dictatorships, have censorship and abuses human rights.

[TOMapleLaughs]

I like how the US is made to look like a hero in this scenario when they've been going after international peer networks for years.

'Sure, we'll let you operate tax-free, but say goodbye to torrents.'

In the end they have to realize that all forms of digital media will remain free and open, whether they like it or not.

[key2thecup]

The UN holds hush-hush talks on regulating the Internet, behind closed doors in a repressive country

The CBC’s web site has a story posted today under the headline, “Should the UN govern the Internet?”

Being somewhat immune to irony, the odds are the folks at CBC meant it as a serious question. Sort of like a thoughtful debate over the issue “Should Canada reintroduce slavery?” Here’s Peter Mansbridge with our non-partisan panel: Chantal, what say you?*

In both instances, of course, there really isn’t a debate to be had. The answer is, “Of course not, are you nuts?” Nonetheless, the United Nations is going ahead with a conference at which it will entertain discussion on a push by some members to shift authority over online activities to its own eager regulators.

I’m not going to pretend I have the technical knowledge to delve into anything to do with the Internet, beyond how to buy stuff, write blogs and find interesting sites. Even though I work on it all day, my personal knowledge would have to be considered somewhere between scant and rudimentary. But so nonsensical is the very premise of the UN debate that even those with the most limited of knowledge can easily grasp its repugnance. Consider, for instance, just a few of the surface facts surrounding the conference:

1. It is being held in secret. As in, a conference that could lead to greater censorship and less access to the web is already so committed to secrecy and government control that it won’t let anyone hear what its members have to say.

2. The country that is “said to be” leading the push for greater control is (wait for it) … Russia. Yes, Russia, that bastion of free speech, which just tossed two members of an all-girl punk band into jail for daring to sing a song judge to be disrespectful of the Orthodox Church and the country’s president, Vladimir Putin. Just by coincidence, a Russian court today ordered that all websites must remove video clips of the group, feline Riot, or face being blocked.

3. The reason Russia is just “said to be” leading the internet crusade is because the whole process is so hush-hush that no one seems quite sure which members are the driving force. The International Telecommunications Union, the outdated UN body that would likely be responsible for regulatory control, has a lengthy membership that includes the usual mix of democratic and decidedly undemocratic countries. As with the UN itself, however, it’s safe to say that the non-democrats heavily outweigh the democrats. Which means that, should the ITU gain more control, it could easily establish a governing panel made up of Zimbabwe, Iran, Syria and China, with Russia in the chair.

4. The conference itself is being held in the United Arab Emirates. The UAE, just by coincidence, recently passed a law making it illegal to use the web to criticize the country or its rulers. According to Human Rights Watch:

The UAE president, Sheikh Khalifa Bin Zayed Al Nahyan, issued Federal Legal Decree No. 5/ 2012 on combating cybercrimes on November 12, 2012. The decree’s vaguely worded provisions provide a legal basis to prosecute and jail people who use information technology to, among other things, criticize senior officials, argue for political reform, or organize unlicensed demonstrations. Although some provisions are aimed at preventing the proliferation of racist or sectarian views online, the principal effect of the law is severe restrictions on the rights to free expression and free association and assembly.

…The new decree addresses information technology, which it classifies as “websites, any information network, or information technology means,” and places severe restrictions on the use of blogs and social networking sites, as well as text messages and emails. Given that it will be applied together with provisions of the criminal code and media law that criminalize alleged insults to the country’s rulers, the cybercrime law marks a significant step backward when it comes to free speech, Human Rights Watch said.

Good place to hold a forum on internet freedom, right? The fact the UN could be so thoroughly lunkheaded in choosing a locale indicates just how sensitive it would be in policing the abuse of basic freedoms.

Google, not surprisingly, is alarmed at the very suggestion of greater UN control and is urging people to sign an online petitionin protest. It notes that only governments are members of the ITU, meaning the web would become 100% government controlled.

“Some proposals could permit governments to censor legitimate speech – or even allow them to cut off internet access. Other proposals would require services like YouTube, Facebook, and Skype to pay new tolls in order to reach people across borders. This could limit access to information – particularly in emerging markets.”

Proposals being considered, according to The Heritage Foundation, would establish a “right” of national governments to know the exact routing of traffic, and to identify subscribers when delivering traffic; recognize an equal right for every country in the allocation of domain names, in place of the non-political Internet governance system; and urge governments to mandate a “sender pays” system for Internet payments, letting them decide how Internet service is paid for and displacing the system of voluntarily negotiated agreements.

It says that each recommendation would have to be enacted separately in each country, adding: “there is no shortage of authoritarian regimes that would gladly accept UN endorsement of their policies. Moreover, there’s no assurance that non-binding standards won’t later become binding.”

If the UN wasn’t already such a discredited organization, it would be worth noting how inappropriate it is that it should be acting as cover for a group of countries seeking to reduce public freedoms and increase the ability of repressive regimes to add to the power of thought police to control and punish critics for the simple act of expressing a dissenting point of view. Unfortunately, that’s become exactly what we do expect of the UN, which is a sad thing to say for anyone who ever held out hope for it as an means of enhancing freedom, as opposed to extinguishing it.

http://fullcomment.n...essive-country/

[Pouria]

[Pouria]

I like how the US is made to look like a hero in this scenario when they've been going after international peer networks for years.

'Sure, we'll let you operate tax-free, but say goodbye to torrents.'

In the end they have to realize that all forms of digital media will remain free and open, whether they like it or not.