US: Yeah, that UN Internet-control proposal isn’t going to fly with us

posted at 6:51 pm on November 29, 2012 by Erika Johnsen

Next week, the United Nations is planning a meeting of their International Telecommunications Union (which was founded way back when we were all still trying to coordinate over the telegraph) in Dubai, supposedly to update treaty arrangements or whatever it is these globalist bureaucracies spend our money doing. However, some of the world’s most devious actors (Russia, China, Iran, etcetera) intend to float plans that would restrict how the Internet functions over international borders. They’re all plans that cut off some of their citizens’ access to the outside world, i.e. help repressive regimes keep tighter controls over their people’s exposure to free-thinking ideas and information, which is all really great — if you happen to hate freedom and democracy.

Heritage explains why big, forbidding governments aren’t really fans of the rapid innovation and private competition the development of the Internet has spurred in the past couple decades, and a few of the ways in which they’re proposing cracking down on all that:

Some countries have proposed granting the ITU more authority over the Internet and making other changes purportedly for such goals as enhancing cybersecurity, reducing costs for developing-country consumers, and increasing investment by telecommunications providers. However, many of these seemingly benign proposals could undermine the Internet freedoms that are essential to spurring economic development and protecting human rights. …

Based on unofficial leaked reports, the proposals being considered for discussion at the WCIT are a hodge-podge of technocratic-sounding changes in the current ITRs. …

  • A proposal by a coalition of Arab states would require national governments to “undertake appropriate measures, individually or in cooperation with other Member States,” to protect “confidence and security” in the Internet. … The sponsoring states argue that these powers would help them fight cybercrime, but they could also be used for censorship and political suppression.
  • A Russian proposal would give member states equal rights in the allocation of domain names, potentially challenging the role of the U.S.-based Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers.

Both chambers of Congress already unanimously passed resolutions damning the trend of these perilous proposals earlier this year, and according to a State Department official on Thursday, the White House is following suit. Via the WFB:

“We will actively oppose the Russian proposal,” Terry Kramer, head of the U.S. delegation to a U.N. conference in Dubai, told reporters.

A Russian government proposal to amend a U.N. treaty at a meeting of the world body’s World Conference on International Telecommunications in Dubai next week contains a provision that calls for bringing “IP-based networks” under U.N. control. …

The Russian proposal to amend the treaty has the support of other non-democratic states such as China and Iran.

Kramer said in a conference call with news reporters that the Dubai conference is not supposed to be focused on Internet governance.

“If you look at the Russian proposal, it’s clearly focused on Internet governance,” he said. “It would basically move to governments the right to route traffic, to review content, and say that’s all a completely national matter—an extremely important precedent it would set for opening the doors, again, to more censorship.”

Good. Why we continue to provide the biggest hunk of funding for all of this nonsense is beyond me, but if that’s the case, I say we throw our weight around a little bit — and make our position on this freedom-crushing baloney inescapably clear.


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

What a bunch of punks.

Erika said “punks”. LOL. :)

Paul-Cincy on November 29, 2012 at 6:54 PM

US: Yeah, that UN Internet-control proposal isn’t going to fly with us

Not to worry, Obama has an executive order to allow it… Welcome to the Ford Focus backseat…

SWalker on November 29, 2012 at 6:55 PM

Control the interwebs!

This too.

Capitalist Hog on November 29, 2012 at 6:56 PM

Get it straight. This is punk.

Capitalist Hog on November 29, 2012 at 6:56 PM

make our position on this freedom-crushing baloney inescapably clear.

Freedom, and equality under the Constitution. That’s America.

Paul-Cincy on November 29, 2012 at 6:59 PM

reducing costs for developing-country consumers

I assume this means taxing us so turd world countries will have their p**n downloads subsidized.

Blake on November 29, 2012 at 7:02 PM

Now I’m in a quandary – I love freedom, but loathe democracy.

Just leave my net alone!

OldEnglish on November 29, 2012 at 7:02 PM

Internet freedom is racism!

Love,
The UN

Liam on November 29, 2012 at 7:03 PM

I’ll note that it’s amazing how much more sanguine liberals are about America controlling the internet, along with the hegemonic, imperialist, and colonialist implications of that, now that it can’t be used a proxy for George W. Bush.

HitNRun on November 29, 2012 at 7:04 PM

Free speech without taxation is tyranny!

Love,
The UN

Liam on November 29, 2012 at 7:05 PM

Will YouTube cave to the Russians?

Court in Russia bans video clips of Pussy Riot online

JPeterman on November 29, 2012 at 7:10 PM

Great, a choice between a Sharia or KGB-controlled internet. What could go wrong?

STL_Vet on November 29, 2012 at 7:11 PM

If the U.S. does not defund the U.N. after the U.N. has just overwhelmingly voted so-called ‘Palestine’ an observer state status — then we might as well stop funding Israel then.

U.S. OUT OF U.N.!
U.N. OUT OF U.S.!

FlatFoot on November 29, 2012 at 7:13 PM

If the U.S. does not defund the U.N. after the U.N. has just overwhelmingly voted so-called ‘Palestine’ an observer state status — then we might as well stop funding Israel then.

U.S. OUT OF U.N.!
U.N. OUT OF U.S.!

FlatFoot on November 29, 2012 at 7:13 PM

Hatch today attached defunding of UN to the military appropriations bill, let’s see how far this goes.

riddick on November 29, 2012 at 7:18 PM

time for the un to get the heck out of dodge…

enough

cmsinaz on November 29, 2012 at 7:28 PM

Will YouTube cave to the Russians?

Court in Russia bans video clips of Pussy Riot online

JPeterman on November 29, 2012 at 7:10 PM

There’s a lack of respect for the law in Russia, probably for good reason. It runs on payoffs, cronyism, who you know — you know, just what Obama is trying to do with the US. The rule of law requiring equal treatment regardless of who you are or who you know is such a pesky annoyance.

Internet censorship would be a huge blow to our First Amendment.

Paul-Cincy on November 29, 2012 at 7:28 PM

Any illusion as the where Russia really stands in the world of democracy?

royzer on November 29, 2012 at 7:30 PM

purportedly for such goals as enhancing cybersecurity, reducing costs for developing-country consumers, and increasing investment by telecommunications providers.

Because the UN has such a good record at providing security, reducing costs, and fostering successful investments.

A Russian proposal would give member states equal rights in the allocation of domain names, potentially challenging the role of the U.S.-based Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers.

The leftist playbook never changes. If you can’t earn your stature, steal it or vote it away from those who did. Just like gay marriage, or affirmative action, or any number of other liberal schemes to make the world more “fair”.

One wonders why these unhappy countries even need the ITU to do their dirty work. Don’t they control the borders of their own countries? Can’t they put up their own firewalls to keep out the things they don’t want their subjects to see? Their motivation, of course, is not to control their own residents, but to control those in other countries. Imagine the ITU threatening to shut down YouTube if it doesn’t scrub its archives of all videos that reflect poorly on people of the Muslim persuasion.

Socratease on November 29, 2012 at 7:30 PM

I guess they’d rather prioritize on talking away our right of self-defense, they figure they can deprive of free speech later on when we can’t shoot back.

Chip on November 29, 2012 at 7:33 PM

Everything you need to know about the U.N. and the N.W.O.

http://youtu.be/uIH4jUIK5zs

dom89031 on November 29, 2012 at 7:41 PM

make our position on this freedom-crushing baloney inescapably clear.

Freedom, and equality under the Constitution. That’s America.

Paul-Cincy on November 29, 2012 at 6:59 PM

.
That would be the U.S. Constitution, Paul’.

We have to be specific, because a “World Constitution” exists, and we don’t want there to be any confusion.

listens2glenn on November 29, 2012 at 7:44 PM

Both chambers of Congress already unanimously passed resolutions damning the trend of these perilous proposals earlier this year, and according to a State Department official on Thursday, the White House is following suit.

They’re getting their way now without controlling the internet.

Also, as it is now, it’s a valuable tool for gathering information on us, is a good tool for spreading propaganda and disinformation, I’m sure it’s a godsend for community organizers everywhere, and once they get this tax thing figured out they stand to get tons of revenue from millions of business transactions every day.

Dr. ZhivBlago on November 29, 2012 at 7:47 PM

They are determined to pull the plug on all innovation. Why not just ban electricity and we can go back to a tin can and string.

Kini on November 29, 2012 at 7:47 PM

Hatch today attached defunding of UN to the military appropriations bill, let’s see how far this goes.

riddick on November 29, 2012 at 7:18 PM

Ha! Yeah, let’s see if any of the damn Dems will catch on.

PatriotGal2257 on November 29, 2012 at 7:54 PM

They are determined to pull the plug on all innovation. Why not just ban electricity and we can go back to a tin can and string.

Kini on November 29, 2012 at 7:47 PM

.
“They” want to take over the World, Kini.

The biggest obstacle to that goal, is the United States.

“They” have figured out that they cannot makes themselves strong enough to take the U.S. by direct conquest.

So their plan B is to con us into making ourselves weak, “to save the planet”.

That’s all this is about, and nothing more.

listens2glenn on November 29, 2012 at 8:02 PM

Good. Why we continue to provide the biggest hunk of funding for all of this nonsense is beyond me, but if that’s the case, I say we throw our weight around a little bit — and make our position on this freedom-crushing baloney inescapably clear.

Because there is no greater freedom than imposing democracy on a nation and telling them they must be democratic or we invade them. The United States is no longer interested in being a beacon of freedom for others for them to come to. they are more more interested in exporting the United States by force if need be irrespective of their cultural values.

The US likes to tell others how they should live but isn’t so interested in hearing about being told what it should do.

But I suppose sponsoring terrorism in Syria and having the blood of 30,000+ on your hands is a noble gesture. Like the car bomb the rebels just set off in a civilian area.

Rattl3r on November 29, 2012 at 8:06 PM

Where’s the outrage from the Voice of the Senate, Da Maverick?

Mr. Arrogant on November 29, 2012 at 8:18 PM

“They” want to take over the World, Kini.

The biggest obstacle to that goal, is the United States.

“They” have figured out that they cannot makes themselves strong enough to take the U.S. by direct conquest.

So their plan B is to con us into making ourselves weak, “to save the planet”.

That’s all this is about, and nothing more.

listens2glenn on November 29, 2012 at 8:02 PM

Ding, ding, ding. We have a thread winner!

PatriotGal2257 on November 29, 2012 at 8:39 PM

If you want to do some thing at least go here and sign the petition. If all you do is comment here then nothing will ever get done to stop this nonsense.

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

Pomai on November 29, 2012 at 9:25 PM

I assume this means taxing us so turd world countries will have their p**n downuploads subsidized.

Blake on November 29, 2012 at 7:02 PM

FIFY. And their spam, too.

GWB on November 29, 2012 at 9:27 PM

listens2glenn on November 29, 2012 at 8:02 PM

The biggest obstacle to that goal, is the United States Constitution.

The enemy is already in the gates…They’ve been here for nearly a century.

dom89031 on November 29, 2012 at 9:30 PM

I assume this means taxing us so turd world countries will have their p**n downuploads subsidized.

Blake on November 29, 2012 at 7:02 PM

FIFY. And their spam, too.

GWB on November 29, 2012 at 9:27 PM

Don’t forget email scams directed at stupid white Westerners. That and p**n are about the limit of what their puny minds can make use of the Internet for.

MelonCollie on November 29, 2012 at 9:31 PM

If you want to do some thing at least go here and sign the petition. If all you do is comment here then nothing will ever get done to stop this nonsense.

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

Thats about as politically shortsighted and idiotic an idea as there is. The UN General Assembly puts out a lot of dumb ideas and passes a lot of dumb things but complete withdrawal from it would isolate us and without a more efficient replacement make us look stupid

Rattl3r on November 29, 2012 at 9:47 PM

The UN General Assembly puts out a lot of dumb ideas and passes a lot of dumb things but complete withdrawal from it would isolate us and without a more efficient replacement make us look stupid

Rattl3r on November 29, 2012 at 9:47 PM

I’m sorry, but we’ve already gone and PROVEN ourselves to be stupid to the entire world by electing Obama Bin Lyin twice. Whatever false embarrassment would be generated by withdrawing from the Useless Nitwits absolutely pales in comparison.

MelonCollie on November 29, 2012 at 9:50 PM

Hatch today attached defunding of UN to the military appropriations bill, let’s see how far this goes.

riddick on November 29, 2012 at 7:18 PM

Good move!

…and according to a State Department official on Thursday, the White House is following suit.

The same WH that is known for saying one thing and then doing the opposite.

petefrt on November 30, 2012 at 8:28 AM

The UN General Assembly puts out a lot of dumb ideas and passes a lot of dumb things but complete withdrawal from it would isolate us and without a more efficient replacement make us look stupid Rattl3r on November 29, 2012 at 9:47 PM

And now you look stupid.

Akzed on November 30, 2012 at 9:08 AM

Looks like Frank Burns was right. Starts at about :36 So you can skip over the narrated part by everyone’s favorite enviroMENTAList, Mike Farrell.

Although they wrote Frank as an idiot, he did make some good points. Which some people can only seeing now, as we are knee-deep in it.

Sterling Holobyte on November 30, 2012 at 11:59 AM

Rattl3r you show me one thing that the UN has done that benefits the US?

Pomai on November 30, 2012 at 12:01 PM