UN beachside conferencing goes way beyond plans for a December blowout on Bali, and the UN agenda goes way beyond taxing us in the name of controlling the weather. Live, right now, the UN is continuing its grab to control the internet, with a Nov. 12-15 conference in Rio de Janeiro (beach facilities shown in accompanying photo).
Big on the agenda is the UN-based campaign to take away control of the internet from the U.S. The aim, now that U.S. freedoms and resulting creativity (not Al Gore, his own claims notwithstanding) have brought mankind this marvelous gift of the internet, is to confiscate management of the World Wide Web and turn it over to the same grand conclave of UN potentates whose members include the web-censoring likes of dissident-jailing China, monk-murdering Burma, terrorist-sponsoring bomb-making Iran, and 2008 members-elect of the Security Council, Libya and Vietnam.
This current pow-wow in Brazil is the work of the UN-based Internet Governance Forum (IGF), which — with a secretariat now entrenched in an office at the UN’s palatial (BMW-rich) complex in Geneva — has been following up on the UN’s second World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS). That internet summit, as you might recall, was held in November, 2005 in internet-censoring Tunisia — initial sponsor in 1998 of this UN bid to cash in on the web.
The current Rio proceedings, bankrolled by yet another of those murky special UN extra-budgetary trust funds, boasting more than 1,000 participants, and complete with a UN media team, are being broadcast live at this link. I tuned in Sunday afternoon long enough to hear one of the speakers, Mr. Fernandez Gonzalez, declaring — a familiar theme at UN conclaves — that the market model of development is a “disaster,” that what’s needed is an internet managed under the UN tent as yet another global redistribution scheme, etc etc etc. That would be the same despot-packed, unreformed, opaque and unaccountable UN that won’t disclose details of its own getting and spending, and has failed abysmally to reform its own dysfunctional and unjust internal “justice” system, while operating across borders, outside any normal system of law.
Coming up next on the UN IGF internet-grab agenda, complete with per diems for the UN support staff and power plays for the despotic governments of the planet: a 2008 meeting in India, 2009 in Egypt… and beyond. Enjoy the freedom of the internet while we’ve still got it.
Digg This
del.icio.us
PJM Home
19 Comments
1. Tood:India is NOT a despotic government.
Nov 12, 2007 - 9:41 pm 2. jum1801:It is telling that they’re not even bothering these days to disguise either their intent to obtain the means to throttle the US or their glee at the prospect.
Nov 12, 2007 - 9:50 pm 3. Harvey:Well hear is the next step to one world government,control the sea,control our guns, control our climate, control our information.
Nov 12, 2007 - 9:56 pm 4. Jeff:It’s way past time to get out of this worthless organization.
India and Egypt both maintain tight government regulation over the Internet, which is what I think he was getting at.
Nov 12, 2007 - 10:03 pm 5. Letalis Maximus, Esq.:Yep, and all controlled by the appointed rather than the elected.
Bad juju.
By the way, Tood (Tard?), she didn’t say Indian was despotic, she said there was going to be a meeting in India in 2008. It is called “reading comprehension,” OK?
Nov 12, 2007 - 10:08 pm 6. Punditius:Well, I’m no technical expert, but (1) exactly what chance is there that the military will allow anyone else to control our portion of the internet and (2) what makes anyone think that corporate America will let the UN control what they can put on the web?
About the worst that will happen is that we’ll wind up with a free world internet, and a commie/dictatorship/authoritarian internet. Which I believe we have already?
Nov 12, 2007 - 10:55 pm 7. Nancy Gee:Personally, I’m rather looking forward to watching the UN’s Smurfs march up to the door of the Pentagon, knock, and announce that they’ve come to take America’s internet away from us.
Do you suppose we’ll pull out of the UN and kick them out of NY before or after that attempt?
Nov 13, 2007 - 1:07 am 8. Vadept:Er, how?
So the UN decides that the internet belongs to it. US vetos. Or not. Whatever. It’s not like anything the UN has ever done has been binding in anyway. At best, a UN vote adds a nice gold star to some diplomats record. That’s it.
The only reason the UN will get control of the internet is if we let them.
Nov 13, 2007 - 2:19 am 9. Off Colfax:What, precisely, does a European-based individual owning a BMW have to do with anything? A Beemer is about as expensive over there as a Chevy is here in the US.
Second, has it ever occured to you that the United Nations is the most pure example of a full small-r republican governing body the world has ever seen? And the only problem with it seems to be that the US and her allies are in a near-permanent minority?
There’s only one thing worse than strawman arguments: easily identifiable strawman arguments.
Lather. Rinse. Research. Repeat.
Nov 13, 2007 - 3:09 am 10. Pantera:Off Colfax,
Nov 13, 2007 - 9:13 am 11. jo:The only problem with the UN is we’re in the minority? I think there’s more to it than that. Like the widespread corruption of the Un, its impotency, and the fact that it gives any and all governments legitimentcy (except Isreal).
Yes, I love the “bmw driving officials” comment, so deliciously biased and un related to the arguement and of course completely wrong since bmw are so cheap in europe. Lol
Nov 13, 2007 - 9:26 am 12. Revenge of the Straw:Second, has it ever occured to you that the United Nations is the most pure example of a full small-r republican governing body the world has ever seen?
Why does that matter? There are scores of governments participating in this “republican” government that are corrupt or cruel and their subjects suffer greatly. To say that it’s ok that Zimbabwe or Iran gets the same vote as Spain or Australia because we’re witnessing “pure republican governing” is moral weakness at its best. The U.S. government is far from perfect but there are many, many governments that get a seat at the table in the UN who do far more despotic things. To preach otherwise, while you live in the safety of a democratic country where genuine protest is allowed, is repulsive.
Nov 13, 2007 - 9:42 am 13. AmericanScribbles:Regardless of what the UN “decides” should be done with the Internet/WWW, the US government should pass legislation forbidding any US company, or any multi-national corporation which is lisenced to operate inside the United States, from allowing a UN controlled internet to use any computer system (backbone hardware or software) for any purpose, whatsoever.
Shutting down the US portion of the Internet backbone would cripple the Internet in a matter of minutes and render it functionally useless.
If the UN wants to play these kinds of power-play games, we should breakout the hardballs and commece firing at full speed.
Nov 13, 2007 - 10:55 am 14. Shawn Levasseur:If the U.N. seizes the internet, watch for the creation of a private internet, most likely following an “open source” model.
The problem isn’t that the U.N. will trump the U.S. government, but that it is more likely to trump individual rights on the ‘net. It’s a question of personal sovereignty, not national.
Nov 13, 2007 - 11:32 am 15. Joe Blough:There is no such thing as the internet, as such.
The “Internet” is a short-hand name for the fact that MY PC can communicate with someone else’s computer. Lot’s of people use, enjoy and profit from that fact. THAT’S IT!!!!
There’s no “Internet” in the sense of a physical place or even a single big machine. It’s just a name for the fact that lot’s of people set their computers to talk to each other, so the people themselves can interact.
AND IF THOSE SLIME-BALLS THINK THEY CAN GRAB CONTROL OF ***MY*** PC, WELL THEY CAN TRY TO PRY IT FROM MY COLD DEAD HANDS!
Nov 13, 2007 - 1:56 pm 16. mojo:It’s all about the root name servers, boys. And it’ll take a damn sight more than n order from the UN to take control.
Nov 13, 2007 - 3:31 pm 17. Laika's Last Woof:“Second, has it ever occured to you that the United Nations is the most pure example of a full small-r republican governing body the world has ever seen?”
When a governing body is comprised mostly of military dictators we don’t call that a “republic”, we call it a “junta”.
Perhaps you’ve confused the United Nations with the Community of Democracies?
Nov 14, 2007 - 3:24 am 18. Laika's Last Woof:“Lather. Rinse. Research. Repeat.”
Off Colfax may not be the brightest kid in the room, but at least he has clean hair.
Nov 15, 2007 - 3:22 pm 19. Steve:Outstanding site you have!
Would you like a Link Exchange with ‘The Internet Radio Network’? At the IRN you can listen for free to over 50 of America’s top Talk Shows via Free Streaming Audio!!
http://netradionetwork.com
Nov 15, 2007 - 8:41 pm