
Via Junkscience.com, comes this worrisome editorial from the Washington Times.
The new world order invades your computer
Imagine if everything you did online was subject to monitoring and control by the United Nations. Powerful authoritarian states, including China and Russia, are spearheading an effort to place the most potent information system in the world under centralized international control. They want the Internet to work with the same efficiency, speed and reliability as the U.N.
This week, Congress will consider legislation to amend the 1988 International Telecommunication Regulations to give the U.N. extraordinary powers over the Internet. In September, the authoritarian bloc submitted a proposal titled “The International Code of Conduct for Information Security.” In theory, it seeks to systematize and standardize the Internet and establish rules for maintaining cybersecurity. In fact, it will give the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) – a U.N. agency that oversees global telecommunications – vast new powers to regulate and control access to the Internet and information flow in cyberspace.
That Beijing and Moscow are backing the idea is enough to know it’s a bad one. The free flow of information has always been an enemy of thuggish regimes. To them, individual expression and the unlimited exchange of ideas – which the Internet has made possible for some oppressed people for the first time in history – must be stamped out. Such countries view the Internet as a vast intelligence operation, a means of collecting sensitive information on people and preventing freedom of expression through a sophisticated array of censorship tools.
More:
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/un-to-regulate-the-internet-house-set-to-examine-bill-next-week/
Here’s the FCC take on standing firm against it: http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2012/db0516/DOC-314117A1.pdf
WE SHOULD REMAIN UNIFIED IN OUR OPPOSITION TO UN/ITU REGULATION OF THE INTERNET.
Finally, all of us should be concerned with a well-organized international effort to secure intergovernmental control of Internet governance. Since being privatized in the early 1990’s, the Internet has historically flourished within a deregulatory regime not only within our country but internationally as well. In fact, the long-standing international consensus has been to keep governments from regulating core functions of
the Internet’s ecosystem.
Unfortunately, some nations, such as China, Russia, India, Iran and Saudi Arabia, have been pushing to reverse this consensus by giving the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) regulatory jurisdiction over Internet governance. The
ITU is a treaty-based organization under the auspices of the United Nations.32 As Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin said last June, the goal of this effort is to establish “international control over the Internet using the monitoring and supervisory capabilities of the [ITU].”33
…
Today, however, several countries within the 193 member states of the ITU35 want to renegotiate the 1988 treaty to expand its reach into previously unregulated areas. A few specifics are as follows:
– Subject cyber security and data privacy to international control;
– Allow foreign phone companies to charge fees for “international” Internet traffic, perhaps even on a “per-click” basis for certain Web destinations, with the goal of generating revenue for state-owned phone companies and government treasuries;
– Impose unprecedented economic regulations such as mandates for rates, terms and conditions for currently unregulated traffic-swapping agreements known as “peering;”
– Establish for the first time ITU dominion over important functions of multi-stakeholder Internet governance entities such as the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, the nonprofit entity that coordinates the .com and .org Web addresses of the world;
– Subsume under intergovernmental control many functions of the Internet Engineering Task Force, the Internet Society and other multi-stakeholder groups that establish the engineering and technical standards that allow the Internet to work; and
– Regulate international mobile roaming rates and practices. These efforts could ultimately partition the Internet between countries that on the one hand opt out of today’s highly successful, non-governmental, multi-stakeholder model to live under an intergovernmental regulatory regime, and on the other hand, those member states that decide to keep the current system. Such a legal structure would be devastating to global free trade, rising living standards and the spread of political freedom. It would also create an engineering morass.
Once control is handed over, how long do you think it will be before they move to shut down climate skeptic blogs critical of the UN’s IPCC?
Write/call your representative in Congress now.
h/t to Mike Lorrey
Related articles
- House to examine plan for United Nations to regulate the Internet – the ITU (independentsentinel.com)
- Keep The U.N. Away From The Internet (webnerhouse.com)
- TheThe U.N. Wants to Run the Internet (tarpon.wordpress.com)
- Russia calls for internet revolution (rt.com)
- House reviews U.N. plan to regulate Internet (blacklistednews.com)
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Yuck, that is a REALLY terrible idea!
If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.
The best way to ensure the downfall of the internet.
Many control-freaks will like it. Those with a little Bresjnev in their heart.
Nein, Nyet, Nej, No, Nie, Iie, Non, Nee, Não, Ghobe’ ……………
“They want the Internet to work with the same efficiency, speed and reliability as the U.N.” Ha ha. I laugh.
Given that Russia & China for years operated State based media that was strictly controlled should raise alarms with all free societies. Independant Countries need to remain masters of their own destiny. Those that have defended free speech over hundreds of years need to vote against the proposed control of the internet.
Not going to happen. It would be political suicide for any imbecilic congressperson to vote for that madness.
They can have my Internet: when they prise it from my cold dead hands.
The UN is not a government but is attempting to replace government with a bunch of unelected bureaucrats who are mainly cronies of various world despots or greatly influenced by powerful neighbors. We have entered a phase were regulation is taking the place of law. We have bureaucrats ruling by decree.
NO.
According to Dick Morris, there are five UN treaties that are very bad for us.
http://www.dickmorris.com/obamas-sneaky-treaties/
Law of the Sea Treaty http://www.dickmorris.com/obama-hillary-seek-backdoor-climate-pact-screwed/
Rights of the Child http://www.dickmorris.com/clinton-obama-un-to-tell-us-how-to-raise-our-children/
International Criminal Court
Outer Space Code of Conduct
Small Arms Control
Most of these are not new, and were correctly never ratified by the US Senate. However, Obama and our mad Democrats are leaving us a farewell gift. The problem is these treaties have equal force as the Constitution, and can’t simply be abrogated. We might if we want to abandon global trade. Better idea: Shut down the UN. It’s just a hive of socialists and petty dicatators anyway.
We have that already in USA… It’s called Democrat-Complex Media. Thank goodness for the internet. It has been a huge thorn in their side. Who knows how much longer we’d have that kind of freedom of speech over the internet in USA.
Another indicator of why focusing merely on the scientific elements of CAGW misses the vast majority of what has been the real motivation behind it and all the subsequent variations on the theme which have been promoted as the crisis du jour. It has never been about science or the planet or even really about money. It has always been first and foremost about increasing the power and hegemony of the collectivist elites. The Congress and the FCC may be raising objections now, but does anyone suspect that if Obama gets another 4 years his administration will be a leading force in resisting these power grabs. BTW this is only one of a number of similarly aimed proposals including a UN arms proposal which if agreed to by our government would seriously endanger everyone’s Second Amendment Rights in this country. The promoters of gun control are just as disingenuous as the climate alarmists. They obviously care nothing about the victims of gun crime but are motivated by the knowledge that it is much more difficult to place a well armed populus under the boot heel of totalitarianism than one which has been successfully disarmed. Something Our Founders clearly recognized, which was the reason for the inclusion of the 2nd Amendment in the Constitution in the first place.
Not many things I would consider as worth going to war over. This would be one of them.
Some sort of International control of the Internet bad enough but have it as part of the UN is absolutely terrible. Look at Syria , Libyia etc –the UN cannot do what it was set up for ,properly so let it get it’s hands on anything else. Don’t forget that mess they call the IPCC !!
Meanwhile:
“The more science you know, the less worried you are about climate”
according to the Register:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/05/29/science_and_maths_knowledge_makes_you_sceptical/
We would just start another one anyway ….
Just say NO!
In addition to the already mentioned issues of personal and national security, the suggested standardisation would inhibit technological development.
At present, different nations and companies can compete to develop and adopt new methods, systems and techniques which would gain them competitive advantage in operating the internet. A world-wide standardisation of the internet would remove all such competition, and it would require a world-wide agreement before any change could be adopted.
The internet as we know it would not have been developed and adopted as it is if this standardisation had existed from the internet’s start.
Richard
The UN is nothing but an old-boys club for dictators.
Maybe this, if they push hard enough, will get enough people in Western countries *aware* of that fact. It’s about time for a mass de-funding and expulsion for those useless busybodies.
Wasn’t the original goal of the UN to prevent large scale conflicts like WWI & WWII? I don’t see how their changed mission prevents this unless the goal is to prevent conflict with imaginary problems.
Ask the Syrians how well the UN runs peace missions. This is the UN speciality,… about the Internet they know zero. Anything that Beijing and Moscow are backing is a really, really bad idea. The Internet would be like buying old copies of Pravda and Isvestia.
Can’t imagine that getting more than one or two votes in both houses — if it gets that far. “Died in committee” seems a more likely fate.
If we don’t do something who will?
Now that the government has allowed the List to leak, would there be any significant difference if the UN took over?
U.S. Government Releases List Of Words They Look For Online
The UN is the world’s largest dysfunctional organization. The real problem is that Congress may implement the UN’s “resolutions”.
James Sexton: “Not going to happen. It would be political suicide for any imbecilic congressperson to vote for that madness.”
Reply:
Hoser: “Embedded in the already signed treaty is a clause empowering the newly created Seabed Authority – … – to take whatever steps it deems necessary to stop “marine pollution.”
In other words, it becomes Law.
When the first amendment of the Bill of Rights was written, “the press” was a network of independant small town papers. Those who wrote it didn’t envision the MSM we have today. Now, that network they were familiar with is the blogs and message boards of the internet. Here in the US, we’ve seen what giving a bueracracy power where its regulations have the effect of Law. (Think USEPA.) We do not want to sign a treaty that would establish and give authority to a UN(fill in the blank) bueracracy of any kind, especially one that would come in conflict with our Constitution or our Bill of Rights.
Meh, I give it 25 minutes after the announcement for some kid in China/Tawian/Hong Kong/Russia/Tasmania to create a bypass. Oh and would that would mean that the UN would be ultimately responisble for all porn/gambling/Nigerian Scams/Dating agencies/Facebook/Twitter/betting/forums/illegal file sharing and phoney medicine pushers on the Interwebs?. Good, finally we can track them down and sue the pants off them. Lawyers form an ordely queue to the right thanks. 😉