Amazon Prime

The United Nations Wants to Regulate the Internet

Discussion in 'The Howard Stern Show' started by dawg, Dec 4, 2012.

  1. dawg

    dawg In The Dog House Shed Founder

    Reputations:
    174,529
    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2010
    Messages:
    63,179
    Likes Received:
    8,477
    The time is coming when forums like this will just be a fond memory.

    [​IMG]
    The closed doors of the United Nations' ITU conference has aroused fears of
    government attempts to restrict web freedom. Photograph: AP



    The Dubai meeting is another treaty negotiation, aimed at bringing cross-border telecom rule up to date for the first time since 1988. The ITU's secretary general, Hamadoun Toure, has insisted that the goal is not to regulate speech; countless critics believe otherwise, and the best evidence, given typical ITU secrecy during the process, suggests the critics are right.
    The very idea that the ITU could obtain and exert major regulatory powers over the internet is a happy one only to dictators and others who believe the internet needs to be controlled. We've seen again and again what nation states like Syria, China, Saudi Arabia and others do when they are unhappy with online content or conversations. Even a hint that such censorship could spread should be, and is, anathema to people who believe in fundamental free speech rights. Russia, in particular, has proposed regulations (pdf) that the United States ambassador to the meeting called "the most shocking and most disappointing" of any he'd seen.



    Keep in mind the mindset of the ITU and many member states: they start with the notion that the internet is really just an extension of 20th-century telecommunications technology and systems. So it's no surprise that many want to apply telephone-era models to the internet, including a "sending party pays" system (favored by some African nations where governments and the telecom industry are often essentially the same entities). Under the best of circumstances, the ITU is a notably inappropriate vehicle for any kind of internet governance. And these are not the best of circumstances.
    The European Union and Australia have joined the US in objecting to what's happening in Dubai, but the EU parliament's resolution makes a point that American officials have avoided: the process has been deliberately opaque "given that the outcomes of this meeting could substantially affect the public interest". Only because public interest organizations and activists have persuaded participants to leak some of the documents do we have more than the faintest clue of what these governments have been cooking up behind our backs.



    And while US objections to this process are welcome, it's worth noting a long history of secret treaty negotiations involving – or led by – the United States government, including some that could have led (and may still lead) to severe restrictions on internet speech and technologies. Even as the WCIT meeting proceeds, the Obama administration – carrying water, as always, for Hollywood and other interests – is pushing ahead with even more non-transparent negotiations over the "Trans-Pacific Partnerships", a deal that by credible accounts could be devastating to the internet's open nature. Who's to say that Dubai won't produce the kinds of internet restrictions that make Hollywood, not just Beijing, pleased to support a new treaty?



    For that, and many other reasons, I'm on the side of those who are loudly protesting what's going on in Dubai. I simply do not trust this kind of process to produce anything good and I'm not reassured by the "don't worry about it" commentary that's been popping up in the past few days.
    The internet is a miracle of self-governance – and should stay that way. It was created and grew to global reach as an ecosystem of cooperating networks where the architecture of internet communications fit hand-in-glove with collaboration, rather than top-down rule. It is hardly perfect: we need government assistance to prevent the telecommunications industry and other controllers of choke-points from wrecking its already threatened end-to-end design principles (pdf). What we emphatically do not need is government interference of the kinds being proposed.



    So, I'm with Vint Cerf, a Google vice-president and one of the internet's genuine pioneers, along with a host of others who are speaking out to protect and extend the value, and values, of an open internet. You can join that chorus, too.



    Maybe, Dubai will turn out to be a harmless, if money-wasting exercise that changes nothing. But given the fear and loathing the open internet has inspired among global interests that see it as a threat more than an opportunity, we should make no such assumptions.
     
  2. MasterBlaster

    MasterBlaster Member

    Reputations:
    -3
    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2012
    Messages:
    881
    Likes Received:
    0
    Fuck that shit. We'll just go underground.
     
  3. dawg

    dawg In The Dog House Shed Founder

    Reputations:
    174,529
    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2010
    Messages:
    63,179
    Likes Received:
    8,477
    I think networks like "TOR" will become very popular if that happens.
     
  4. DogStar69

    DogStar69 Well-Known Member

    Reputations:
    11,811
    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2010
    Messages:
    19,770
    Likes Received:
    1,589
    We live always underground
    It's going to be so quiet in here tonight
    A thousand islands in the sea
    It's a shame
     
  5. chuk

    chuk VIP Extreme Gold

    Reputations:
    149,014
    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2012
    Messages:
    13,560
    Likes Received:
    6,831
    Time for you to setup Wildcat BBS.

    [​IMG]
     
  6. pontius pilot

    pontius pilot #TeahmGandhiStarver VIP

    Reputations:
    107,951
    Joined:
    May 29, 2012
    Messages:
    9,951
    Likes Received:
    2,500
  7. JustAddWater

    JustAddWater Active Member

    Reputations:
    380
    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2010
    Messages:
    1,426
    Likes Received:
    11
    Just use a fake name on facebook. I did. Alway will~ ha!
     
  8. SiriusDawg

    SiriusDawg New Member

    Reputations:
    0
    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2012
    Messages:
    1,768
    Likes Received:
    1
    Amen. What we need is for the Government to 100% stay out of the way. Allow the Corporations of ALL KINDS 100% ability to do whatever they want, whenever they want, and however they want.

    Consumers may pay 5x more than they do now but that is how the consumers win!
     
  9. racerx

    racerx New Member

    Reputations:
    -3
    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2011
    Messages:
    5,995
    Likes Received:
    0
    do you feel the united states should remain in the united nations, as a member of the united nations?
     
  10. DogStar69

    DogStar69 Well-Known Member

    Reputations:
    11,811
    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2010
    Messages:
    19,770
    Likes Received:
    1,589
    Shut up, Sit down!!!!
     
  11. dawg

    dawg In The Dog House Shed Founder

    Reputations:
    174,529
    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2010
    Messages:
    63,179
    Likes Received:
    8,477
    There should be NO UN period.
     
  12. Lou Skunt

    Lou Skunt ____________________ Gold

    Reputations:
    521,600
    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2012
    Messages:
    22,570
    Likes Received:
    9,968
    :lol: That was a great way to find porn in the early days. Finding porn was like an adventure back then and I had saved every good pic I could find. Took 15 to twenty seconds for an image to slowly appear on the monitor. :jj:
     
  13. 922Wine

    922Wine Well-Known Member

    Reputations:
    -142
    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2012
    Messages:
    1,091
    Likes Received:
    117
    So did Congress.

    It will never happen because most of these youngins' were raised on it, so it's like trying to deprive them of oxygen.

    Any governmental/political body that attempts to restrict access will be fucked over by the "anonymous" types.
     
  14. dawg

    dawg In The Dog House Shed Founder

    Reputations:
    174,529
    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2010
    Messages:
    63,179
    Likes Received:
    8,477
    In a police state those voices dont matter.
     
  15. racerx

    racerx New Member

    Reputations:
    -3
    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2011
    Messages:
    5,995
    Likes Received:
    0
    that's not the answer i was hoping for :hat:


    [video=youtube;yFGVp-W-XGE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yFGVp-W-XGE[/video]
     
  16. chuk

    chuk VIP Extreme Gold

    Reputations:
    149,014
    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2012
    Messages:
    13,560
    Likes Received:
    6,831
    I used to download ascii porn and print it on my dot-matrix printer.
     
  17. harlock

    harlock Coming Soon... Gold

    Reputations:
    54,078
    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2012
    Messages:
    30,294
    Likes Received:
    1,311
    People never seem to grasp that...:dontknow:
     
  18. HS Cult Leader

    HS Cult Leader Elite Member Gold

    Reputations:
    48,858
    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2012
    Messages:
    5,926
    Likes Received:
    2,174
    There were stories that came out a few years ago about how the Obama administration wanted to hand over control to the U.N., because the U.S. essentially ruled the web. So to read here that they are stunned and shocked is typical bullshit!


    This is the type of shit that also needs to be feared!

    ______________________________________________

    Democratic Rep: Amend Constitution To Allow Control Of Speech

    November 30, 2012 9:31 AM

    [​IMG]

    File photo of Rep. Hank Johnson (D-GA).




    ATLANTA (CBS Atlanta) - A Democratic representative is calling for an amendment to the United States Constitution that would allow for some legislative restriction of freedom of speech.
    “We need a constitutional amendment that would allow the legislature to control the so-called free speech rights of corporations,†Rep. Hank Johnson (D-GA) was quoted as saying by CNS News.
    He reportedly made these comments while speaking at the Annesbrooks HOA candidate Forum held last month.
    In a video obtained by the website, Johnson asserts that “corporations control … patterns of thinking.â€
    “They control the media. They control the messages that you get,†he added. “And these folks … are setting up a scenario where they’re privatizing every aspect of our lives as we know it. So, wake up! Wake up! Let’s look at what’s happening.â€
    Corporations and unions are protected under the First Amendment of the Constitution because of the ruling in “Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission,†which found that a state law prohibiting corporations from making political campaign contributions using their treasury funds was unconstitutional.
    The ruling additionally stated that the spending was a form of political speech that is protected by the First Amendment, according to the official blog of the Supreme Court of the United States.
    “These corporations, along with the people they support, other millionaires who they’re putting into office, are stealing your government,†Johnson was quoted as saying by CNS News. “They’re stealing the government and the U.S. Supreme Court was a big enabler with the Citizens United case.â€

    http://atlanta.cbslocal.com/2012/11/30/democratic-rep-amend-constitution-to-allow-control-of-speech/
     
  19. HS Cult Leader

    HS Cult Leader Elite Member Gold

    Reputations:
    48,858
    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2012
    Messages:
    5,926
    Likes Received:
    2,174
    I don't recall anyone paying attention to this a year ago:



    [h=1]Obama Signs Global Internet Treaty Worse Than SOPA[/h] White House bypasses Senate to ink agreement that could allow Chinese companies to demand ISPs remove web content in US with no legal oversight


    Paul Joseph Watson
    Infowars.com

    Thursday, January 26, 2012


    Months before the debate about Internet censorship raged as SOPA and PIPA dominated the concerns of web users, President Obama signed an international treaty that would allow companies in China or any other country in the world to demand ISPs remove web content in the US with no legal oversight whatsoever.

    [​IMG]

    The Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement was signed by Obama on October 1 2011, yet is currently the subject of a White House petition demanding Senators be forced to ratify the treaty. The White House has circumvented the necessity to have the treaty confirmed by lawmakers by presenting it an as “executive agreement,” although legal scholars have highlighted the dubious nature of this characterization.​
    The hacktivist group Anonymous attacked and took offline the Federal Trade Commission’s website yesterday in protest against the treaty, which was also the subject of demonstrations across major cities in Poland, a country set to sign the agreement today.​
    Under the provisions of ACTA, copyright holders will be granted sweeping direct powers to demand ISPs remove material from the Internet on a whim. Whereas ISPs normally are only forced to remove content after a court order, all legal oversight will be abolished, a precedent that will apply globally, rendering the treaty worse in its potential scope for abuse than SOPA or PIPA.​
    A country known for its enforcement of harsh Internet censorship policies like China could demand under the treaty that an ISP in the United States remove content or terminate a website on its server altogether. As we have seen from the enforcement of similar copyright policies in the US, websites are sometimes targeted for no justifiable reason.​
    The groups pushing the treaty also want to empower copyright holders with the ability to demand that users who violate intellectual property rights (with no legal process) have their Internet connections terminated, a punishment that could only ever be properly enforced by the creation of an individual Internet ID card for every web user, a system that is already in the works.​
    “The same industry rightsholder groups that support the creation of ACTA have also called for mandatory network-level filtering by Internet Service Providers and for Internet Service Providers to terminate citizens’ Internet connection on repeat allegation of copyright infringement (the “Three Strikes” /Graduated Response) so there is reason to believe that ACTA will seek to increase intermediary liability and require these things of Internet Service Providers,” reports the Electronic Frontier Foundation.​
    The treaty will also mandate that ISPs disclose personal user information to the copyright holder, while providing authorities across the globe with broader powers to search laptops and Internet-capable devices at border checkpoints.​
    In presenting ACTA as an “international agreement” rather than a treaty, the Obama administration managed to circumvent the legislative process and avoid having to get Senate approval, a method questioned by Senator Wyden.​
    “That said, even if Obama has declared ACTA an executive agreement (while those in Europe insist that it’s a binding treaty), there is a very real Constitutional question here: can it actually be an executive agreement?” asks TechDirt. “The law is clear that the only things that can be covered by executive agreements are things that involve items that are solely under the President’s mandate. That is, you can’t sign an executive agreement that impacts the things Congress has control over. But here’s the thing: intellectual property, in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution, is an issue given to Congress, not the President. Thus, there’s a pretty strong argument that the president legally cannot sign any intellectual property agreements as an executive agreement and, instead, must submit them to the Senate.”.​
    26 European Union member states along with the EU itself are set to sign the treaty at a ceremony today in Tokyo. Other countries wishing to sign the agreement have until May 2013 to do so.​
    Critics are urging those concerned about Obama’s decision to sign the document with no legislative oversight to demand the Senate be forced to ratify the treaty.​
     
  20. Dlist

    Dlist Avatar by Pontius Pilot. VIP

    Reputations:
    126,383
    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    21,582
    Likes Received:
    3,260
    I grasped it...with the passage of the Patriot act...and the NY stop and frisk policy...we are all doomed..
     

Share This Page