Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 38
  1. #1
    WS Lounge VIP mrjimphelps's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    3,396
    Thanks
    445
    Thanked 404 Times in 376 Posts

    Concern over secret meeting in Dubai

    I'm really concerned right now about a UN meeting going on in Dubai. They are discussing the handing over of ownership of the internet to the UN!

    Right now, the internet is wide open and for the most part, unrestricted. It is the greatest source of free speech by far that the world has ever known. And free speech is perhaps our most important right and tool for insuring all of our other rights, because it allows us to expose those who would trample our rights.

    I see absolutely no upside in handing control of the internet over to the UN. Here are some negatives that I believe will result:

    * Lots of restrictions on the content of what you say and post on the internet.

    * No more free internet -- we will have to pay for the privilege.

    * The UN will have access to our credit card numbers when we log on to the internet and then pay to to use it.

    * Dictatorships will more easily be able to crack down on dissidents, because they will have control over URLs which originate in their countries.

    The scary part of all this is that these negotiations are going on behind closed doors. In other words, our elected representatives want to secretly hand over a huge part of our freedom to the unelected bureaucrats of the UN!

    Does this concern anyone else besides me?

  2. #2
    Plutonium Lounger Medico's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    12,631
    Thanks
    161
    Thanked 936 Times in 856 Posts
    I moved this from the Win 8 thread it was in to a new thread of it's own in the General Windows Forum. This seems a more appropriate Forum for this thread.

    Do you any have substantiation to these claims? These seem rather vague. Are there any referenced articles?

    I would be concerned, but until there is anything substantial this seems all conjecture at this point.
    BACKUP...BACKUP...BACKUP
    Have a Great Day! Ted


    Sony Vaio Laptop, 2.53 GHz Duo Core Intel CPU, 8 GB RAM, 320 GB HD
    Win 8 Pro (64 Bit), IE 10 (64 Bit)


    Complete PC Specs: By Speccy

  3. #3
    Administrator
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Portugal
    Posts
    12,519
    Thanks
    152
    Thanked 1,398 Times in 1,221 Posts
    I think this should go in Scuttlebut, Ted, it's not really a Windows topic.

    This is substantiated and I agree with the concerns of the first post. I think the rationale behind the proposal is that it's not right for an US organization to have control over the internet.

    Here is some more info, including the EU parliament expressing concern over the move: http://edition.myjoyonline.com/pages...1211/97701.php

  4. #4
    Lounge VIP
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Scotland
    Posts
    1,168
    Thanks
    44
    Thanked 134 Times in 115 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by mrjimphelps View Post
    Here are some negatives that I believe will result:

    * Lots of restrictions on the content of what you say and post on the internet.

    * No more free internet -- we will have to pay for the privilege.

    * The UN will have access to our credit card numbers when we log on to the internet and then pay to to use it.

    * Dictatorships will more easily be able to crack down on dissidents, because they will have control over URLs which originate in their countries.
    I see no harm, or more specifically, not much difference from now.

    • The internet is not a place of free speech. The laws of Libel and Slander still apply (at least in this country and many others). If I am libelous towards somebody on the internet, I expect to be held account for it.
    • The internet is not free. You already have to pay to access the network at point of entry. By definition, that's what an Internet Service Provider does.
    • Your ISP already has your billing information and, subject to due legal process, must assist with local law enforcement as it stands right now.
    • Dictatorships already crack down on what their citizens can access. The Great Firewall of China is one of the most obvious examples and of course there are many others.

    Consider this: ICANN used to be under contractual agreement (at not cost to either party) to the US Department of Commerce to administer the Global Top Level Domains. Is a US governement department better placed to "administer the internet" than the "UN"?

    The administration contract was due for re-let in March this year but was not placed. Reasons given, according to commentators were that the US Department of Commerce received no proposals that met the requirements requested by the global community. Other interpretations were less kind.

    If the control of gTLD's is handed to the ITU or some other non governmental organisation, then it may better serve the global community and be free of the potential for state control. I have no developed view myself, but I'm aware that others feel uneasy about a contact let by a government department to administer the gTLD's - those who hold such views feel that such a contract is not independent of state control and could in times of crisis be called in.
    In God we trust; all others must bring data.

    - William Edwards Deming. 1900 - 1993

  5. #5
    Super Moderator
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    New England
    Posts
    4,746
    Thanks
    171
    Thanked 649 Times in 572 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by mrjimphelps View Post
    I'm really concerned right now about a UN meeting going on in Dubai.
    The meeting is next week (December 3-12): World Conference on International Telecommunications 2012

    But the 178 countries don't vote; any change has to be unanimous: "Whatever one single country does not accept will not pass."

    So it would seem impossible for the proposals by Russia, China and India to succeed.


    Quote Originally Posted by mrjimphelps View Post
    In other words, our elected representatives want to secretly hand over a huge part of our freedom to the unelected bureaucrats of the UN!
    The US House of Representatives unanimously voted against the plan four months ago: US House to ITU: Hands off the Internet


    Bruce
    Last edited by BruceR; 2012-11-27 at 01:39. Reason: date etc.

  6. #6
    Silver Lounger Banyarola's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Big Indian, New York
    Posts
    1,900
    Thanks
    19
    Thanked 65 Times in 54 Posts
    I have heard about this.

    Do you really want the UN, one of the most corrupt organizations in the world, having ANY control over the internet.???

    It's full of countries that abuse it's citizens human rights and regularly put people in prison for expressing their speech rights and any other thing they deem to be a threat to their corrupt ruling class...
    "If You Are Reading This In English, Thank A VET"

  7. #7
    Super Moderator
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    New England
    Posts
    4,746
    Thanks
    171
    Thanked 649 Times in 572 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Banyarola View Post
    Do you really want the UN, one of the most corrupt organizations in the world, having ANY control over the internet.???

    It's full of countries that abuse it's citizens human rights and regularly put people in prison for expressing their speech rights and any other thing they deem to be a threat to their corrupt ruling class...
    What's your definition of "full"? A handful out of 193?

    Bruce

  8. #8
    Silver Lounger Banyarola's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Big Indian, New York
    Posts
    1,900
    Thanks
    19
    Thanked 65 Times in 54 Posts
    Well Bruce, I only expressed my opinion and really don't want to get into a political discussion over what I wrote.

    I'm sure you understand.
    "If You Are Reading This In English, Thank A VET"

  9. #9
    Lounge VIP
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Scotland
    Posts
    1,168
    Thanks
    44
    Thanked 134 Times in 115 Posts
    Here's an article about the forthcoming ITU Convention in The Register.

    It's clear from statements that the ITU has no intention of passing any resolutions to rest control:

    Quote Originally Posted by The Register, 27 November 2012
    The resolution, submitted by the Pirate Party among others, and passed last week, objects to the ITU trying to control the internet, at its meeting in two weeks, while ignoring the inconvenient truth that the ITU isn't trying to control the internet as the body explains in a blog posting on the subject.
    There is a lot of FUD being disseminated by large corporations, most vocal of which is Google. These corps have a vested interest in the status quo.

    Quote Originally Posted by mrjimphelps
    In other words, our elected representatives want to secretly hand over a huge part of our freedom to the unelected bureaucrats of the UN!
    Internet freedoms are much less than many people assume: the internet is not the Wild West as many associates of Anonymous and Lulzsec have found to their cost. Additionally, your elected representatives are not my elected representatives, nor that of another 6.7 Billion inhabitants of this planet.

    As it stands, the administration of the internet is under the effective control of one country via the contractual arrangement's for the control of gTLD's. Although there has been not the slightest hint (that I'm aware of) of any state interference in that mechanism and the process has worked well, there exists, in the eyes of some, a potential for interference.

    The balanced position is that a transparent and independent body is required, not one that can be skewed by geo-politics, ideology or insular viewpoints.
    In God we trust; all others must bring data.

    - William Edwards Deming. 1900 - 1993

  10. #10
    Super Moderator
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    New England
    Posts
    4,746
    Thanks
    171
    Thanked 649 Times in 572 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Banyarola View Post
    Well Bruce, I only expressed my opinion and really don't want to get into a political discussion over what I wrote.

    I'm sure you understand.
    OK, but freedom does exist outside the USA. There's more green than red on the map.

    Bruce

  11. #11
    Lounge VIP
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Scotland
    Posts
    1,168
    Thanks
    44
    Thanked 134 Times in 115 Posts
    I agree with Bruce. Unfortunately some parts of the world are not a warm cosy place to live, and personally I would be rather happier with the current arrangements than some of the other possibilities.

    However, if I can add one final balancing point to the confusion about the ITU wishing to exert control:

    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Hill, ITU
    In response to this claim by the EU, it is important to note that ITUís mandate in the Internet is laid down by the Plenipotentiary Conference Resolutions which were agreed to by consensus in 2010.

    Nothing can be agreed at WCIT-12 to change or negate this mandate.

    In addition to this point, no proposals exist to give more power to ITU as an institution, which does not have any regulatory authority over any networks whatsoever.

    Networks are regulated by national governments, not by ITU Ė which is a multi-stakeholder, bottom-up organization.
    Source
    In God we trust; all others must bring data.

    - William Edwards Deming. 1900 - 1993

  12. #12
    WS Lounge VIP mrjimphelps's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    3,396
    Thanks
    445
    Thanked 404 Times in 376 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by BruceR View Post
    The US House of Representatives unanimously voted against the plan four months ago: US House to ITU: Hands off the Internet


    Bruce
    If they try to pass it through as a treaty, the US House of Representatives has nothing to say about it, only the Senate, and then only by a majority vote -- unless it is filibustered.

    The thing that really is lowdown about this whole thing (from an American perspective) is that the United States created the internet, and the United States keeps it as free as it can possibly be kept. In short, it's working as well as it can possibly work right now, that is, if free speech and freedom of expression is your goal. But certain American politicians are about to hand that right over to the UN! Think about that. Many of the member countries of the UN do not respect free speech rights. Those American politicians who are trying to secretly hand over the internet to the UN are selling out their country.

    If we turn the internet over to the UN, there will begin to be lots of restrictions on it. For example, if the UN believes that a website is anti-Islam, they will shut it down.
    Last edited by mrjimphelps; 2012-11-27 at 11:52.

  13. #13
    WS Lounge VIP mrjimphelps's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    3,396
    Thanks
    445
    Thanked 404 Times in 376 Posts
    I got my information from www.dickmorris.com. Dick Morris said that Vinten Cerf, the father of the internet, was getting concerned about the secret negotiations going on in Dubai, and so he created a wikileaks type of website and asked for information about what was going on. People started posting to his website, and that's where Dick Morris got his information.

    Here are an article and a video by Dick Morris:
    http://www.dickmorris.com/stop-un-control-of-the-web/
    http://www.dickmorris.com/stop-un-co...v-lunch-alert/

    Here is the site where people with access to info are posting information:
    http://wcitleaks.org/
    Last edited by mrjimphelps; 2012-11-28 at 23:14.

  14. #14
    WS Lounge VIP mrjimphelps's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    3,396
    Thanks
    445
    Thanked 404 Times in 376 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Tinto Tech View Post
    Is a US governement department better placed to "administer the internet" than the "UN"?
    Yes, a US government department is better placed to "administer the internet" than the "UN".

    The UN is an unaccountable, corrupt organization full of governments who couldn't care less about the rights of their people. Most of the Western governments at least try to respect the rights of their people. But think of China or Iran. Think of the Muslim world. There is absolutely no free speech in those countries. They crack down hard on actual or perceived dissidents. And these countries have a big say in what the UN does. Do you really want them deciding if what you do on the internet is appropriate?

  15. #15
    Super Moderator CLiNT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    California & Arizona
    Posts
    6,121
    Thanks
    160
    Thanked 609 Times in 557 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by mrjimphelps View Post
    I'm really concerned right now about a UN meeting going on in Dubai. They are discussing the handing over of ownership of the internet to the UN!

    Right now, the internet is wide open and for the most part, unrestricted. It is the greatest source of free speech by far that the world has ever known. And free speech is perhaps our most important right and tool for insuring all of our other rights, because it allows us to expose those who would trample our rights.

    I see absolutely no upside in handing control of the internet over to the UN. Here are some negatives that I believe will result:

    * Lots of restrictions on the content of what you say and post on the internet.

    * No more free internet -- we will have to pay for the privilege.

    * The UN will have access to our credit card numbers when we log on to the internet and then pay to to use it.

    * Dictatorships will more easily be able to crack down on dissidents, because they will have control over URLs which originate in their countries.

    The scary part of all this is that these negotiations are going on behind closed doors. In other words, our elected representatives want to secretly hand over a huge part of our freedom to the unelected bureaucrats of the UN!

    Does this concern anyone else besides me?
    No because it'll never happen.


    1 The US will never willingly cede control of their assets.
    2 The UN can barely be relied upon to agree on the color of s**t.
    3 The UN can always be relied upon to make proposals nobody wants.
    DRIVE IMAGING
    Invest a little time and energy in a well thought out BACKUP regimen and you will have minimal down time, and headache.

    Build your own system; get everything you want and nothing you don't.
    Latest Build:
    ASUS X99 Deluxe, Core i7-5960X, Corsair Hydro H100i, Plextor M6e 256GB M.2 SSD, Corsair DOMINATOR Platinum 32GB DDR4@2666, W8.1 64 bit,
    EVGA GTX980, Seasonic PLATINUM-1000W PSU, MountainMods U2-UFO Case, and 7 other internal drives.

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •