And my first thought was:
Uh..... right. Why?
Why would the UN, of all groups--other than their international reach--be chosen to "regulate" the internet?
Talk about "one-world government". (And I'm actually all for one-world government, to be completely honest. It's not a problem for me, thanks very much.)
Check it out:
"At a meeting in New York on Wednesday, representatives from Brazil called for an international body made up of Government representatives that would attempt to create global standards for policing the internet - specifically in reaction to challenges such as WikiLeaks," wrote IT News.
The UN has announced that a "Working Group on Internet Governance," made up solely of member states (governments), will consider changes to the Internet Governance Forum (IGF), a "forum for multi-stakeholder dialogue on public policy related to Internet governance issues, such as the Internet's sustainability, robustness, security, stability and development."
Talk about "Big Brother" watching over us.
Who thought or thinks this is a good idea? I mean, besides China and all other totalitarian governments that don't want good, open communication between all their citizens.
And since when is the internet "broken"? What about it isn't working, exactly? Well, except for that rather obvious Wikileaks thing, of course.
I mean, other than the fact that governments can't control what you and I are putting on it right now and the fact that business on it, in most places, isn't taxed which are, in my view, both good things, right?
I think this may be a hugely overlooked story, too.
With the "shape of things to come" being, undoubtedly, online and on the internet, what's the one body looking at shaping and regulating and ruling, if you will, the internet?
Yeah, the UN. The United Nations. Wow. What a change.
Usually the average schmoe on the street doesn't pay the UN much attention.
And he/she still might not.
But with this? With the UN looking at making international rules for the internet and the World Wide Web?
I think, suddenly, they may get the attention of the average person---all around the world.
I don't think this can go anywhere good. At least, it will go nowhere good for the citizens of the world. It will or would only benefit governments in the world and their goals and attempts at stifling free speech.
I don't know much about imprisoned Chinese dissident Liu Xiaobo, but I'd be willing to bet he'd be one who sees this for what it is.
And he'd be against it.
Links:http://www.npr.org/2010/12/17/132144972/U-N-Delegates-Debate-Control-Of-Internet
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/17/un-internet-regulation_n_798457.html
Go here: http://isoc.org/wp/newsletter/?p=2710
Please sign the petition. Help keep the UN from regulating the internet. It will only lead to an infringement of free speech rights--around the world.
Posts
5 comments:
I saw that too, Mo and while my initial reaction was as yours, I'm not sure.
We Americans value our freedom of speech all right... like we argue our 2nd amendment. Enough so that we tolerate Westboro baptist, anti-war or tea party disruptions, even Wikileaks that could very well undermine our security and lead to war.
And all the murders at the hands of those 'enjoying' their 2nd amendment 'rights' to carry around the tools to kill each other easily.
But on this one, I think I want to see the debate. What is the Internet? It's a communication device and I want to see what they want to regulate and for whom.
You'll notice the internet didn't stop the fall election results. Money speaks stronger than freedom of speech... Guess money buys freedom of speech in our Supreme Court.
We'll see. again, initial reaction is to agree with you. BTW, I would NOT agree with a one world governnment for the same reason I don't like the federal government. Washington is just too far away already...and I'm not sure I want the Indian and Chinese majority decided where our resources should go and what freedoms are allowed.
Not that we have matured to my satisfaction, but most people's of the world aren't even as far along as we are in decisionmaking.
You're right about "one-world government", actually. Years ago I thought it efficient. Now, I know better. Not only would it be inefficient, it would also, no doubt be grossly unfair and unwieldy and, finally, as you suggested, run the risk of one country (area) exploiting another area's resources even worse than we do at present.
I'm glad you agree with me about one world government, now that we have realized we're not the main player anymore and we don't like what others see as rightful government.
But as this internet freedom continues to unfold these last few days, I become more uncomfortable for the same reason.
Lets face it, I don't want China deciding on open internet. They're not as open as I like. I may not like people publishing US government secrets because they CAN... but well.
We need to think this out more before we start passing laws. This is very serious stuff!
thanks for bringing it up, mo.
Thank GOODNESS you changed your stance on the "one world government" part. Decentralization of government is best and allows for the majority of freedom.
As far as the internets, we already have big brother there. They're able to read just about anything people put out there on the net.
I think the UN has already surpassed it's powers here in the states and I would like to see USA remove itself from the "one world government" the UN so desperately wants to create. No other laws are to supersede our Constitution, yet that is exactly what the UN is trying to do.
Okay, all that said about "one-world government" now out of the way, the UN absolutely serves vitally important functions, however, for having a platform for all the nations of the world to discuss and somewhat control world issues, particularly any genocide that takes place in the world (think Sudan, etc., etc.).
No, the UN is important and must be there, no matter what anyone thinks otherwise.
I completely disagree with you about anyone or any group at the UN wanting any of their provisions to supersede our own internal laws. It just doesn't happen. It hasn't happened and you can't document otherwise.
Post a Comment