50 votes

U.N. to Seek Control of the Internet

Commentary Magazine:

Leo Tolstoy once said, “Imagine Genghis Khan with a telephone.” Imagine Genghis Khan, or a gaggle of Genghis Khans, running the Internet, and you have a sense of the ideas that will be percolating in Dubai at the World Conference on International Telecommunications in December.

Delegates from 120 countries will gather under the auspices of the United Nations to consider a plan to take administrative control of the Internet away from the United States and hand it over to an international body run by the UN.

In short, governance of cyberspace will pass from the country that has kept it free and accessible since its creation—the United States—to the same organization that gave us the financial scandals at UNESCO, voted to designate Zionism as racism, and seated China, Syria, and Muammur Qaddafi’s Libya on its Commission on Human Rights.

More at the Commentary Magazine

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

UN hit by Hackers causing a 2

UN hit by Hackers causing a 2 hour disruption. The hackers were protesting the "Deep Packet Inspection" agenda to be adopted by telcomm that would inspect all the packets (data relayed) enabling the companies to determine what websites are visited and other info such as emails, banking transactions, and voice calls.

The US is against this intrusion! Somebody called their congressmen!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-20626381

"With enough of us, around the world, we’ll not just send a strong message opposing the privatization of knowledge — we’ll make it a thing of the past." ~ Aaron Swartz

Is there anything

the UN DOESN"T seek control over? Oh, but only for "good" reasons: "the children", "the poor", "womens rights", the environment", blah, blah. And OF COURSE these commie people pushers are not mere mortals like you or I. They are more wise, fair, and unsullied by human frailties like greed, dishonesty, egoism, etc. They are philosopher kings and the rest of us must do their bidding...because they say so.

House approves resolution to

House approves resolution to keep Internet control out of UN hands. The House on Wednesday unanimously passed a Senate resolution introduced by Sens. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) and Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) that calls on the U.S. government to oppose United Nations control of the Internet.

The 397-0 vote is meant to send a signal to countries meeting at a U.N. conference on telecommunications this week. Participants are meeting to update an international telecom treaty, but critics warn that many countries’ proposals could allow U.N. regulation of the Internet.

"We need to send a strong message to the world that the Internet has thrived under a decentralized, bottom-up, multi-stakeholder governance model," said Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.).

http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/house/271153-house-app...

"With enough of us, around the world, we’ll not just send a strong message opposing the privatization of knowledge — we’ll make it a thing of the past." ~ Aaron Swartz

This is one of the VERY FEW issues in which I disagree with Dr P

I agree with 99.9% of what Ron Paul says, and very enthusiastically.

But we cant all agree on everything.

One issue, where I do not feel the same as RP is on abortion. The other issue that I dont agree with is the United Nations.

Although I am aware that large organisations can cause tyranny, I believe that Americans have locked on to a popular misconception about the United Nations.

The United Nations really is a force for good. And by its nature, cannot be forced over to tyranny. ... In fact the only tyranny, is that the USA is allowed to veto certain agreements (same as Russia), and this is a rule that both parties introduced which is counter to freedom or fairness.

In any case. I hope for the UN. And I wish that the USA backed it up and supported it.

If USA is to "not be the worlds policeman", or the USA is not to engage in pre-emptive wars, then the US is THE VERY BODY THAT IS NEEDED in the world to achieve international consensus on conflict, diplomacy and war.

UN haters and disagre'ers are quite wrong on this issue. And I will be prepared to debate you.

So you're shilling for the

So you're shilling for the United Nations, a corrupt, socialist organisation that represents the interests of tyrannies and dictatorship. An organisation that forces through 'environmental agreements' to cripple wealthy western countries in favor of poorer ones. An organisation that sends militant 'peacekeepers' into African countries to forcibly disarm the population.

Support Rand, Amash & other liberty candidates? Check out: http://www.LibertyConservatives.com/

UN good?

Name one good thing they have accomplished or even proposed.

Cyril's picture

Plenty of good things !

You mean, like, protecting their "peacekeepers" from any war crime prosecution ?

Or protecting their frauds of scientists ?

Plenty of good things !

http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=7402&Cr=icc&Cr1=

http://politicalvelcraft.org/2012/08/19/the-pariah-u-n-reque...

"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.

http://Laissez-Faire.Me/Liberty

"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius

So you disagree with the

So you disagree with the concept of US sovereignty. What about state sovereignty? Well, you disagree with Paul's views on abortion so you must also reject state sovereignty.

Wow, really? To assume any institution is good

Is to be naive and ignore the nature of human beings. Power corrupts. Institutions such as the UN continue to try to make international laws, thus expanding their power and with every "law" they make that we give into, the more power they gain over our lives. Before you know it, we can only eat certain foods and visit certain websites. What is good to some is not good to others. The road to hell is paved with good intentions and most of these things are done with good intentions for the people, but only ends in the oppression of them by not allowing people to live as they want to.

Plus, it's ridiculous for anyome to assume that the UN can effectively govern and know what's best for a an entire world of 7 billion + people. What may be good for one place may be devastating to another. Hence, this is why we want/why a decentralization and representative forms of govt like a states rights, constitutional republic, are generally much more effective at governance than centralized powers. Don't be naive...the UN isn't good.

Nothing

is 100% good or 100% bad. Women and children used to cry in admiration greating Hitler, Churchill and Stalin alike. Germans were proud of Hitler's awesome highways, Russians were proud of their awesome airspace achievements.

UN is un-elected entity that is not resposible to anybody. The danger is rooted in its very existance. Their majority vote (assuming all among veto-power nations are on board) is the same Democracy that forced USA to abandon capitalism, sound money and the constitution. As with any government, when UN functions are limited and well defined, it is sufferable. If it grows, it is not.

Let them steal yesterday's trash.

A wireless mesh network! ...or something we haven't dared to think of yet.  The network, the hardware, the traffic, the content, must all belong to the people who use it, and neither to the UN, nor the US, nor the states or any government.  It is more vital than constitutionally protected freedom of the press.  It is the first time press has been actually free and not solely directed by the wealthy, and it must be defended!  If any government takes control of the internet by force as governments in China and the United States have, we the individuals must make the next step to a technology they can not take and manipulate as their own.

wireless mesh?

Are you saying there are so many home wireless networks that a isolated chunk of all these computers could be connected to compete with the www? Slower, but untouchable? I'm in the sticks 400 yds from anyone else and still get an occasional signal so why not in the cities. What is out there and available?

************

Just looked it up and now going back for more info.
Thanks, very interesting possibilities.

I'll take my Liberty, it's not yours to give.

Interesting. Even so, radio

Interesting. Even so, radio signals are generally less reliable compared to a powered ground line.

Thanks

I don't pretend to understand what you sent, but with just wikipedia articles I am convinced there can be no effective government or UN takeover of the internet. It has a life of its own. Which as I recall, Heinlein wrote about before ARPANET and most of you were born.

I'll take my Liberty, it's not yours to give.

LOL

The US has kept the Internet free and accessible? Ask Kim Dotcom how that has worked out for him when the Feds took over his domain illegally. This and the hundreds of others seized by varoius three letter federal agencies just in the last two years are why other nations are quickly losing trust in the US.
The UN isn't the answer but what choice do other nations have when SOPA like executive orders begin to dismantle the Internet?

It would be interesting

to see the response for someone wanting to control the internet instead of just shutting it down. Especially if those trying to control it are just some moronic bureaucrats who are used to hiring relatives and those that give them bribes. I wonder how long it would take some very irritated computer savy people to get their credit card numbers, bank numbers, and the like and destroy them?

Think bigger!

These people can't be destroyed by hacking their credit cards.

They Can take my internet!

When they pry it from my cold, dead fingertips.

Cyril's picture

Well, that's their plan.

Well, that's their plan.

To get rid of people like you (like us), first, to better redo to their sheeple, thru "the Internets" [G. W. Bush voice], what they've started with TV.

Too bad : they have no idea how hard we WILL BITE BACK.

For, **WE** have tasted FREEDOM and how precious it is to our lives : we're not going to let it go that easily. Certainly not to them parasitic sweat and blood sucker worms. Them, DISGRACE to mankind.

"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.

http://Laissez-Faire.Me/Liberty

"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius

Censorship

After everyone is done shouting "this is a danger to my country" and "this offends me, take it down!", there won't be any internet left. Well, I guess we could still talk about the weather. As long as no one talks about global warming. Or HAARP. And as long as people don't bring up chemtrails. And as long as they don't…. On second thought, looks like we'll have to ban discussion about the weather too.

open source will eventually be the norm if they try to take

our web from us...

it appears humans live in the web, and everyone knows what happens when pests fly onto webs.

Whether you think you can or you can't, you're right. -Henry Ford

No worries... Obama will sign on too

Boy, good thing we dropped that Romneyator... Obama is WAY better than him on freedom.

Obama will sign on to this, as well as the small arms treaty, which will make the 2nd amendment null and void.

Great job!

You really thought Romney was a difference?

Were you even paying attention?

Romney as someone different from Obama? How?

We had no choice this election. Romney was not even an option. Where do you get your info?

***

I will refrain from calling you a shill, however,

it does not make 2nd Amendment null and void. What it does is expose the traitors who sign treasonous directives.

"What if the American people learn the truth" - Ron Paul

Romney?

Wait, you thought there was a chance Romney WOULDN'T sign on to this as well?

if they don't like our

if they don't like our internet they should make their own...

Great idea! I'm thinking they

Great idea! I'm thinking they would really enjoy their own network up on Newt's space colony. But seriously, they are like pervs and peeping toms spying on us regular people, so they shouldn't be allowed on our network.

Maybe I could interest you in

Maybe I could interest you in a different vision of the future?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wireless_mesh_network

The issue

here is that with domain registration and key hubs being under US control, USA government has the turn-off switch under its fingers. That does not sit well with civil and military clerks of other countries and rightly so.

Now, if you look closely at Google, it does not give you links to products offerend from overseas companies (search engine result is manipulated.) Yes, the priority on the search list is given to companies that pay to Google. But links to foreign comapnies' websites are excluded to accommodate US gov pressure.