Concern over secret meeting in Dubai

Topic

New Reply

I’m really concerned right now about a UN meeting going on in Dubai. They are discussing the handing over of ownership of the internet to the UN!

Right now, the internet is wide open and for the most part, unrestricted. It is the greatest source of free speech by far that the world has ever known. And free speech is perhaps our most important right and tool for insuring all of our other rights, because it allows us to expose those who would trample our rights.

I see absolutely no upside in handing control of the internet over to the UN. Here are some negatives that I believe will result:

* Lots of restrictions on the content of what you say and post on the internet.

* No more free internet — we will have to pay for the privilege.

* The UN will have access to our credit card numbers when we log on to the internet and then pay to to use it.

* Dictatorships will more easily be able to crack down on dissidents, because they will have control over URLs which originate in their countries.

The scary part of all this is that these negotiations are going on behind closed doors. In other words, our elected representatives want to secretly hand over a huge part of our freedom to the unelected bureaucrats of the UN!

Does this concern anyone else besides me?

Group "L" (Linux Mint)
with Windows 10 running in a remote session on my file server

Reply | Quote

Replies

I moved this from the Win 8 thread it was in to a new thread of it’s own in the General Windows Forum. This seems a more appropriate Forum for this thread.

Do you any have substantiation to these claims? These seem rather vague. Are there any referenced articles?

I would be concerned, but until there is anything substantial this seems all conjecture at this point.

Reply | Quote

I think this should go in Scuttlebut, Ted, it’s not really a Windows topic.

This is substantiated and I agree with the concerns of the first post. I think the rationale behind the proposal is that it’s not right for an US organization to have control over the internet.

Here is some more info, including the EU parliament expressing concern over the move: http://edition.myjoyonline.com/pages/science/201211/97701.php

Reply | Quote

Here are some negatives that I believe will result:

* Lots of restrictions on the content of what you say and post on the internet.

* No more free internet — we will have to pay for the privilege.

* The UN will have access to our credit card numbers when we log on to the internet and then pay to to use it.

* Dictatorships will more easily be able to crack down on dissidents, because they will have control over URLs which originate in their countries.

I see no harm, or more specifically, not much difference from now.

[*]The internet is not a place of free speech. The laws of Libel and Slander still apply (at least in this country and many others). If I am libelous towards somebody on the internet, I expect to be held account for it.
[*]
[*]The internet is not free. You already have to pay to access the network at point of entry. By definition, that’s what an Internet Service Provider does.
[*]
[*]Your ISP already has your billing information and, subject to due legal process, must assist with local law enforcement as it stands right now.
[*]
[*]Dictatorships already crack down on what their citizens can access. The Great Firewall of China is one of the most obvious examples and of course there are many others.
[*]

Consider this: ICANN used to be under contractual agreement (at not cost to either party) to the US Department of Commerce to administer the Global Top Level Domains. Is a US governement department better placed to “administer the internet” than the “UN”?

The administration contract was due for re-let in March this year but was not placed. Reasons given, according to commentators were that the US Department of Commerce received no proposals that met the requirements requested by the global community. Other interpretations were less kind.

If the control of gTLD’s is handed to the ITU or some other non governmental organisation, then it may better serve the global community and be free of the potential for state control. I have no developed view myself, but I’m aware that others feel uneasy about a contact let by a government department to administer the gTLD’s – those who hold such views feel that such a contract is not independent of state control and could in times of crisis be called in.

Reply | Quote

Is a US governement department better placed to “administer the internet” than the “UN”?

Yes, a US government department is better placed to “administer the internet” than the “UN”.

The UN is an unaccountable, corrupt organization full of governments who couldn’t care less about the rights of their people. Most of the Western governments at least try to respect the rights of their people. But think of China or Iran. Think of the Muslim world. There is absolutely no free speech in those countries. They crack down hard on actual or perceived dissidents. And these countries have a big say in what the UN does. Do you really want them deciding if what you do on the internet is appropriate?

Group "L" (Linux Mint)
with Windows 10 running in a remote session on my file server

Reply | Quote

….But think of China or Iran. Think of the Muslim world.

Well, I for one am not going to get dragged into a debate that stereotypes countries’ belief systems.

But, to re-iterate, the ITU cannot take over the management of the internet at the forthcoming conference. It has no mandate to do so and there are no proposals at the convention to change that.

And remember a very important aspect: The Internet is not the same thing as the World Wide Web.

Reply | Quote

And remember a very important aspect: The Internet is not the same thing as the World Wide Web.

Could you explain why that’s important?

Brucde

Reply | Quote

It’s because the premise that a Government can claim control over something that one of it’s citizens “invented”.

If the argument goes that Vinten Cerf invented The Internet because of his work on TCP/IP, then equally valid is the claim that Tim Berners-Lee invented the World Wide Web by his work on HTTP, HTML and URL’s. So on that basis, the US can claim to have control of how data is moved around the network and the UK can claim control how humans interact with that network.

My point therefore (perhaps rather obtusely made) was to illuminate the somewhat dubious claims of sovereignty.

Let me also reiterate: I would rather the status quo than heavy handed regulation, but that does not mean that one should not question if the status quo is ideal.

Reply | Quote

I would rather the status quo than heavy handed regulation, but that does not mean that one should not question if the status quo is ideal.

Very good point.

Group "L" (Linux Mint)
with Windows 10 running in a remote session on my file server

Reply | Quote

I’m really concerned right now about a UN meeting going on in Dubai.

The meeting is next week (December 3-12): World Conference on International Telecommunications 2012

But the 178 countries don’t vote; any change has to be unanimous: “Whatever one single country does not accept will not pass.”

So it would seem impossible for the proposals by Russia, China and India to succeed.

In other words, our elected representatives want to secretly hand over a huge part of our freedom to the unelected bureaucrats of the UN!

The US House of Representatives unanimously voted against the plan four months ago: US House to ITU: Hands off the Internet

Bruce

Reply | Quote

The US House of Representatives unanimously voted against the plan four months ago: US House to ITU: Hands off the Internet

Bruce

If they try to pass it through as a treaty, the US House of Representatives has nothing to say about it, only the Senate, and then only by a majority vote — unless it is filibustered.

The thing that really is lowdown about this whole thing (from an American perspective) is that the United States created the internet, and the United States keeps it as free as it can possibly be kept. In short, it’s working as well as it can possibly work right now, that is, if free speech and freedom of expression is your goal. But certain American politicians are about to hand that right over to the UN! Think about that. Many of the member countries of the UN do not respect free speech rights. Those American politicians who are trying to secretly hand over the internet to the UN are selling out their country.

If we turn the internet over to the UN, there will begin to be lots of restrictions on it. For example, if the UN believes that a website is anti-Islam, they will shut it down.

Group "L" (Linux Mint)
with Windows 10 running in a remote session on my file server

Reply | Quote

But certain American politicians are about to hand that right over to the UN! Think about that.

Do we know which American politicians? Dick Morris and Vinton Cerf don’t seem to comment on that.

Bruce

Reply | Quote

Do we know which American politicians? Dick Morris and Vinton Cerf don’t seem to comment on that.

Bruce

We could start with Susan Rice, the UN Ambassador. She has to be very involved with this.

Her boss, Barack Obama, is likely the one directing her to push for this; she wouldn’t do this sort of thing on her own.

Harry Reid, the Senate Majority leader, is likely involved, because any proposed treaty will have to pass the Senate, and also because he is such a lock-step supporter of Obama.

Group "L" (Linux Mint)
with Windows 10 running in a remote session on my file server

Reply | Quote

I have heard about this.

Do you really want the UN, one of the most corrupt organizations in the world, having ANY control over the internet.???

It’s full of countries that abuse it’s citizens human rights and regularly put people in prison for expressing their speech rights and any other thing they deem to be a threat to their corrupt ruling class…

Reply | Quote

Do you really want the UN, one of the most corrupt organizations in the world, having ANY control over the internet.???

It’s full of countries that abuse it’s citizens human rights and regularly put people in prison for expressing their speech rights and any other thing they deem to be a threat to their corrupt ruling class…

What’s your definition of “full”? A handful out of 193?

Bruce

Reply | Quote

Here’s an article about the forthcoming ITU Convention in The Register.

It’s clear from statements that the ITU has no intention of passing any resolutions to rest control:

The resolution, submitted by the Pirate Party among others, and passed last week, objects to the ITU trying to control the internet, at its meeting in two weeks, while ignoring the inconvenient truth that the ITU isn’t trying to control the internet as the body explains in a blog posting on the subject.

There is a lot of FUD being disseminated by large corporations, most vocal of which is Google. These corps have a vested interest in the status quo.

In other words, our elected representatives want to secretly hand over a huge part of our freedom to the unelected bureaucrats of the UN!

Internet freedoms are much less than many people assume: the internet is not the Wild West as many associates of Anonymous and Lulzsec have found to their cost. Additionally, your elected representatives are not my elected representatives, nor that of another 6.7 Billion inhabitants of this planet.

As it stands, the administration of the internet is under the effective control of one country via the contractual arrangement’s for the control of gTLD’s. Although there has been not the slightest hint (that I’m aware of) of any state interference in that mechanism and the process has worked well, there exists, in the eyes of some, a potential for interference.

The balanced position is that a transparent and independent body is required, not one that can be skewed by geo-politics, ideology or insular viewpoints.

Reply | Quote

Well Bruce, I only expressed my opinion and really don’t want to get into a political discussion over what I wrote.

I’m sure you understand.

Reply | Quote

Well Bruce, I only expressed my opinion and really don’t want to get into a political discussion over what I wrote.

I’m sure you understand.

OK, but freedom does exist outside the USA. There’s more green than red on the map.

Bruce

Reply | Quote

I agree with Bruce. Unfortunately some parts of the world are not a warm cosy place to live, and personally I would be rather happier with the current arrangements than some of the other possibilities.

However, if I can add one final balancing point to the confusion about the ITU wishing to exert control:

In response to this claim by the EU, it is important to note that ITU’s mandate in the Internet is laid down by the Plenipotentiary Conference Resolutions which were agreed to by consensus in 2010.

Nothing can be agreed at WCIT-12 to change or negate this mandate.

In addition to this point, no proposals exist to give more power to ITU as an institution, which does not have any regulatory authority over any networks whatsoever.

Networks are regulated by national governments, not by ITU – which is a multi-stakeholder, bottom-up organization.

Source

Reply | Quote

I got my information from http://www.dickmorris.com. Dick Morris said that Vinten Cerf, the father of the internet, was getting concerned about the secret negotiations going on in Dubai, and so he created a wikileaks type of website and asked for information about what was going on. People started posting to his website, and that’s where Dick Morris got his information.

Here are an article and a video by Dick Morris:
http://www.dickmorris.com/stop-un-control-of-the-web/
http://www.dickmorris.com/stop-un-control-of-the-internet-dick-morris-tv-lunch-alert/

Here is the site where people with access to info are posting information:
http://wcitleaks.org/

Group "L" (Linux Mint)
with Windows 10 running in a remote session on my file server

Reply | Quote

I’m really concerned right now about a UN meeting going on in Dubai. They are discussing the handing over of ownership of the internet to the UN!

Right now, the internet is wide open and for the most part, unrestricted. It is the greatest source of free speech by far that the world has ever known. And free speech is perhaps our most important right and tool for insuring all of our other rights, because it allows us to expose those who would trample our rights.

I see absolutely no upside in handing control of the internet over to the UN. Here are some negatives that I believe will result:

* Lots of restrictions on the content of what you say and post on the internet.

* No more free internet — we will have to pay for the privilege.

* The UN will have access to our credit card numbers when we log on to the internet and then pay to to use it.

* Dictatorships will more easily be able to crack down on dissidents, because they will have control over URLs which originate in their countries.

The scary part of all this is that these negotiations are going on behind closed doors. In other words, our elected representatives want to secretly hand over a huge part of our freedom to the unelected bureaucrats of the UN!

Does this concern anyone else besides me?

No because it’ll never happen.

1 The US will never willingly cede control of their assets.
2 The UN can barely be relied upon to agree on the color of s**t.
3 The UN can always be relied upon to make proposals nobody wants.

Reply | Quote

The UN is an unaccountable, corrupt organization full of governments who couldn’t care less about the rights of their people

And you think the US government is any better? The “Patriot Act” allows the government to snoop on any private citizen via wire tap and//or Internet monitoring without a court order. If you think this is limited to terrorists, you are naive. here in Minnesota we have just had a bunch of unauthorized uses of the driver’s license and video camera databases totally unrelated to any crime by police and government workers. Not to forget the Nixon enemies list. I shudder to think what Nixon would have done if he had the Patriot act in existence at that time.

Jerry

Reply | Quote

And you think the US government is any better? The “Patriot Act” allows the government to snoop on any private citizen via wire tap and//or Internet monitoring without a court order. If you think this is limited to terrorists, you are naive. here in Minnesota we have just had a bunch of unauthorized uses of the driver’s license and video camera databases totally unrelated to any crime by police and government workers. Not to forget the Nixon enemies list. I shudder to think what Nixon would have done if he had the Patriot act in existence at that time.

Jerry

Jerry, with all due respect, I think the US government is a lot better.

(And by the way, I agree with your very real concerns about an over intrusive government.)

Do you recall the 2009 revolution in Iran? There was a massive popular revolt against the government. The government literally beat people to a pulp in the streets and did all sorts of other despicable things to them. Do you remember Tieneman Square, where peaceful protestors were mowed down by tanks and bullets?

Do you honestly think that these things are comparable to the Patriot Act?

My point was not to get into political discussions, but rather to voice my concern that the internet, which we all know and love, may be in danger of being greatly restricted.

Group "L" (Linux Mint)
with Windows 10 running in a remote session on my file server

Reply | Quote

Hey, let’s think about the US. They even read the CIA’s chief email…

Reply | Quote

Do you recall the 2009 revolution in Iran? There was a massive popular revolt against the government. The government literally beat people to a pulp in the streets and did all sorts of other despicable things to them. Do you remember Tieneman Square, where peaceful protesters were mowed down by tanks and bullets?

Do you honestly think that these things are comparable to the Patriot Act?

We’re not talking about civil rights here but open internet. The US has just as an abysmal record on Internet regulation as most other countries. Remember the DMCA as well as the Patriot act. I don’t claim that other countries aren’t just as bad, but only that the US is not really any better. We also have a lot to answer for on human rights violations but that’s another discussion.

Jerry

Reply | Quote

We’re not talking about civil rights here but open internet. The US has just as an abysmal record on Internet regulation as most other countries. Remember the DMCA as well as the Patriot act. I don’t claim that other countries aren’t just as bad, but only that the US is not really any better. We also have a lot to answer for on human rights violations but that’s another discussion.

Jerry

I respectfully disagree, Jerry.

Personally, I’m willing to bring this topic to a close. My whole point was to bring up the subject, to make other computer professionals aware of the situation.

Everyone is free to research this on their own.

In other words, I really like the fact that these forums are purely tech oriented. I really don’t want to see politics enter in and mess up a really good thing.

That’s my 2c on the subject.

Group "L" (Linux Mint)
with Windows 10 running in a remote session on my file server

Reply | Quote

Here is an update to this.

http://www.nbcnews.com/technology/technolog/us-fails-first-try-protect-internet-new-rules-1C7425954

Reply | Quote

Another one: http://www.zdnet.com/u-s-now-totally-unified-in-opposition-of-u-n-internet-governance-7000008382/

Reply | Quote

Seems nothing will change: http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57559034-38/u.n-summit-implodes-as-u.s-others-spurn-internet-treaty

Reply | Quote

Seems nothing will change: http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57559034-38/u.n-summit-implodes-as-u.s-others-spurn-internet-treaty

Some notable quotes from the cnet article:

Canada said it was forced to reject the proposed treaty because of its commitment to an Internet “in which people are free to participate, communicate, organize and exchange information.”

During a U.N. conference in Tunisia in 2005…Iran and African governments proclaimed that the Internet permits too much free speech, with Cuba’s delegate announcing that Fidel Castro believes it’s time to create a new organization “which administers this network of networks.”

Group "L" (Linux Mint)
with Windows 10 running in a remote session on my file server

Reply | Quote

http://www.nbcnews.com/technology/technolog/talks-internet-treaty-fail-us-bloc-wont-sign-1C7596293

Reply | Quote

But certain American politicians are about to hand that right over to the UN! Think about that.

Did they fail miserably?

U.S. Rejects Telecommunications Treaty

Bruce

Reply | Quote

It appears that the US, Canada, and one or two other Western countries have backed out of the treaty. They didn’t realize that the proposed treaty would have given the UN control over the CONTENT of the internet.

At least that was the official reason. In my opinion, the real reason was that they saw that public opinion was going heavily against the treaty.

FREE SPEECH TRIUMPHS!

Group "L" (Linux Mint)
with Windows 10 running in a remote session on my file server

Reply | Quote

It appears that the US, Canada, and one or two other Western countries have backed out of the treaty. They didn’t realize that the proposed treaty would have given the UN control over the CONTENT of the internet.

I might be wrong – it was a very complex conference – but the way I read it was the countries who did not want to sign up to the resolution (and there were plenty more than 4 Western countries) did so because they could not agree with clauses handing more control to individual states rather than the ITU. Bear that in mind: the proposed treaty would not have given any degree of control to the ITU, only to member states – I’ll be referring back to that point.

One can debate the nuances of free speech until the cows come home, but in my book sovereign states must be allowed to decide their own rules and laws and not have them imposed by others.

Here in the UK, we ran empire for several hundred years. Only now, in more enlightened times, do we realise that it was utterly wrong and immoral of us to impose our own belief systems on others because they were somehow “less developed” than us. It could be argued that was one of the main reasons why our cousins across the Atlantic quite rightly declared their independence – to ensure their right to self determination. Yet now, several Western countries are dictating terms to other countries on what they should or should not be allowed to do to TCP/IP networks inside their own borders.

A rhetorical question: Nothing is black and white – it is all shades of grey. Once could argue that doing nothing to prevent the rise of Pre-war Germany was allowing a sovereign state to determine it’s own policies. Nobody in their right mind nowadays would try argue that it was wrong to stand up and be counted in 1939, but where on that spectrum does it become acceptable to intervene and say “No” to a country that wishes to control TCP/IP inside it’s own boundaries?…..Remember that opening statement: the proposed treaty would not have given any degree of control to the ITU, only to member states.

Reply | Quote

where on that spectrum does it become acceptable to intervene and say “No” to a country that wishes to control TCP/IP inside it’s own boundaries?

If a “free speech” country currently has control of the internet, then in my opinion it would be wrong to give that control to a “non-free speech” country, even though that control pertains to the people living inside of that country. The reason I believe this is because I believe that free speech is perhaps the greatest ensurer of all human rights.

If, say, a dictatorship already had full control over the internet in its own country, then it would be perhaps a declaration of war for some other country to demand control of the internet in that dictatorship’s country.

In this case, it is the “free speech” country which has control of the internet. Therefore, in the interest of free speech and free dissemination of information into / out of / and within the “non-free speech” countries of the world, I think it would be foolish for the “free speech” country to give up control of the internet. By maintaining control of the internet, the “free speech” country accomplishes more for the cause of human rights around the world than any other activity would accomplish.

I can’t think of an easier way to defend human rights around the world than that.

Group "L" (Linux Mint)
with Windows 10 running in a remote session on my file server

Reply | Quote

If you ask me, it was lunacy ever to try to get consensus at the ITU conference in bringing that particular treaty to the table. It also calls into question the modus operandi of the ITU in never taking a binding vote and always seeking consensus. Great for technical standards et al, but for a geo-political issue such as this?

The ITU has and continues to undertake sterling work in the standardisation of telecommunications across the globe, but with something as emotive as the internet, where national pride (as well as national security) was at stake, it was never going to reach consensus with the proposals.

It is worth re-stating again that the ITU would not have gained control of the internet had it passed the treaty – the treaty attempted to place more control in the hands of member states. Perhaps, if (and it’s a very big if), a truly independent body could be found then maybe there is a case for “handing over control”.

I can sympathise with the reasons why a treaty was tabled – for some, it is time to move on from the historical roots of ARPANET and move the administration to an independent process. It is considered by some that for one country, whether an advocate of free speech or otherwise, to effectively hold the strings is an unhealthy state of affairs.

In the end however, it doesn’t matter whether the treaty was passed or not. Internet filtering is very much a reality in many countries and national governments already control network access where they deem it necessary. Here in the UK the government has just backed away from forcing ISP’s to impose default network restrictions on users accessing “adult material”. In my view, ultimately, the only thing the now defunct treaty would have determined is the international legitimacy of such controls.

Reply | Quote

Ya i agree with you!! It is not restricted now and we can say whatever we feel!
We can protest,talk,make fun whatever we want but if it comes under someone’s control then all these things will come to an end!
Hoping it never happens

Reply | Quote

This two-page summary, of what actually took place at the meeting by someone who was there, is interesting:

Behind closed doors at the UN’s attempted “takeover of the Internet”

Despite the ITU’s assurance in advance that there would be no voting, because their decisions require consensus from all countries, the Chairman tried to push through changes by a show of hands several times. But 55 out of 144 countries did not sign the treaty.

And the Secretary-General’s closing statement emphasizing that the treaty text did not include Internet provisions conflicts somewhat with his recommendation during negotiations that references to the Internet should not be replaced.

I think their spin doctor should have got a medal:

Conference concludes in Dubai with 89 countries having signed the updated International Telecommunication Regulations

Bruce

Reply | Quote