A really, really, REALLY bad idea – Giving the Internet to the U.N.

International Telecommunication Union

International Telecommunication Union, part of the United Nations (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

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.

Washington Times

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

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of

Yuck, that is a REALLY terrible idea!

Berényi Péter

If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.

kwik

The best way to ensure the downfall of the internet.
Many control-freaks will like it. Those with a little Bresjnev in their heart.

Green Sand

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.

Firey

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.

Harriet Harridan

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.

Hoser

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/

Embedded in the already signed treaty is a clause empowering the newly created Seabed Authority – an international body in which each of 160 nations has a vote (even if they are landlocked) – to take whatever steps it deems necessary to stop “marine pollution.” According to William C. G. Burns of the Monterey Institute of International Studies, the treaty contains a very expansive definition of pollution which could be read to include “the potential impact of rising sea surface temperature, rising sea levels, and changes in ocean pH as a consequence of rising levels of carbon dioxide in sea water.” Burns warns that this could “give rise to actions under the Convention’s marine pollution provisions” to reduce carbon emissions worldwide.

Rights of the Child http://www.dickmorris.com/clinton-obama-un-to-tell-us-how-to-raise-our-children/

The Treaty, literally, tells us how to raise our children. And it would be legally enforceable in American courts under the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution. Only a constitutional amendment could supersede the “rights” it confers on children

International Criminal Court

Specifically, the leftists who are sponsoring the court wish to create a new crime of “aggression,” which is essentially going to war without the approval of the United Nations. If we submit to the court’s jurisdiction, our presidents and Cabinet officials could be prosecuted criminally for going to war without U.N. approval. This would, of course, give Russia and China a veto over our military actions.

Outer Space Code of Conduct

The code might inhibit or prohibit the United States from deploying anti-missile missiles on platforms in space, denying us the key weapon we need to counter Iranian, Chinese and North Korean missile threats.

Small Arms Control

The treaty would require each nation to adopt measures to stop exportation of small arms. It is easy to see how this could be a backdoor way to require national registration of all guns and to assert federal regulation over firearms. It would also require the registration of all ammunition to track its source once a gun is fired.

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.

Nerd

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.

leftinbrooklyn

Not many things I would consider as worth going to war over. This would be one of them.

RossP

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 !!

TheOldCrusader

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/

Jer0me

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

Merovign

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.

RHS

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.

jaschrumpf

…Congress will consider legislation…
“Consider” in the sense of “rejecting it so vigorously it sticks, quivering, in the wall opposite the meeting room.”

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.

Eric Dailey

If we don’t do something who will?

ZZMike

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.

Gunga Din

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. 😉

katabasis1

No, no, no, no, NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

What? Does the UN use a different set of suspicious words or the same the US Federal Government uses?
I would much rather be oppressed by the US government. At least with them, I have a vote.

The internet was invented by the USA, DARPA.The internet belongs to the USA. Everyone else get’s to use it. So,shut up and use it, but hands off UN, China, Russia,.

Well, they need to control SOMETHING…./sarc

Gunga Din

I should add that treaties only need be approved by the Senate and the President. That dates back to when the Senate didn’t so much represent the people of the state but the governments of the states. The state’s government would then have to abide by the treaty. At that time, it was up to the states to decide how to select their respective senators.
The House of Representatives represented the people of all the states. That’s why tax bills and spending bills have to originate in the House. The people would be paying bills through their taxes.
So, yes, write your Congressman, but especially your Senator. (Obama could veto if the Senate passed the treaty, but does anybody here think he would?)

GeoLurking

James Sexton says:
May 29, 2012 at 3:03 pm
Not going to happen. It would be political suicide for any imbecilic congressperson to vote for that madness.
Bullshit, politicians would sell you into forced prostitution as long as it got them a vote or money for their re-election.

Curiousgeorge

@ Hoser says:
May 29, 2012 at 3:13 pm
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.
********************************************************
Exactly. The question is: How committed are we? Remember the movie w/ Denzel Washington? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3HLNawUg_3s . In this game the most committed wins.

OssQss

If we did not have the internet, Agenda 21 would have already been fully implemented. Soooo, how do they fix that problem? Control the internet?
Just do a search it, but don’t use Google for they formally follow the cause now.
Albeit I really don’t like this guy, this was quite entertaining. I hope it pastes correctly from this tablet 🙂

Jeff

Those are the two words (or a word and a number) to watch out for: Agenda 21.
It could just as easily be called “U.N. World Domination” or “U.N. World Government”.
As Douglas Adams said, “…be afraid, be very afraid”….
It’s not about climate, weather, windmills, CO2 or any pollutant/chemicals/etc. anymore,
it’s about control…
Maybe it’s also about time to start up a new internet (Catacombs V2.0 anyone?)…

kramer

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?
Not too long. In my opinion, they want to stop people getting together on places such as WUWT where we share ideas, discuss issues, inform each other with links of enlightenment, (and occasionally say stupid things, I know I have). These online discussion are like meetings where people get together and discuss things except in the online world, it’s much slower. I don’t think they like this…
I don’t think anybody in the US government has the balls to actually try and control the internet given the outrage over SOPA and PIPA. So, how to get around this? Come up with some flimsy reasoning to give control to the UN and there ya go…
Can’t believe the Republican controlled congress is even looking at this.

son of mulder

The internet makes things too easy. If it was removed we’d have to strive for a replacement. We would have resolve, a desire to out manoever the forces of global and state repression.
Meanwhile I don’t care a tinker’s t*ss about the c**pheads who want to control me and my thoughts, they can’t win. We are too educated, empowered and embedded to be beaten.

Gunga Din

From the Constitution:
“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”
Does anyone doubt that with Supreme Court Judges such as Clinton and Obama have appointed that the phrase “any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State” would be constued to mean the US Constitution and not the constitutions of the various states?
The greatest impact presidents have had on the US is in the judges they’ve appojnted.

Nick in vancouver

George we already have unelected bureaucrats ruling by decree. Its called the EU, ask any Englishman what a good idea it has been to subvert Westminster to Brussels. Currently there is an Italian in charge of the “Industry” porfolio, a Spaniard in charge of “Competition” a Frenchman in charge of the “Internal “Market”” and a German in charge of Energy policy, hoo hoo you just can’t make this stuff up.

Rhoda R

Kramer: Unfortunately the Republicans only control the House; the Senate (which votes on treaties) is still controlled by the Democrats.

I disagree. Having work in telecomms most of my professional life, the ITU-T and its predecessor the CCITT have been force for good, standardising the morass of telecomms and bringing instant communications to the bulk of the third world. In fact, the ICAN and the DNS system are huge security problems right now and it needs to be fixed.

old construction worker

“Jeff says:
May 29, 2012 at 4:44 pm
it’s about control…”
You forgot to add taxes. The wants to levy “taxes” therefore bypassing goverments.

Gail Combs

Time to call the senators and Congress critters to tell them not just no but HE!! NO! Get the USA out of the UN and out of the WTO while you are at it.

pat

it’s only when the partisan blinkers come off that we will be able to defeat such power grabs:
21 May: Daily Caller: Trent Lott explains support for treaty he once said would create ‘UN on steroids’
Former Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott told The Daily Caller on Monday that he isn’t a hypocrite for lobbying in favor of a treaty he emphatically denounced as recently as 2007.
Lott said that he no longer believes the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea — also known as the Law of the Sea Treaty — would “cede our national sovereignty, both militarily and economically,” as he said five years ago when the issue was last brought before the Senate.
The treaty would grant the United Nations unprecedented taxing authority over American companies by transferring permitting and royalty payments currently made to the U.S. government for offshore drilling to the International Seabed Authority, a U.N.-created agency that would have the power to redistribute billions of dollars to other countries…
“Over time, circumstances change,” Lott told TheDC…
Lott said that he knows sitting Republican senators who support the treaty, but said, “I don’t want to identify them” because “they’re going to be savaged by The Heritage Foundation.”
Republican senators who have openly supported ratification include Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski and Arizona Sen. John McCain….
http://dailycaller.com/2012/05/21/trent-lott-explains-support-for-treaty-he-once-said-would-create-un-on-steroids/

pat

[SNIP: Off topic. Way Off Topic. -REP]

I wrote my Senator and my Congressman before I finished reading this… sent them this link and told them I was opposed to this idea. In the 65 year history of the UN, name one country where they have taken control, or one situation they have injected themselves into with a successful outcome. They are most successful at taking money from the US and partying with it.

kramer says on May 29, 2012 at 4:46 pm
“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?”
Not too long. In my opinion, they want to stop people getting together on places such as WUWT where we share ideas, discuss issues, inform each other with links of enlightenment, (and occasionally say stupid things, I know I have). These online discussion are like meetings where people get together and discuss things except in the online world, it’s much slower. I don’t think they like this…
I don’t think anybody in the US government has the balls to actually try and control the internet given the outrage over SOPA and PIPA. So, how to get around this? Come up with some flimsy reasoning to give control to the UN and there ya go…
Can’t believe the Republican controlled congress is even looking at this.

Please, a clarification is in order I think: It is the US Senate that votes on treaties and it is the US House of Representatives only that is under Republican control. A not-too-spry (some would say senile) Harry Reid (former “Gaming Commissioner” from the state of Nevada) is Senate leader presently.
Citing the broad term ‘congress’ implies the House and the Senate, which are split between the two major political parties presently …
.

Mark T

hmm…
“The problem is these treaties have equal force as the Constitution, and can’t simply be abrogated.”
and
“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.”
and
“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.”
I think what people are missing is that the Supreme Court of the United States still has jurisdiction over treaties, indeed, it is the sole arbiter of what is considered the supreme law of the land. That is its Constitutional job. Thus, if a treaty otherwise violated rights guaranteed by the Constitution (amendments included), any citizen could file a suit to have it struck down. Furthermore, the Congress can nullify any treaty via law as can any state or states should Congress fail to act (both subject to SCOTUS review as well, of course). Remember, the government of the United States answers to the states.
The lies regarding treaties and the United States are pushed by a) leftists that want one world government, b) those that are ignorant of the power of the Constitution, and c) those that simply wish to impose their societal beliefs on the US hoping to gain some measure of control over us.
Mark

DocMartyn

[SNIP: Off topic. We have a Tips & Notes Page for stuff like this. -REP]

pat

[SNIP: Pat, this is off-topic as well. Tips and Notes would be good for this, but it has nothing to do with the UN and the Internet. -REP]

Mark T

__Jim: fortunately the “advice and consent” w.r.t. treaties is given a number for approval: two thirds, or 67 Senators. Anything that even smells of stepping on the Constitution is dead before it starts. It is likely, too, that the Senate will not be controlled by the same party come next year.
Mark