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)
What has the UN ever done, besides bring cholera to Haiti (and then deny it) and bring HIV to Cambodia. Massive fraud and waste, food for oil scandal. They promote Agenda 21, the most bizarre set of utopian ideas I have ever seen. If it wasn’t in writing and downloadable from the UN site itself I would have taken it for a hoax.
They have first world funding and third world standards.
Why do they continue to exist?
TheOldCrusader says:
May 29, 2012 at 3:15 pm
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/05/29/science_and_maths_knowledge_makes_you_sceptical/
A US government-funded survey has found that Americans with higher levels of scientific and mathematical knowledge are more sceptical regarding the dangers of climate change than their more poorly educated fellow citizens.
======
Apparently climate scientists and the IPCC have much in common with the poorly educated.
[Moderator’s Note: Old Crusader’s comment and ferd’s response really should be directed here. Commenters are asked to please stay on topic and direct your comments to the appropriate thread. -REP]
The real problem is the thing called the “internet” is just interconnection protocols between a whole series of privately owned (REPEAT PRIVATELY OWNED) networks. The government does not own the internet and only in socialist countries where the telecoms are government held can any of this really be put into effect. In the US it would be in the courts for ever as a violation of the 4th amendment to the constitution. Since the government can not take away this private property without due process. Though after the Kelo decision that may not be a sure thing anymore.
Your final sentence pre-supposes that the only solution to ICAN and DNS problems are global agreements/standards organizations, which is apparently based on your supposition that the ITU-T and CCITT are “good.” I must beg to differ.
As an algorithm developer for sat-comm systems, I can flatly state that standards, while helpful in some cases, are the primary reason technology progresses as slowly as it does. Yes, in spite of hoi palloi belief that technology is progressing quickly, it is not progressing nearly as quickly as it could, or should, be. As with anything else, when something attempts to be a solution for all, it winds up being a solution for none. Compromises rule standardization processes and nobody ever really gets what they want when there are compromises. In fact, many, if not most, of the best solutions get dropped in order to meet demands for the masses.
Standard organizations are also subject to the same problems of corruption that degrade just about any other body that has power over some aspect over peoples’ lives. Are decisions made based on what’s best for everyone? Or are they made based on what’s best for the chairman’s undisclosed stock portfolio? What about large companies sitting on boards pushing aside ideas from smaller companies? Qualcomm was notorious for this, btw, and I can’t blame them: everyone sitting on the board of a standards organization wants what is best for their own interests, which leads to the compromise situation above.
When competing ideas hit the marketplace, those that are the most successful (or have some “better” aspect) will ultimately become de-facto standards without any help from outside organizations. I have more people on my network, it is faster, cheaper, and more reliable, and you want your network to talk to mine? You’re just going to have to conform to my protocol.
I guess my point is just that maybe letting someone come up with a good idea to solve some of the issues (re: Internet) may be all that is needed, not more regulations and standards bodies that do little but stifle ingenuity. Design by committee rarely works, unless there is only one member, and never works once government is involved, particularly if from more than one country.
Mark
Airstrike the United Nations.
Airstrike the Illuminati.
But I repeat myself . . .
We The People … are sick and tired of Agenda 21 and the genocidal control-freak lunatics who promote this genocide based on the falsified “science” which Anthony and the rest of the brains here discredit on a daily basis.
Agenda 21 blueprint for global genocide and enslavement of humanity:
http://ia600408.us.archive.org/31/items/TheFirstGlobalRevolution/TheFirstGlobalRevolution_text.pdf
Sorry to be political, but it will only happen if Obama gets anther term, then it’s gloves off for him and his unelected Tzars. The lunatic socialist are are salivating at such a power grab!
Mark T says: @ur momisugly May 29, 2012 at 5:45 pm
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The lies about treaties and the Constitution can be tracked back to John Foster Dulles.
Robert Welch University: http://www.robertwelchuniversity.org/Treaties%20and%20the%20Constitution-final.pdf
(If link does not work see lecture #2 @ur momisugly http://www.robertwelchuniversity.org/constitution_lectures.php )
Let’s not forget the largest generator of internet traffic, pr0n. The UN clearly wants all the pr0n to themselves.
Ted says:
May 29, 2012 at 6:52 pm
Sorry to be political, but it will only happen if Obama gets anther term, then it’s gloves off for him and his unelected Tzars. The lunatic socialist are are salivating at such a power grab!
_____________________________
I just wish we had something to vote FOR. I do not trust either of the main parties in the USA at this point.
This doesn’t ring true. China and Russia are strongly nationalistic and REALISTIC. Neither would really want to surrender their own internal controls, which are quite effective, to the wildly inefficient UN. Russia understands how the UN works because they built it. This is either a bluff or a false story.
Gail: I feel you on that one. Haven’t had someone to vote for for several presidential cycles now.
Well anyway notwithstanding specifics on the ‘number’ of senators required for treaty approval (an item not in dispute or contention here), there are other ‘back door’ means and methods by which ‘control’ and protocols are proliferated (presently using RFCs or ‘Request For Comment’ et al) of the internet could be moved to live under the auspices of the ITU … fortunately there are other groups who are vying for power and control over the internet technically (not just politically) and that includes networking-protocol ‘academics’ and the various companies including CISCO and others who are actively engaged in profitably making products for ‘the internet’ and these companies fund trade/lobby groups as well as having on the active payroll technical personnel (often termed “Member Technical Staff” as at TI or ‘associate staff scientist’ or at the least ‘staff expert’ within these companies) who innovate and develop routers and switches and the data transmission equipment who would all stand to lose big time monetarily if the ITU were to be ‘in charge’ of standards and ‘innovating’ at the pace of a snail; after all the ITU did such an outstanding job (/sarc) in prior decades in fostering and advancing telephony e.g. ISDN (not), cellular (not) and after all, they developed the internet (more sarc) …
.
This was interesting. Anyone heard the term smart growth in their community government communications?
Remember the term, “stackem and packem”.
You tell me? Is this type of thing really what was provided from our government to the public, and in particular , injected into the school system.?
To save you a search, here is the link to the pertinent site.
http://www.un.org/esa/dsd/agenda21/
That would be the UN that has just appointed Robert Mugabe a ‘Leader’ for Tourism:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/zimbabwe/9298840/Robert-Mugabe-appointed-UN-leader-for-tourism.html
Mark T says:
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.
================================================================
That is how it’s supposed to be but not always as it has actually been. Remember Holder’s answer to the judge that demanded an explanation of Obama’s statement about the Supreme Court not being elected and, implying, they had no right to rule against Obamacare? (Please, no thread-jacking) He said that the Supreme Court has shown deference to Congress in matters related to the Comerce Clause.
Gunga Din’s Translation: The Supreme Court hasn’t always upheld the Constitution and the Comerce Clause has been an excuse frequently used.
Example, the Fed’s jurisdiction over wetlands, even on private property. Wetlands were declared to be a navigatable waterway. Interstate commerce travels on navigatable waterways therefore they fall under fereral jurisdiction therefore the Feds can tell you not to fill in that persistant wet spot in your backyard to build that playhouse for the kids. (You never know when a barge might pass by.)
How much commerce takes place on the internet?
_Jim: no arguments from me. Far more insidious (though easier to overrule as well) are the numerous executive agreements that POTUS can enter into, requiring nothing but his word. Dunno why I used two underscores first time, btw… getting too used to writing CUDA C I guess.
Gail: I think my point was a bit more of a “no, in spite of the screaming from the left, treaties do not trump the Constitution (or any other US law for that matter)” rather than “there’s no way the left can really screw us.” We’re fortunate that, for the most part, our current SCOTUS representation does relatively good by the people of our fair country. In different configurations, even obvious Constitutional protections may not be guarantees. However, I should note that the examples you provide are of our own government taking liberty with our, well, liberties. When the UN gets into the act, which basically gives power to foreign nationals, we are a bit better at protecting our own. Nobody screws us better than ourselves.
Mark
Ooops, last paragraph directed towards Gunga Din, not Gail.
Oh, and btw, Holder had to eat crow on that one, too, and to a lesser court as well. They spanked him publicly.
Mark
OssQss says on May 29, 2012 at 7:23 pm:
This was interesting. Anyone heard the term smart growth in their community government communications?
Remember the term, “stackem and packem”.
You tell me? Is this type of thing really what was provided from our government to the public, and in particular , injected into the school system.?
“Smart Growth” – another term for ‘row housing’? Only with planned greenery in proximity mandated by govt as opposed to commercial ‘builders’/developers of new neighborhoods.
Will I be able to put up an 80 meter band dipole (128 foot length approx.) on my and my neighbor’s row house, or how about a 16 foot diameter tuned-loop to work the 160 meter band placed out in the ‘commons’ green area? How about working on my car in the garage … oh sorry, cars to be replaced by the ‘rapid-transit’ bus system.
Probably not … so I vote “no”. Owning my own piece of property means my dog or my antenna ‘projects’ can go in my own back yard. Wanna live in the city> GO to the city!
Row house (albeit a nice one):
.
The article is pointless scaremongering on the same level as CAGW. 6.9 Billion internet users would have a different view about central control. It just ain’t gonna happen.
I am so very thankful that I’m not the only one that thinks this.
Unfotunately, only a few of those 6.9 billion have a say. OTOH, some of those few are pretty loud.
Mark
ntesdorf says:
May 29, 2012 at 3:34 pm
Ask the Syrians how well the UN runs peace missions.
Ask anyone who’s had the Blue Hats installed as “peacekeepers” in their country.
I was co-located with a UN mission in Iraq for three years. The only time I saw their vehicles leave their compound was to drive to the chow hall.
James Allison says:
May 29, 2012 at 7:59 pm
“The article is pointless scaremongering on the same level as CAGW. 6.9 Billion internet users would have a different view about central control. It just ain’t gonna happen.”
Every internet router has an interface for intelligence agencies. Different agencies can use these interfaces at the same time without noticing each other.
This requirement has been demanded by US and EU services and has been implemented by the router makers. So, they can’t necessarily decrypt SSL/https packets (assuming they don’t have AES 256 etc cracked already), but they can at any time listen to the unencrypted traffic; and for the encrypted traffic, they can track who communicates with whom. There are simply no routers available on the market without this feature.
Be careful with your assessment of what can or can’t happen.
This absolutely must be defeated.This is Copenhagen on steroids.
These are the the same assholes trying to take power……from us. Conservatives only have power on the internet, with a little on talk radio and Fox.
THEY want to castrate YOU.