If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Hill)   House lawmakers will consider an international proposal next week to give the United Nations more control over the Internet. Yea, that'll work   (thehill.com) divider line 39
    More: Dumbass, Internet Society, ITU, Robert Mcdowell, internet freedom, developing world, United Nations member states  
•       •       •

807 clicks; posted to Politics » on 28 May 2012 at 11:03 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



39 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2012-05-28 09:40:51 AM
So we can expect strongly worded emails?
 
2012-05-28 10:49:57 AM
Well, the UN is nearly universally regarded as incompetent and incapable of actually doing anything. If you're wanting to keep the Internet free, who better to keep control of it than the UN? You know they'll never manage to put up restrictive laws on it.
 
2012-05-28 10:50:38 AM
Fortunately democrats don't have control of the house, and this will go nowhere.
 
2012-05-28 11:05:38 AM

simplicimus: So we can expect strongly worded emails?


Thus endth the thread.
 
2012-05-28 11:06:01 AM
well then there should be more than just one Internet
 
2012-05-28 11:06:29 AM
I can see it already. "The UN wants to stop you from reading this fwd:fwd:fwd:fwd:fwd:fwd email!!!!"

At a hearing earlier this month, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) also criticized the proposal. He said China and Russia are "not exactly bastions of Internet freedom."
"Any place that bans certain terms from search should not be a leader in international Internet regulatory frameworks," he said, adding that he will keep a close eye on the process.


What are the odds this guy has voted for a bill trying to limit online porn or violent video games?
 
2012-05-28 11:06:39 AM

jehovahs witness protection: Fortunately democrats don't have control of the house, and this will go nowhere.


FTA: It's an unpopular idea with lawmakers on both sides of the aisle in Congress, and officials with the Obama administration have also criticized it.

Facts don't matter to morons.
 
2012-05-28 11:08:50 AM
It's an unpopular idea with lawmakers on both sides of the aisle in Congress, and officials with the Obama administration have also criticized it....Yet the proposal could come up for a vote at a UN conference in Dubai in December.

Sounds like they just have to bring it up so they can officially agree on a No vote from the US in December.
 
2012-05-28 11:13:49 AM
The United Nations has no way to enforce anything that it comes up with. All it can do is try to get people to agree to do something.
 
2012-05-28 11:15:41 AM
If the UN has any sense of humor, they'll call it the Zone of Online Governance (ZOG,) and make their logo resemble one of those Amero coins except with a few Masonic symbols.
 
2012-05-28 11:16:13 AM

Karac: I can see it already. "The UN wants to stop you from reading this fwd:fwd:fwd:fwd:fwd:fwd email!!!!"

At a hearing earlier this month, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) also criticized the proposal. He said China and Russia are "not exactly bastions of Internet freedom."
"Any place that bans certain terms from search should not be a leader in international Internet regulatory frameworks," he said, adding that he will keep a close eye on the process.

What are the odds this guy has voted for a bill trying to limit online porn or violent video games?


But he did abandon SOPA when the flack really built up.
 
2012-05-28 11:18:05 AM
So does this mean today is an OMG WORLD GOVERNMENT UN day or is it an UN CAN'T DO SHIAT day?
 
2012-05-28 11:21:00 AM

12349876: So does this mean today is an OMG WORLD GOVERNMENT UN day or is it an UN CAN'T DO SHIAT day?


You can just condense that into OMG WORLD GOVERNMENT UN CAN'T DO SHIAT.
 
2012-05-28 11:25:57 AM
Oh, you all laughed at the states that passed legislation banning Agenda 21 - well you'll be laughing on the other side of your firewall seven proxies now!
 
2012-05-28 11:26:30 AM
img689.imageshack.us
 
2012-05-28 11:33:10 AM
I used to be against this, but taking the US government's arrogant overreach in to account, I'm going to have to say this is preferrable.

Just think about all the wrongful domain seizures the FBI has done in the last few years. But because the US has defacto control of the domains through Verisign and others there is no recourse, protection or oversight to anyone on the internet from this power. Then we have the US seizing legit funds that were between two foreign parties for legitimate business in their countries that happens to be against US laws, but not their two countries' laws, through the ridiculous justification that they say some of the electrons went through a US bank unbeknownst to the two parties. And the whole Megaupload mess...

So yeah, the UN sucks, and is corrupt.... but it still just might be preferable to the US having control of the internet.
 
2012-05-28 11:35:54 AM

GAT_00: Well, the UN is nearly universally regarded as incompetent and incapable of actually doing anything. If you're wanting to keep the Internet free, who better to keep control of it than the UN? You know they'll never manage to put up restrictive laws on it.


Incompetence and authoritarianism are more closely correlated than you think.
 
2012-05-28 11:39:40 AM
So, little light blue-helmeted soldiers of snark? Lol, dude. Gtf out of my pr0n.
 
2012-05-28 11:41:25 AM
Is this the same body that put Sudan on the Commission for Human Rights?

Why not put North Korea in charge of internet freedom?
 
2012-05-28 11:42:53 AM
He said the measure would expose the Internet to "top-down regulation where it's really the governments that are at the table, but the rest of the stakeholders aren't."

Do I get uncensored, unlimited free broadband wifi?

If not, explain to me why I should be for this.
 
2012-05-28 11:50:22 AM
No way the UN should control my internet. We need to put it in the hands of the RIAA, MPAA, and the double digit IQ folks at Homeland Security. That's much better.

No, they don't control it completely now, but that's what SOPA was about.
 
2012-05-28 11:51:29 AM
I'd rather the UN have control of it than the US. The UN doesn't have Republicans.
 
2012-05-28 11:52:24 AM
On a side note, I've met several lefty-types who couldn't see the conflict between hating the structure of the US Senate yet supporting the legitimacy of the UN General Assembly.
 
2012-05-28 11:54:02 AM

The Name: I'd rather the UN have control of it than the US. The UN doesn't have Republicans.


Because they have *real* violent fascist thugs instead of those lame GOP wannabes?
 
2012-05-28 11:56:26 AM
House lawmakers should consider a proposal to bulldoze the United Nations into the east river.
 
2012-05-28 12:00:13 PM
Makes sense to me. Certainly US control of things is one unending tale of disaster and incompetence. Far better that control is taken out of hands of corporate interests that buy and sell the US government.
 
2012-05-28 12:24:05 PM
There should only be one type of regulation for the internet...regulations prohibiting companies providing infrastructure from meddling. NOTHING ELSE. Git your goddam grubby little hands off. UN, US, I don't care. GIT! SHOO!
 
2012-05-28 01:04:00 PM
I'm a bit puzzled over this: the US has retained stewardship of the DNS root zone since its inception. As far as I'm aware, they haven't done any tampering with the root itself: they've only been seizing domains with TLDs that they consider to be under their jurisdiction (.com/net/org, etc.) and have not been mucking about with country-level TLDs that are outside US jurisdiction (.tv, for example, is managed by VeriSign and so falls under US jurisdiction) at all.

Individual countries are free to tamper with their ccTLDs (for example, China routinely messes around with .cn domains) and this doesn't affect anyone outside of China. New Zealand can, if they wish, mess around with .nz.

I'd like to see the "generic" TLDs like com/net/org/info be independent from US jurisdiction (perhaps under the jurisdiction of the registrar that registered that domain?), but that's unlikely.

Transferring stewardship of the root zone from the US to the ITU is almost certainly a non-issue: due to the massive amount of infrastructure that relies upon the DNS and the rarely-updated configurations in most resolvers, it's quite unlikely that the actual operators of the root zone (VeriSign, NASA, the ISC, the US Army, USC, Autonomica, etc.) will change in the slightest.

The ITU and the UPU make up pretty much the least-offensive UN agencies in the world: one is responsible for standards relating to telecommunications, the other for postal regulations. They're essentially apolitical and the world has no problem with agreeing on standards for telecommunications and postal regulations.

While I think that transferring stewardship of the DNS root zone to the ITU would not have any major change on the internet, I also wonder why it'd be necessary at all: the US has a long history of good stewardship of the root and I don't really see any reason why it should be transferred to the ITU or any other party at this point.

Should US law enforcement be smacked around for seizing sites with generic TLDs? Absolutely. Has the Department of Commerce's NTIA been playing games with the root, such that they should not longer be the steward of the root zone? No. Actually, they make a point of trying to be separating the technical management of the root from politics.
 
2012-05-28 01:05:19 PM

Wyalt Derp: Oh, you all laughed at the states that passed legislation banning Agenda 21 - well you'll be laughing on the other side of your firewall seven proxies now!


I wish I had a right wing derp site so I could put out articles to their base with claims that the House GOP are voting for this as part of the UN takeover

/alas
 
2012-05-28 01:15:33 PM

heypete: Actually, they make a point of trying to be separating the technical management of the root from politics.


I blame my poor grammar and use of parenthesis on having a few drinks before posting. My apologies to grammar nazis and pedants.
 
2012-05-28 02:16:00 PM
"At a hearing earlier this month, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) also criticized the proposal. He said China and Russia are "not exactly bastions of Internet freedom."
"Any place that bans certain terms from search should not be a leader in international Internet regulatory frameworks," he said, adding that he will keep a close eye on the process
."

Considering that the United States censors words, does warrant-less wiretapping all over the internet, and more... I think Mr. Rubio might want to look in a mirror. Not to mention the audacity of us going into a sovereign foreign country to arrest and extradite their citizen for doing things in HIS country while following OUR law in the matter.
 
2012-05-28 02:41:27 PM
Wait...the House is willing to let the UN have control of something? Aren't they mostly teatards?
 
2012-05-28 03:52:31 PM
Two words: "House lawmakers".

Another two words: "Loonie Bin".

Seriously, the current Congress is nothing but a Derp Factory right now.
 
2012-05-28 05:33:49 PM

deadcrickets: "At a hearing earlier this month, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) also criticized the proposal. He said China and Russia are "not exactly bastions of Internet freedom."
"Any place that bans certain terms from search should not be a leader in international Internet regulatory frameworks," he said, adding that he will keep a close eye on the process."

Considering that the United States censors words, does warrant-less wiretapping all over the internet, and more... I think Mr. Rubio might want to look in a mirror. Not to mention the audacity of us going into a sovereign foreign country to arrest and extradite their citizen for doing things in HIS country while following OUR law in the matter.


No, you're completely incorrect. China & company openly censor their parts of the Internet. The US government silently monitors everything (in open defiance of its own laws) but doesn't actually attack you unless you threaten to say something they don't want heard or otherwise embarass them in public (see the swat attacks against people in their own apartments tweeting to protestors where the police are coming from, the dawn attacks on OWS-associated people as a transparent means of intimidation, etc). So the drones think the Internet here is "free" because they never get harassed.

See, actual bad things aren't bad, telling people about them is because that's how the authoritarian mind works. Which is why all at the disastrous nation-wrecking screwups characterizing the Bush Administration's entire tenure will never cost a single person responsible so much as a parking ticket, while Bradley Manning will never see the light of day again and Julian Assange had best avoid small aircraft and isolated places.
 
2012-05-28 06:05:33 PM

KrispyKritter: well then there should be more than just one Internet


This one already has hookers and blackjack.
 
2012-05-28 06:43:08 PM
The situation where one country has the kind of control it does right now is farcical and long term will clearly not persist.
 
2012-05-28 07:04:30 PM

Xcott: If the UN has any sense of humor, they'll call it the Zone of Online Governance (ZOG,) and make their logo resemble one of those Amero coins except with a few Masonic symbols.


Too bad they don't, because that would be AMAZING.
 
2012-05-28 07:09:31 PM

erik-k: deadcrickets: "At a hearing earlier this month, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) also criticized the proposal. He said China and Russia are "not exactly bastions of Internet freedom."
"Any place that bans certain terms from search should not be a leader in international Internet regulatory frameworks," he said, adding that he will keep a close eye on the process."

Considering that the United States censors words, does warrant-less wiretapping all over the internet, and more... I think Mr. Rubio might want to look in a mirror. Not to mention the audacity of us going into a sovereign foreign country to arrest and extradite their citizen for doing things in HIS country while following OUR law in the matter.

No, you're completely incorrect. China & company openly censor their parts of the Internet. The US government silently monitors everything (in open defiance of its own laws) but doesn't actually attack you unless you threaten to say something they don't want heard or otherwise embarass them in public (see the swat attacks against people in their own apartments tweeting to protestors where the police are coming from, the dawn attacks on OWS-associated people as a transparent means of intimidation, etc). So the drones think the Internet here is "free" because they never get harassed.

See, actual bad things aren't bad, telling people about them is because that's how the authoritarian mind works. Which is why all at the disastrous nation-wrecking screwups characterizing the Bush Administration's entire tenure will never cost a single person responsible so much as a parking ticket, while Bradley Manning will never see the light of day again and Julian Assange had best avoid small aircraft and isolated places.


Megaupload. A case where even the judge has questioned jurisdiction. There are other, similar cases.
 
2012-05-28 11:03:51 PM
[waiting for my local RW pals to start screeching and peeing their pants]

/popcorn
 
Displayed 39 of 39 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report