Oh, lovely: UN members moving forward on their plans to “regulate” the Internet

posted at 1:51 pm on November 26, 2012 by Erika Johnsen

I put “regulate” in quotation marks, because it’s probably the kindest word that could apply to the censorship, big-brothering, suppression, and brainwashing that are the real goals of this unsettling endeavor.

The Internet is perhaps the most efficiently democratic tool mankind has ever had at its disposal to share information and ideas, conduct business quickly across the globe, and participate in a worldwide forum of free speech — which pretty adequately explains why certain of the world’s actors would really prefer it if we could just clamp down on the whole thing.

The Internet works so well because there’s no one entity controlling it from the top down; it’s made up of countless independent moving parts that come together without a ton of exterior effort or control. You can imagine the hindrances that adding global bureaucracy to the mix would impose, but that’s exactly what a big handful of United Nations members (a.k.a. China, Russia, Iran, and other repressive regimes not particularly fond of free thought) are hoping to accomplish.

Next week, the United Nations’ International Telecommunications Union (ITU) is planning a conference in Dubai to update treaty arrangements for international communications, at which certain member states will float ideas to tighten control of the web across national borders with things like international Internet fees and expanded eavesdropping powers. Gordon Crovitz in the WSJ explains why this is a thoroughly terrible idea:

Having the Internet rewired by bureaucrats would be like handing a Stradivarius to a gorilla. The Internet is made up of 40,000 networks that interconnect among 425,000 global routes, cheaply and efficiently delivering messages and other digital content among more than two billion people around the world, with some 500,000 new users a day. …

The self-regulating Internet means no one has to ask for permission to launch a website, and no government can tell network operators how to do their jobs. The arrangement has made the Internet a rare place of permissionless innovation. As former Federal Communications Commission Chairman William Kennard recently pointed out, 90% of cooperative “peering” agreements among networks are “made on a handshake,” adjusting informally as needs change.

Proposals for the new ITU treaty run to more than 200 pages. One idea is to apply the ITU’s long-distance telephone rules to the Internet by creating a “sender-party-pays” rule. International phone calls include a fee from the originating country to the local phone company at the receiving end. Under a sender-pays approach, U.S.-based websites would pay a local network for each visitor from overseas, effectively taxing firms such as Google and Facebook.

Yes, no doubt that many of the planet’s worst players would just love it if it became too expensive for Google, etcetera to serve foreign visitors and hence their citizens were effectively denied access to these sites — but Google sure as heck wouldn’t.

The International Telecommunication Union (ITU) will be holding its World Conference on International Telecommunications in Dubai next month — and Google contends that Internet censorship might be on the agenda. The Mountain View, Calif.-based search giant has launched an online campaign to express its fear that the conference could freeze both tech companies and billions of users out of the Web governance process. The result, Google asserts, could allow governments and select companies to restrict how citizens access and use the Web.

How frighteningly backwards is it that this is even a thing? It never ceases to amaze me that we continue to financially prop up and supportively legitimize an organization that isn’t committed to peace, justice, and human rights so much as it is the interests of its member states. The moral relativists at the United Nations are not-so-subtly shooting for a globalist, progressive bureaucracy, and they constantly use it as a platform to deign to lecture us on our policies on climate change, firearms, free elections, etcetera. If the United Nations were really about promoting freedom and prosperity, the very idea of this kind of Internet regulation would be laughed off the stage — but it isn’t, and that is deeply disturbing.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

They MUST start wth the trolls…

Khun Joe on November 26, 2012 at 1:54 PM

I think it’s time to blow up the UN (figuratively speaking). What purpose do they serve anymore?

The Count on November 26, 2012 at 1:54 PM

I have a satire (40,000 words) that I will be done regarding this in a few weeks. Is there any chance some good folks would be willing to read the first draft?

Washington Fancy on November 26, 2012 at 1:57 PM

World government HQ’ed in North America.

darwin on November 26, 2012 at 1:58 PM

Let’s censor the UN instead.

Slainte on November 26, 2012 at 1:59 PM

but it isn’t, and that is deeply disturbing

The one or the other. People keep choosing the other. Hear, there, everywhere.

Axe on November 26, 2012 at 2:02 PM

Isn’t there some way to destroy Google and Facebook without limiting content and eavesdropping?

bernverdnardo1 on November 26, 2012 at 2:02 PM

So if Russian, China, Iran aren’t too wild about the free flow expression of ideas – why don’t they shut down or restrict the internet in their countries and leave us the heck alone. Couldn’t they set-up a country-wide intranet of sorts?

Hill60 on November 26, 2012 at 2:02 PM

*here. Heh.

*sip*

Axe on November 26, 2012 at 2:02 PM

Wonder if they’ll monitor Obamaphones? Libs sure love to use YOUR money to give THEIR voters plenty of tools and plenty of free time to connect/organize, don’t they?

bob77 on November 26, 2012 at 2:04 PM

Hey, UN, leprocy flourishes in India.

Also, drop dead, you and all who sustain you.

Schadenfreude on November 26, 2012 at 2:05 PM

but will i still be able to google image search ugly pics of mooch for next Halloween??? i’m already thinking of a witch theme for decorating, etc.

GhoulAid on November 26, 2012 at 2:08 PM

F*#k the UN, F*#k the CFR, F*#k the Trilateral Commission and F*#K THEIR NEW WORLD ORDER!

dom89031 on November 26, 2012 at 2:09 PM

US out of UN

UN out of US

 

that simple.

FlatFoot on November 26, 2012 at 2:09 PM

Are there any good regulations?
 
Alpha_Male on November 25, 2012 at 12:51 PM

rogerb on November 26, 2012 at 2:09 PM

Let’s censor the UN instead.

Slainte on November 26, 2012 at 1:59 PM

I have a better idea. Abolish the UN. Throw the corrupt scum out of our country, tear down the building and build the biggest McD’s in history.

That would be a productive use of the space.

dogsoldier on November 26, 2012 at 2:12 PM

If it moves, tax it.

If it keeps moving, regulate it.

If it stops moving, subsidize it.

Groucho almost had it right when he sang,

“If any form of pleasure is exhibited
Report to me and it will be prohibited
I’ll put my foot down
So shall it be
This is the land of the free!”

It’s more like,

“If any form of liberty is exhibited
Report to me and it will be prohibited
I’ll put my foot down
So shall it be
This is the land of the free!”

It’s all about control. And the progressives/communists are the biggest control freaks of all.

The Rogue Tomato on November 26, 2012 at 2:13 PM

More wisdom from Groucho that mirrors Obama:

The last man nearly ruined this place
He didn’t know what to do with it
If you think this country’s bad off now
Just wait ’til I get through with it

The country’s taxes must be fixed
And I know what to do with it
If you think you’re paying too much now
Just wait ’til I get through with it.

The Rogue Tomato on November 26, 2012 at 2:16 PM

Rule Number One of The UN Internet Club

‘The Future Must Not Belong To Those Who Slander The Prophet Of Islam’

Rule Number Two of the UN Internet Club:

‘The Future Must Not Belong To Those Who Slander The Prophet Karl Marx’

LegendHasIt on November 26, 2012 at 2:19 PM

Who owns the internet?

The same folks who own the atmosphere, gravity, and sunlight.

I’m working on a planetary tax scheme for those 3 right now.

BobMbx on November 26, 2012 at 2:19 PM

I have a better idea. Abolish the UN. Throw the corrupt scum out of our country, tear down the building and build the biggest McD’s in history.

That would be a productive use of the space.

dogsoldier on November 26, 2012 at 2:12 PM

That’s a bit drastic! Sell off the office tower to the highest bidder and use the profit to establish a museum to the folly of “world organizations” in the other half.

Happy Nomad on November 26, 2012 at 2:21 PM

They MUST start wth the trolls…

Khun Joe on November 26, 2012 at 1:54 PM

That’s exactly what they want to do.

One man’s freedom is a troll to another.

Moesart on November 26, 2012 at 2:21 PM

I have a satire (40,000 words) that I will be done regarding this in a few weeks. Is there any chance some good folks would be willing to read the first draft?

Washington Fancy on November 26, 2012 at 1:57 PM

Sorry, but my attention span is limited to reading one-line snarky comments on Hot Air. :-)

UltimateBob on November 26, 2012 at 2:21 PM

I have a satire (40,000 words) that I will be done regarding this in a few weeks. Is there any chance some good folks would be willing to read the first draft?

Washington Fancy on November 26, 2012 at 1:57 PM

Sure, send to bernverdnardo@gmail.com

bernverdnardo1 on November 26, 2012 at 2:24 PM

Who owns the internet?

The same folks who own the atmosphere, gravity, and sunlight.

I’m working on a planetary tax scheme for those 3 right now.

BobMbx on November 26, 2012 at 2:19 PM

GeeeeeEEEEEEzzzzz! Why are you giving them ideas like that?

dogsoldier on November 26, 2012 at 2:25 PM

If the United Nations were really about promoting freedom and prosperity, the very idea of this kind of Internet regulation would be laughed off the stage — but it isn’t, and that is deeply disturbing.

Ah! But the real question remains unanswered. What makes you think the current administration and current US Ambassador to the UN are against this? What makes you think they see an internet tax as a bad way of raising money for the slush fund that is the United Nations budget? Maybe, just maybe, this is part of that newfound flexibility now that the election is over.

Happy Nomad on November 26, 2012 at 2:25 PM

Isn’t there some way to destroy Google and Facebook without limiting content and eavesdropping?

bernverdnardo1

The very thought of that is exactly what the U.N. tyrants would like. Don’t like Google or Facebook? Simple…don’t use them. Destroying them or censoring them serves no purpose.

It’s called the slippery slope…you might want to read up on it.

Gothguy on November 26, 2012 at 2:26 PM

So if Russian, China, Iran aren’t too wild about the free flow expression of ideas – why don’t they shut down or restrict the internet in their countries and leave us the heck alone. Couldn’t they set-up a country-wide intranet of sorts?

Hill60 on November 26, 2012 at 2:02 PM

That’s what China & Iran both have, but if they want to open the extranet to their citizens, it becomes nearly impossible to manage data flowing in and out. China is basically behind giant web filters, and yet the citizens can still use proxies to go to the websites they want to go to.

In Iran, there was talk of completely pulling the plug on their internet connection to the world and just running an intranet. Not sure if they’re actually doing that, but I can say that from an IT perspective, trying to centrally plan & manage an intranet that large while also proving content and a reason to use the intranet is an incredibly difficult task to undertake, and I doubt any government would be able to do it.

Also, the citizens want to access the extranet and use the world wide web the rest of us access. It’s much easier for these countries to limit and control ALL content then to try to limit and control WHICH content people can access.

Either way, the citizens will always be one or two steps ahead of their governments when it comes to technology.

Timin203 on November 26, 2012 at 2:27 PM

I’m working on a planetary tax scheme for those 3 right now.

BobMbx on November 26, 2012 at 2:19 PM

Too late. There’s already a CO2 tax.

The Rogue Tomato on November 26, 2012 at 2:27 PM

Who run internet town?!

Bishop on November 26, 2012 at 2:30 PM

Honestly, I’m not too worked up about regulation of the internet. It already exists (Ask Kim Dotcom over at megauploads) and the US already yanks webpages that they don’t agree with…
I’m a pretty technical person, I know I will always be able to get around whatever idiot plan the US govt or the UN or whoever comes up with. If Obama wants to waste policial capital keeping the idiots away from their weird porn, so be it. Less damage he can do to the economy.

Timin203 on November 26, 2012 at 2:30 PM

In fact, why doesn’t the UN just trademark anything they disagree with, then get the MPAA & the US government to re-route DNS servers away from the sites (aka take them down) for “facilitating copyright infringment”

Timin203 on November 26, 2012 at 2:33 PM

Don’t like Google or Facebook? Simple…don’t use them. Destroying them or censoring them serves no purpose.

It’s called the slippery slope…you might want to read up on it.

Gothguy on November 26, 2012 at 2:26 PM

Somebody is going have to explain the purpose of Facebook and Twitter. I don’t use either of them because they are utterly inane.

Happy Nomad on November 26, 2012 at 2:33 PM

People just refuse to learn. Cancers like the UN, HAVE to be Cut Out! Until our Ntnl. Debt is back below 10 Trillion, no more money goes to U.N. or any other terrorist/Govt., anywhere! Way too rational a thought, huh? Yea, that’s what I thought, but I threw it out there anyway.

http://www.paratisiusa.blogspot.com

God Bless America!

paratisi on November 26, 2012 at 2:33 PM

Will be intersting to see how Google really deals with this and how much influence they will have with Obama. Remeber they gave him over $350k in donations and some from Google left for White House Cabinet postitions.

Is there a bus near by?

plutorocks on November 26, 2012 at 2:33 PM

It’s called the slippery slope…you might want to read up on it. Gothguy on November 26, 2012 at 2:26 PM

Of course I was kidding. But you know, so lang as “tech” companies continue abusing the software patents I love to see these scammers crash and burn.

I don’t mean to suggest regulation is the way to do it. They’ll naturally fade away like the worthless fads they are.

bernverdnardo1 on November 26, 2012 at 2:34 PM

This worries me.

If these guys get their way, they might censor the “Gossip Girl” ads in the upper right, with the hot blonde in the blue dress.

Those kinds of images are offensive to their Muzzzlim sensibilities, you know.

UltimateBob on November 26, 2012 at 2:38 PM

20 years for “Trolling in the First Degree.”

10 years for “Reckless Spamming.”

If they do this, I’m down with it.

NavyMustang on November 26, 2012 at 2:38 PM

Putin (Ex-KGB), Ineedajob (Iran’s insane ruler who wants to start the Apocolypse – nuking Israel & the U.S. – because it will bring about the return of the ‘ 12th Imom’), & China … along with the U.N. (an organization that has not made a difference / beneficial contribution to the world in DECADES) wants to meed in Dubai to discuss eliminating Freedom of Speech / Truth on a Global Scale, sending the world into tyranical-government controlled darkness forever…..

And the U.S Administration & President who promised to be the ‘most transparent Administration Ev-uh & controlls his own ‘army of U.s. Propoganda-spewing Media is sending an Obama-appointed team to negotiate in ‘our best interest…..

What could POSSIBLY go Wrong?!

A return to the ‘Dark Ages’….maybe the Mayans weren;t so stupid after all….

easyt65 on November 26, 2012 at 2:42 PM

HA!! The irony, Google loves Obama and his policies, and this is what it will lead to…Google and the rest voted themselves out of business…if not now, it will happen if they keep supporting Obama style politics…

I have no sympathy for Google…this is what they and their employees embrace…

right2bright on November 26, 2012 at 2:43 PM

It’ll happen. Not enough people care to stop it.

vityas on November 26, 2012 at 2:45 PM

Seems like I remember Google already cooperated with China in restricting its citizens’ access to some sites? And now they’re worried that “The result… could allow governments and select companies to restrict how citizens access and use the Web.”
?

shaloma on November 26, 2012 at 2:45 PM

It never ceases to amaze me that we continue to financially prop up and supportively legitimize an organization that isn’t committed to peace, justice, and human rights so much as it is the interests of its member(s) (sic)

yeah …. wait we are talking about the Federal government right?

lm10001 on November 26, 2012 at 2:49 PM

“If they do this, I’m down with it. — NavyMustang on November 26, 2012 at 2:38 PM”

Hey NavyMustang, what you don’t get is that the U.N. will decide who gets to ‘police’ the internet, will get to remove comments you make they find offensive or ‘dangerous’. You can be identified as a ‘subversive’ – fined, blocked competely from using ther Internet, & (like in China, possibly further down the road) can receive a visit in the middle of the night because of anti-government dangerous posts & be locked up for as long as they want.

We have seen a MILD case of Controlled Information in this country during the Obama Administration. China, Russia – there are stories in the News now where people who have spoken out against their governments have been jailed for an indefinite period…even killed. Islamist Extremists will be able to use this to shut down any comments/postings of any speech referencing any other religion than Islam because they find such behavior offensive. The U.N. will have the right to make that call, not the U.S.

It would be the DEATH KNELL for Freedon & Liberty throughout the world. Do you really want to hand over decisions / control of OUR Freedom over to the U.N. or any other foreign country/organization?

easyt65 on November 26, 2012 at 2:51 PM

It’ll happen. Not enough people care to stop it.

vityas on November 26, 2012 at 2:45 PM

Truth…but it will depend on how much money the internet businesses cough up to the White House…

right2bright on November 26, 2012 at 2:52 PM

It would be the DEATH KNELL for Freedon & Liberty throughout the world. Do you really want to hand over decisions / control of OUR Freedom over to the U.N. or any other foreign country/organization?

easyt65 on November 26, 2012 at 2:51 PM

That would be a serious question, if the election of Obama had not just happened…

right2bright on November 26, 2012 at 2:53 PM

Seems like I remember Google already cooperated with China in restricting its citizens’ access to some sites? And now they’re worried that “The result… could allow governments and select companies to restrict how citizens access and use the Web.”
?

shaloma on November 26, 2012 at 2:45 PM

Yea, this is how retarded conservatives remember it because they want to find a reason to hate Google. The reality is the exact opposite though. Google fought against censorship in China for years before relenting and taking the same position that every single other search engine has. Bing never fought against censorship. Yahoo never fought against censorship. Conservatives give them complete passes though.

thphilli on November 26, 2012 at 2:53 PM

If this means there won’t be any more hot girls in my neighborhood looking for me, and I won’t be able to make millions by depositing money for ex-princes from Nigeria, then I’m against it.

The Rogue Tomato on November 26, 2012 at 2:53 PM

It never ceases to amaze me that we continue to financially prop up and supportively legitimize an organization that isn’t committed to peace, justice, and human rights so much as it is the interests of its member states. The moral relativists at the United Nations are not-so-subtly shooting for a globalist, progressive bureaucracy, and they constantly use it as a platform to deign to lecture us on our policies on climate change, firearms, free elections, etcetera. If the United Nations were really about promoting freedom and prosperity, the very idea of this kind of Internet regulation would be laughed off the stage — but it isn’t, and that is deeply disturbing.

Erika Johnsen

.
The United Nations exists for the sole purpose of taking everything it can from the U.S.

I don’t believe the UN can survive in it’s current state, and apparently the Globalists don’t think so, either. They’re already planning on the WCPA taking over for the UN.

listens2glenn on November 26, 2012 at 3:08 PM

If Obama wants to waste policial capital keeping the idiots away from their weird porn, so be it. Less damage he can do to the economy.

Timin203 on November 26, 2012 at 2:30 PM

If you think keeping people from porn is what Obama, or any of these people, want to control the Internet for, think again. In fact, they like porn. It serves the dual purpose of keeping the masses placated while also promoting the lack of morals, God, and family that are necessary for socialism to succeed.

No, it’s not porn that will go away, it’s any site promoting the free expression of ideas.

Shump on November 26, 2012 at 3:13 PM

As soon as the UN gets control of the internet, an enormous demand will materialize and a separate non-UN regulated internet will spring up.

Tripwhipper on November 26, 2012 at 3:31 PM

A suggested domain for the U.N. censors:

http://www.the-future-must-not-belong-to-those-who-insult-the-prophet-of-Islam.com

Obama bows to theocratic tyranny.

profitsbeard on November 26, 2012 at 3:39 PM

Given the overwhelming dominance by the US of what people call the interwebs, it would only work if you indulged the fantasy that the US is run by jackbooted statists.

Wait, wha…?

CorporatePiggy on November 26, 2012 at 3:49 PM

I have a satire (40,000 words) that I will be done regarding this in a few weeks. Is there any chance some good folks would be willing to read the first draft?

Washington Fancy on November 26, 2012 at 1:57 PM

I’m game for a laugh and any help back at ya.

Zap it to me via:

foldedsteel@mail.com

profitsbeard on November 26, 2012 at 3:55 PM

…It would be the DEATH KNELL for Freedon & Liberty throughout the world. Do you really want to hand over decisions / control of OUR Freedom over to the U.N. or any other foreign country/organization?

easyt65 on November 26, 2012 at 2:51 PM

Nah, just joshing around. If I don’t laugh at some of the BS that’s happened in the past month, I’d be sobbing uncontrollably!

NavyMustang on November 26, 2012 at 4:02 PM

I have a satire (40,000 words) that I will be done regarding this in a few weeks. Is there any chance some good folks would be willing to read the first draft?

Washington Fancy on November 26, 2012 at 1:57 PM

40,000 words? Writing long is easy. Writing short is hard.

The Rogue Tomato on November 26, 2012 at 4:08 PM

I wonder what Internet creator Al Gore has to say about this?

weaselyone on November 26, 2012 at 4:13 PM

If this means there won’t be any more hot girls in my neighborhood looking for me, and I won’t be able to make millions by depositing money for ex-princes from Nigeria, then I’m against it.

The Rogue Tomato on November 26, 2012 at 2:53 PM

Ha!!!

Replace “Best of Craigs”, with the “Best of the U.N.”….wanted, dictator for small middle east country, must despise Israel, and want to destroy evil America…applicant must have be over 21.

right2bright on November 26, 2012 at 4:46 PM

Having the Internet rewired by bureaucrats would be like handing a Stradivarius to a gorilla.

More like a gorilla being given the power to tell Stradivarius how to make a violin.

If we had a REAL President, he’d tell the UN to keep their corrupt tyrannical paws off the Internet or he’d pull all the US funding for the organization. It’s the biggest and most powerful freedom machine ever invented, which is why Obama will most likely conspire with our enemies to kill it.

Socratease on November 26, 2012 at 4:51 PM

Just let them just try it. I don’t think that “the people” will go along with this one……….. whether they are conservative or liberal.

SC.Charlie on November 26, 2012 at 5:03 PM

How many of our own politicians in both parties are behind one of these hidden doors?

Don L on November 26, 2012 at 5:06 PM

plutorocks on November 26, 2012 at 2:33 PM

Thanks. You answered my question.

oldleprechaun on November 26, 2012 at 5:07 PM

At what point do we, as a people, rise up and tell these people to F&%^ off and get the Hell out of our country..?

affenhauer on November 26, 2012 at 5:34 PM

To all of you who commented about how bad the UN is I urge you to go to this White House petition and sign it.

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/completely-withdraw-our-membership-united-nations-and-remove-them-united-states-america/k6MrKdrF

Pomai on November 26, 2012 at 7:34 PM

…the progressives in this country will help lead the way.

KOOLAID2 on November 26, 2012 at 11:28 PM