Where are Pinky and The Brain when you need them?

GLOBALONEY
The World Wide Web (of Bureaucrats?)
Keep your U.N. off my Internet.
BY ADAM THIERER AND WAYNE CREWS
WallStreetJournalOnline
October 9, 2005
www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110007381
Kofi Annan, Coming to a Computer Near You! The Internet's long run as a global cyberzone of freedom--where governments take a "hands off" approach--is in jeopardy. Preparing for next month's U.N.-sponsored World Summit on the Information Society (or WSIS) in Tunisia, the European Union and others are moving aggressively to set the stage for an as-yet unspecified U.N. body to assert control over Internet operations and policies now largely under the purview of the U.S. In recent meetings, for an example, an EU spokesman asserted that no single country should have final authority over this "global resource."

To his credit, the U.S. State Department's David Gross bristled back: "We will not agree to the U.N. taking over management of the Internet." That stands to reason. The Internet was developed in the U.S. (as are upgrades like Internet 2) and is not a collective "global resource." It is an evolving technology, largely privately owned and operated, and it should stay that way.

Nevertheless the "U.N. for the Internet" crowd say they want to "resolve" who should have authority over Internet traffic and domain-name management; how to close the global "digital divide"; and how to "harness the potential of information" for the world's impoverished. Also on the table: how much protection free speech and expression should receive online.

While WSIS conferees have agreed to retain language enshrining free speech (despite the disapproval of countries that clearly oppose it) this is not a battle we've comfortably won. Some of the countries clamoring for regulation under the auspices of the U.N.--such as China and Iran--are among the most egregious violators of human rights.

Meanwhile, regulators across the globe have long lobbied for greater control over Internet commerce and content. A French court has attempted to force Yahoo! to block the sale of offensive Nazi materials to French citizens. An Australian court has ruled that the online edition of Barron's (published by Dow Jones, parent company of The Wall Street Journal and this Web site), could be subjected to Aussie libel laws--which, following the British example, is much more intolerant of free speech than our own law. Chinese officials--with examples too numerous for this space--continue to seek to censor Internet search engines.

The implications for online commerce are profound. The moment one puts up a Web site, one has "gone global"--perhaps even automatically subjected oneself to the laws of every country on the planet.
A global Internet regulatory state could mean that We Are the World--on speech and libel laws, sales taxes, privacy policies, antitrust statutes and intellectual property. How then would a Web site operator or even a blogger know how to act or do business? Compliance with some 190 legal codes would be confusing, costly and technically possible for all but the most well-heeled firms. The safest option would be to conform online speech or commercial activities to the most restrictive laws to ensure global compliance. If you like the idea of Robert Mugabe setting legal standards for everyone, then WSIS is for you.

The very confusion of laws makes some favor a "U.N. for the Internet" model. Others propose international treaties, or adjudication by the World Trade Organization, to stop retaliation and trade wars from erupting over privacy, gambling and pornography. Still others assert that the best answer is to do nothing, because the current unregulated Web environment has helped expand free speech and commerce globally for citizens, consumers and companies.

We favor the nonregulatory approach. But where laissez-faire is not an option, the second-best solution is that the legal standards governing Web content should be those of the "country of origin." Ideally, governments should assert authority only over citizens physically within its geographic borders. This would protect sovereignty and the principle of "consent of the governed" online. It would also give companies and consumers a "release valve" or escape mechanism to avoid jurisdictions that stifle online commerce or expression.

The Internet helps overcome artificial restrictions on trade and communications formerly imposed by oppressive or meddlesome governments. Allowing these governments to reassert control through a U.N. backdoor would be a disaster.

IMO...

Kofi Annan should be put up against a wall and shot.

Looks like they have two objections:

1)They are not getting any tax money from the web users
2)Entirely too much freedom of speech going on here

All your internet are belong to us!
Koffi is teh suxxor.

I'm sure a president Hillary would love to hear what the UN has to offer in the ways of the internet.

A real president would run all of the UN members out of their building to their limos, tell them planes are waiting to take them back home, and destroy the UN building as they pull away.

Scott

You should realize that the Internet is possibly the most terrifying weapon ever developed. At last to these third world despots. One reason china wanted Hong Kong back was the fact that the students used fax machines there to let the world know what was going on at Tianamen Square. The Internet is much  more powerful than simple fax machines and therefore more dangerous. Just look how much our own mainstream media hates the internet. People can find out about things on their own and make their own decisions, not what they are told. Just look at the difference in the reporting in Internet blogs from Iraq compared to the MSM. The Mugabes, Anans, and Ayotollahs are aware of this and fear it more than our military.

For this reason alone, we can`t give th UN control of the internet.

www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=46573

So, in what ways could we expect the newly transferred Internet to become "useful" to the "world body"?    * A tax on every citizen, everywhere, everyday. Just as telephone bills have become monthly tax statements with "subscriber line charges," "franchise fees," "state surcharges," "911 taxes" and "universal service fund surcharges," think what a really astute group of Harvard-trained U.N. bureaucrats could do with this bonanza. "E-mail service fee," "Web access fee," "intra and inter-country border fees," "chat fees," "message posting fees," "delayed electron fees" and we've barely scratched the surface of this mad cash cow.    * World commerce tax. Don't forget the business side of things. Want a website? Then you'll pay the U.N.'s fees – both over and under the table. Want a Web address? It's for sale if you know the right person. Are you selling anything? Then you need a tax stamp and have to pay a commerce service fee (sales tax) to the tribe currently in power.    * Free speech? Not anymore. Freedom of speech is granted only to those individuals who have registered with the appropriate U.N. bureaucracy – and paid the appropriate fee. A list of verboten discussion topics, for which your license can be suspended or revoked, is included with your registration CD. Remember, free speech under the U.N. is a privilege, not a right.    * On the national governance side, would you like to have your dictatorship freed from the pesky criticism of human-rights groups? For a fee, your name can be added to the U.N. Net Nanny hardwired into every new computer server system sold in the world. Watch criticism disappear before your very eyes!

This man is DEAD ON!

UN Evacuation Nears Conclusion
By BlammO Anonymous
FNN - Fantasy News Network
October 9, 200?

With helicopters hovering overhead and road crews placing the last traffic barricades, the final group of UN staffers, about 195 total, were escorted from the UN headquarters complex by U. S. Homeland Security personnel.  As with the other UN personnel removed by force in the last 24 hours, including Secretary General Kofi Annan, this final group will also be transported to detention facilities at the U. S. Navy base in Guantanamo, Cuba.

The scene is very amusing to at least one New York resident.  Ray Smith, a worker in a nearby office building has witnessed much of the armed evacuation.  "It's amazing how fast this came together.  I mean, the construction crews have already boarded every window on my building and nearly all the others in the immediate area.  I can't wait for Saturday!" said the 41-year old engineer.  Smith was referring to the planned demolition of the entire complex, scheduled for 9:11 am this Saturday morning.

Although Americans nationwide are extremely enthusiastic about the developments this week, some are admittedly concerned about the pace of progress.  "Look, the UN makes some dumbass statement on Tuesday and here we are, two days later with the entire staff on its way to Gitmo, the area cordoned off, soldiers on every street corner -- hell, they even have heavy machine gun emplacements every few blocks and look at what the tank tracks are doing to the pavement.  How do they think they can level the entire complex by Saturday with explosives without causing collateral damage?  It's just irresponsible.  They need more time to think it through," said one concerned New Yorker.

Concerns aside, all of the involved agencies have worked together with unprecedented levels of cooperation to make the necessary preparations.  Mayor Bloomberg acted hastily to clear a corridor through Manhattan, allowing expedited deliveries of demolition charges to be brought on-scene with minimal bureaucracy.  The Department of Defense has even pulled several demolition teams out of Iraq and Afghanistan to coordinate the project.  Critics have complained that this should be handled by a commercial contractor with a track record of safety in urban demolitions.  "We considered going the commercial route, but rejected that.  When you're faced with an international enemy, who do you call?  The guy from the Yellow Pages?  No, we decided this is a job for our men in uniform.  And it's great practice for them," said Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld.

Although the plan to deal with the UN personnel has not yet been made public, many insiders in Washington believe there will be a series of military tribunals held for key staffers and high level directors.  Jackson Industries, an industrial supplier based in Florida, acknowledged yesterday an unusual order for lumber and rope, destined for Guantanamo Naval Base.

In his televised address last night, the President stated, "the enemies of America will no longer be tolerated, either on our soil or abroad.  It's time to roll up our sleeves and kick some ass, and I just got a new pair of boots."

Quoted: UN Evacuation Nears Conclusion By BlammO Anonymous FNN - Fantasy News Network October 9, 200? With helicopters hovering overhead and road crews placing the last traffic barricades, the final group of UN staffers, about 195 total, were escorted from the UN headquarters complex by U. S. Homeland Security personnel.  As with the other UN personnel removed by force in the last 24 hours, including Secretary General Kofi Annan, this final group will also be transported to detention facilities at the U. S. Navy base in Guantanamo, Cuba. The scene is very amusing to at least one New York resident.  Ray Smith, a worker in a nearby office building has witnessed much of the armed evacuation.  "It's amazing how fast this came together.  I mean, the construction crews have already boarded every window on my building and nearly all the others in the immediate area.  I can't wait for Saturday!" said the 41-year old engineer.  Smith was referring to the planned demolition of the entire complex, scheduled for 9:11 am this Saturday morning. Although Americans nationwide are extremely enthusiastic about the developments this week, some are admittedly concerned about the pace of progress.  "Look, the UN makes some dumbass statement on Tuesday and here we are, two days later with the entire staff on its way to Gitmo, the area cordoned off, soldiers on every street corner -- hell, they even have heavy machine gun emplacements every few blocks and look at what the tank tracks are doing to the pavement.  How do they think they can level the entire complex by Saturday with explosives without causing collateral damage?  It's just irresponsible.  They need more time to think it through," said one concerned New Yorker. Concerns aside, all of the involved agencies have worked together with unprecedented levels of cooperation to make the necessary preparations.  Mayor Bloomberg acted hastily to clear a corridor through Manhattan, allowing expedited deliveries of demolition charges to be brought on-scene with minimal bureaucracy.  The Department of Defense has even pulled several demolition teams out of Iraq and Afghanistan to coordinate the project.  Critics have complained that this should be handled by a commercial contractor with a track record of safety in urban demolitions.  "We considered going the commercial route, but rejected that.  When you're faced with an international enemy, who do you call?  The guy from the Yellow Pages?  No, we decided this is a job for our men in uniform.  And it's great practice for them," said Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld. Although the plan to deal with the UN personnel has not yet been made public, many insiders in Washington believe there will be a series of military tribunals held for key staffers and high level directors.  Jackson Industries, an industrial supplier based in Florida, acknowledged yesterday an unusual order for lumber and rope, destined for Guantanamo Naval Base. In his televised address last night, the President stated, "the enemies of America will no longer be tolerated, either on our soil or abroad.  It's time to roll up our sleeves and kick some ass, and I just got a new pair of boots."

one can dream ... right?

I simply dont understand their posititon, the US completely developed and implimented the Internet, and these UN assholes think that they deserve it??

If flying a plane into the UN building would solve this problem I might start taking flying lessons.

I don't think it's ever been more painfuly obvious than now that we need to get out of the UN.

Eventually we're going to have some asshat president, like say, Hillary in 08, that'll let the UN come right into our country and start making policy.

Kofi is just dying for the chance to wipe is nasty ass with our constitution.

How many US citizens would need to speak up in order for the .gov to actually pull the US membership card?

Fortunately the US .gov would never let the UN control the internet, since they are already planning on ruining it for themselves by taxing the living shit out of it. By the time our government is done fucking it up the UN won't even want it.

Quoted: You should realize that the Internet is possibly the most terrifying weapon ever developed. At last to these third world despots. One reason china wanted Hong Kong back was the fact that the students used fax machines there to let the world know what was going on at Tianamen Square. The Internet is much  more powerful than simple fax machines and therefore more dangerous. Just look how much our own mainstream media hates the internet. People can find out about things on their own and make their own decisions, not what they are told. Just look at the difference in the reporting in Internet blogs from Iraq compared to the MSM. The Mugabes, Anans, and Ayotollahs are aware of this and fear it more than our military. For this reason alone, we can`t give th UN control of the internet.

+100

The internet had a much greater impact on our 2000 and 2004 elections than most people realize.
And I agree that the media sees it as a threat to their efforts to mold the world into their view. Frankly, I view the media as more dangerous than our government, if for no other reason than I can't "elect them out of office".

All the more reason to keep the internet in the public domain, because it's the First Amendment taken to a global scope, and for that reason it's priceless.

Quoted: IMO... Kofi Annan should be put up against a wall and shot.

A big + 1!

Didn't Al Gore invent the internet? How can the UN act as if they have authority to tax and control it? Maybe, Al sold the rights?

Quoted: Quoted: UN Evacuation Nears Conclusion By BlammO Anonymous FNN - Fantasy News Network October 9, 200? <snip> one can dream ... right?

It's all I have left.  

Quoted: Quoted: IMO... Kofi Annan should be put up against a wall and shot. A big + 1! Didn't Al Gore invent the internet? How can the UN act as if they have authority to tax and control it? Maybe, Al sold the rights?

Gore's too busy re-inventing the internet with currentTV.
Al Gore Invented the Internet: Snopes. This is one of those false rumors I prefer to think is true.

Other Gore quotes

Just think what this will do to sites like AR-15.com and AK-47.net...............they decide that they dont like gunboards on the net due to the "offensive" nature of them,  and voila! No more internet gunboards..........the U.S. does not need to let them have control of this at all

And just how would they 'take over' anything?

Troops on the ground in the US? Like who?

Quoted: Just think what this will do to sites like AR-15.com and AK-47.net...............they decide that they dont like gunboards on the net due to the "offensive" nature of them,  and voila! No more internet gunboards..........the U.S. does not need to let them have control of this at all

According to them government employees are the only ones that should be allowed to have guns
(a lot of government employees probably agree with them about that too)

UN approved computers will feature no Pr0n or guns and will funnel money from your bank account to Kofi Annan's son's Mercedes-Benz trust fund...

Quoted: I'm sure a president Hillary would love to hear what the UN has to offer in the ways of the internet. A real president would run all of the UN members out of their building to their limos, tell them planes are waiting to take them back home, and destroy the UN building as they pull away. Scott

you know this is one instance where I would be in favor of NYC Eding the UN building.

Well the blue helmets will have another thing coming when they try to come and take my DNS servers.

Never thought it would come to that.

I dont pretend to be a know it all about the internet, but the basic nature of the net precludes any UN interference even if they controled what they wanted. Mostly what they want is Domain name and protocol standards. This has nothing to do with content. In reality i dont think it's even possable to control content. I mean come on the US companies are not for child porn but it goes on anyway. Why? Cause it is impossable to control content based on Domain name registration or the various Protocols used for networking between comps on the "net". Im still against UN control but even if it did happen  their aint shit they can do about free speech. Countries like China and Iran control their end of the net through a national "firewall" that tries to block and filter out "freedom" So basically every connection in China has to be "govt" approved first.

That's correct. There would have to be a global ban on private ownership of a DNS server. Maybe a global certification of DNS servers, etc...

Not going to happen.

At some point, the loggerheads in governments around the world are going to realize that they indeed cannot legislate the internet itself, and simply try to start banning it.

WTF, this is friggin scary. I don't really know how the internet is "owned and operated". But I do know I wouldn't want it controlled by the U.N. Did't the U.S. military develop the first "internet" as a fail proof way to comunicate during a disaster or nuclear conflict? If anybody really owns it, shouldn't it be the U.S.?

Check on the methods of control utilized in communist countries and then say it can't be done.......
and, I would never underestimate the willpower of the un when it comes to worldwide taxing power

You do know that they are currently trying to get the taxing authority for ALL INTERNATIONAL FLIGHTS
(of course............its for the children)

Quoted: In their view, the rich and successful have a moral duty to tend to the lower classes. They also do not subscribe to the view that rich people add value to the economy.  They think that rich people take away far more than they put in, therefore, the rich should be taxed as heavily as possible in order to acheive a balance.

That's their public line. In reality they are all crooks that want to rob the poor and degrade the middle class so that they elite can increase their wealth and tighten their strangle hold on the massess.

Their goal here is two fold:

1. Crush the entraprenurial spirit. With the Internet, anyone with $50 a month can set up a website and peddle their wears to the entire world. Joe Sixpack can literally compete with global corporations for customers and rise above his current state.

2. Crush free speech. Likewise, anyone, anywhere in the world can publicly criticize any authority and they can literally have the entire world as an audience.

These two abilities give the common folks too much power and too much independance. Who needs a UN if people are able to develop their own economic freedom and speak their minds freely?

Yup, hillary was saying the other day that she didn't like people being to say whatever they
wanted about anyone without the "injured party" being able to bring libel charges against them

so, if she wins, she might be helping the un take control.............

I don't see how it could work. What I think would happen would be that once the UN shows it's true colors on the free exchange of ideas, there would be the UN owned DNS servers, and the ones that the private citizens in the United States would run. The two wouldn't mix, and the rest of the world would only get the web pages the UN wanted them to get, while the United States goes it's merry way thumbing it's nose at the UN.
Also, remember, DNS is not the only way to resolve domain names to IP address.

Quoted: Quoted: Just think what this will do to sites like AR-15.com and AK-47.net...............they decide that they dont like gunboards on the net due to the "offensive" nature of them,  and voila! No more internet gunboards..........the U.S. does not need to let them have control of this at all According to them government employees are the only ones that should be allowed to have guns (a lot of government employees probably agree with them about that too)

.mil people are government employees and I'd bet my savings they don't think soldiers should have guns outside of their issue weapons when their qualifiying or deployed. And even then they probably think soldiers on deployment should only be able to carry their weapons when they are getting ready to go out and use them...

Quoted: This has nothing to do with content. In reality i dont think it's even possable to control content.

Did you miss out on the whole piracy and Napster thing. Or just simple warez, appz, and other such sites where you can download "pirated" CONTENT.

They get shutdown pretty frequently. Usually it's by the host servers themselves. So if someone simply dictated to more of the big web hosting companies what could and could not be displayed through their servers, it would get pretty bad.

I think you'd be surprised just how many sites do get shutdown on a day to day basis. It's hard to get a clear statistic on something like that because the internet is practically endless in its content.

Not saying I think the UN could ever do anything on a large scale... or even a small scale. The internet is what it is and they're not very likely to succeed in controlling any more than they'll be able to control the AIDS epidemic in Africa.