Pro-Regulation People...........Should the UN Regulate the Internet?

Lamarr

Star
Registered
In light of the WikiLeaks situation, the UN is mulling options to regulate the internet. Freedom of speech should always be protected and never threatened. I, personally, think the market is an excellent regulator. Somewhere along the way, we've lost understanding and confidence that 'the market' is a much stricter regulator

WikiLeaks Sparks Push For Tighter Controls.

The United Nations is considering whether to set up an inter-governmental working group to harmonise global efforts by policy makers to regulate the internet.

Establishment of such a group has the backing of several countries, spearheaded by Brazil.

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.

The Brazilian delegate stressed, however, that this should not be seen as a call for a "takeover" of the internet.

India, South Africa, China and Saudi Arabia appeared to favour a new possible over-arching inter-government body.

However, Australia, US, UK, Belgium and Canada and attending business and community representatives argued there were risks in forming yet another working group that might isolate itself from the industry, community users and the general public.

"My concern is that if we were to make a move to form a governmental-only body then that would send a very strong signal to civil society that their valuable contribution was not required or was not being looked for," an un-named Australian representative told the meeting.

Debate on the creation of a new inter-governmental body stemmed from a UN Economic and Social Council resolution 2010/2 of 19 July.

The resolution invited the UN Secretary-General "to convene open and inclusive consultations involving all Member States and all other stakeholders with a view to assisting the process towards enhanced cooperation in order to enable Governments on an equal footing to carry out their roles and responsibilities in respect of international public policy issues pertaining to the Internet but not of the day-to-day technical and operational matters that do not impact upon those issues."

Much debate concerned the meaning of "enhanced cooperation" and whether a new inter-governmental body was required. Participants also debated the roles of existing organisations - such as the Internet Governance Forum, ICANN and the ITU.

The IGF - an organisation that informs the UN but makes no decisions - is running close to the end of a five-year mandate, due to expire at the end of the year.

The likes of ISOC, ICANN and more recently the World Information Technology and Services Alliance (WITSA) have recently expressed concerns [PDF] that a working panel to decide on the future of the IGF has been limited to representatives from member-states.

"Australia is a very strong supporter of the Internet Governance Forum," the unidentified Australian UN representative said at the New York meeting this week. "That is very much due to the multi-stake-holder approach of the IGF. It is an inclusive process."

Australia's Department of Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy said that Australian Government welcomed the resolution of the Second Committee of the United Nation General Assembly (UNGA) to extend the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) for a further five years.

The DBCDE said it would like to see the organisation retain an open and participatory membership.

"Australia has always supported the participation of civil society and the private sector in the IGF and regards their participation as being integral to the IGF's success," a spokesman told iTnews.
 
If they do this all internet users should not pay taxes for 1 year and vote out the reps from every country that supported this bullshit.
 
Should capitalists regulate the Internet?

it'll regulate itself, the internet can be regulated by the quality of information, also it takes the UN out of the picture. In this digital age, information is easily accessible, for those who choose to look. Don't we like transparency in business, in governmnet?

Plus, the UN was rendered impotent after Bush's unilateral wars of aggression
 
it'll regulate itself, the internet can be regulated by the quality of information, also it takes the UN out of the picture. In this digital age, information is easily accessible, for those who choose to look. Don't we like transparency in business, in governmnet?

Plus, the UN was rendered impotent after Bush's unilateral wars of aggression

it'll regulate itself, the internet can be regulated by the quality of information,

No, as usual. The Internet is judged by the free and equal access to everyone. Quality is a subjective quanity.

In this digital age, information is easily accessible, for those who choose to look.

Again false. You take this for granted. Comcast had was fined a year ago due to their limiting the bandwidth access to several sites. They only reason they were punished was due to government watch dogs.

Don't we like transparency in business, in governmnet?

The only right we have is actual transparency in the public sector, which is the government. The private sector, which iare business are not inherently open to transparency.

What some are calling for is censoring media they don't like:

Allen West: 'I Meant Censure' The Press Over WikiLeaks, Not 'Censor'


What the main reason for suggesting that the UN having a hand in Internet regulation is the USA has been the main watch dog in reguating the Internet since it's inception. Many other nations think this is unfair and want more say so.

I can say yes or no to the UN, because i haven't educated myself on every point of view, however, standards such as measurements, automobile standards, food safety standards and many other standards have commonialities linked to the UN. The US is the only major nation not to adopt the metric system as are standard measurement base. This can be argued as just one reason American children are falling hind in math and science.
 
These people cannot take our freedom unless we cooperate with them. Allowing them to censor or censure the internet would be like giving them a blank check to do whatever they feel like doing. Freedom is not free the sooner we realize that then paying the price for it will get a lot easier.
 
No, as usual. The Internet is judged by the free and equal access to everyone. Quality is a subjective quanity.

Sometimes, I just think you want to be confrontational. As with many discussions we've had, we're saying the same thing. Meaning, the quality of the content on the net is determined by the end-user, therefore, the regulator is the end-user. If the content is no good, the people will dismiss the credibility of the source and the site will suffer in terms of traffic! (Free-Market Solution) Govt is NOT needed

The only right we have is actual transparency in the public sector, which is the government. The private sector, which iare business are not inherently open to transparency.

Typical, it is the public sector looking to shield itself from scrutiny.

In regards to the private sector, I understand what you are saying but my angle is different. The watchdog in this case, would be the citizens. For instance, if a bank was charging outrageous fees for a service, the internet could possibly, be used to regulate that activity.

What some are calling for is censoring media they don't like:

Allen West: 'I Meant Censure' The Press Over WikiLeaks, Not 'Censor'

He's a neocon, f*ck 'em. Thats why I say freedom of speech should be protected, and never threatened.

What the main reason for suggesting that the UN having a hand in Internet regulation is the USA has been the main watch dog in reguating the Internet since it's inception. Many other nations think this is unfair and want more say so.

I can say yes or no to the UN, because i haven't educated myself on every point of view, however, standards such as measurements, automobile standards, food safety standards and many other standards have commonialities linked to the UN. The US is the only major nation not to adopt the metric system as are standard measurement base. This can be argued as just one reason American children are falling hind in math and science.

I'm not even gonna start!

We should not even be in the UN! (Rockefellor creation) All they do is try to use our resources to enforce their 'bogus' mandates. Other nations can do whatever they like. I'm not an isolationist, I just don't give a f*ck what they do, as long as they don't attack this nation. And to my knowledge, the internet has never killed 1 person.
 
Sometimes, I just think you want to be confrontational. As with many discussions we've had, we're saying the same thing. Meaning, the quality of the content on the net is determined by the end-user, therefore, the regulator is the end-user. If the content is no good, the people will dismiss the credibility of the source and the site will suffer in terms of traffic! (Free-Market Solution) Govt is NOT needed



Typical, it is the public sector looking to shield itself from scrutiny.

In regards to the private sector, I understand what you are saying but my angle is different. The watchdog in this case, would be the citizens. For instance, if a bank was charging outrageous fees for a service, the internet could possibly, be used to regulate that activity.



He's a neocon, f*ck 'em. Thats why I say freedom of speech should be protected, and never threatened.



I'm not even gonna start!

We should not even be in the UN! (Rockefellor creation) All they do is try to use our resources to enforce their 'bogus' mandates. Other nations can do whatever they like. I'm not an isolationist, I just don't give a f*ck what they do, as long as they don't attack this nation. And to my knowledge, the internet has never killed 1 person.

(Rockefellor creation)

With this statement, I'm not even going to try and engage a person with this lack of knowledge of facts.
 
Freedom of speech should always be protected and never threatened. I, personally, think the market is an excellent regulator. Somewhere along the way, we've lost understanding and confidence that 'the market' is a much stricter regulator.

Like yelling Fire in a crowded theatre ? ? ?

  • This speech should be protected ???

  • This speech should never be threatened ???

Freedom is speech is not an absolute.

Speech (like anything else), where it poses an unreasonable risk of potential harm or danger, can and should be regulated.

No ?

QueEx
 
Freedom is speech is not an absolute.

Speech (like anything else), where it poses an unreasonable risk of potential harm or danger, can and should be regulated.

No ?

QueEx

wow, I been kinda busy the last few days, i'm not ducking your q's!

It'll be an argument for the ages but I'll stand by the concept that no one has been physically hurt by internet "chatter". When you mention "unreasonable risk of potential harm or danger", How do you see this as being a result of an unregulated internet? From criticisms comes dialog, from dialog comes support or opposition and both are needed in a free & open society.

One lesson I've learned from the Bush Admin. is that we, as a nation, have to stop being scared of everything.
 
wow, I been kinda busy the last few days, i'm not ducking your q's!

It'll be an argument for the ages but I'll stand by the concept that no one has been physically hurt by internet "chatter". When you mention "unreasonable risk of potential harm or danger", How do you see this as being a result of an unregulated internet? From criticisms comes dialog, from dialog comes support or opposition and both are needed in a free & open society.

One lesson I've learned from the Bush Admin. is that we, as a nation, have to stop being scared of everything.

But, if people aren't scared of anything, why would we need the government to protect us?

Without fear, we wouldn't need government.

And, what kind of person wants to live without governemt? Therefore, we must be afraid so government can keep us safe.
 
NO the UN should NOT regulate the internet.
It is not within their purview; nor should it be.

Hypothetically assume for a minute the UN regulated the internet.

UN regulations would be violated with the same impunity that Israel disregards UN regulations.

The Communist Party proto-fascist corporatist government of China would continue to censor their <s>Citizens</s> Neo-Slaves internet content.

Next time you’re in Beijing using the hotels internet access, type “Tiananmen Square protests of 1989” into GOOGLE and you’ll receive the result NOT PERMITTEED

No the internet needs to be an uncensored affordably priced utility. The nation of FRANCE is leading the way.

In FRANCE for $33.00 per month you get: http://www.free.fr/adsl/index.html

- 50 Mbps download speed

- Unlimited email accounts

- # 10GB cloud disk space

- 185 television channels including 30 HD channels

- Unlimited domestic (FRANCE) phone calls & unlimited long distance (INTERNATIONAL) phone calls to 57 countries.

- Also included is wireless hotspot access throughout the entire country (FRANCE)

In the US, as you all know, this type of service would cost you four to six times as much.

Meanwhile in the US the monopoly capitalists who control our telecom industry are trying, successfully so-far, to limit our internet access, lower our download speeds, limit our bandwidth, and dramatically increase our monthly cost $$$$$$$$.





 
wow, I been kinda busy the last few days, i'm not ducking your q's!
I understand. I've been that way lately, myself.

It'll be an argument for the ages but I'll stand by the concept that no one has been physically hurt by internet "chatter". When you mention "unreasonable risk of potential harm or danger", How do you see this as being a result of an unregulated internet? From criticisms comes dialog, from dialog comes support or opposition and both are needed in a free & open society.

One lesson I've learned from the Bush Admin. is that we, as a nation, have to stop being scared of everything.

Lamar, my initial comment to your "freedom of speech" comment was simply to say, nothing is absolute. However, I wouldn't allow the U.N. to regulate the conduct of my dog. But, I don't believe either that the internet should be completely unbridled, i.e., it should be illegal to use the same to lure children into wrongful or illicit conduct.

QueEx
 
I understand. I've been that way lately, myself.



Lamar, my initial comment to your "freedom of speech" comment was simply to say, nothing is absolute. However, I wouldn't allow the U.N. to regulate the conduct of my dog. But, I don't believe either that the internet should be completely unbridled, i.e., it should be illegal to use the same to lure children into wrongful or illicit conduct.

QueEx

Why do you get to decide that?

Didn't Pope Benedict say that child pornography is not really that serious? And isn't the Pope the holiest of honkeys?

Source

Pope Benedict said:
Benedict went on to say that in the 1970s pedophilia stopped being viewed as an absolute evil and instead became part of a wide spectrum of behaviors that many people believed should be tolerated in the name of relativism.

"It was maintained -- even within the realm of Catholic theology -- that there is no such thing as evil in itself or good in itself," he said. "There is only a 'better than' and a 'worse than.' Nothing is good or bad in itself." He argued that the "effects of such theories are evident today."

You can't have it both ways.

Either the internet remains free and open or becomes another government propaganda tool like the newspapers and TV.

I choose free and open.
 
Why do you get to decide that?

Didn't Pope Benedict say that child pornography is not really that serious? And isn't the Pope the holiest of honkeys?

</font size="3">
Obviously, I'm not guided by, as you say: 'holy honkeys'; but

I choose free and open.

nor am I pursuaded by the views of short-sighted, selfish colored folks.

QueEx
 
</font size="3">
nor am I pursuaded by the views of short-sighted, selfish colored folks.

QueEx

If this is directed to me, it is really interesting you think I am short-sighted.

Maybe I have you pegged incorrectly. I always thought you were one of those big thinker, worldview, long-range types.

But, when you use words like colored, it shows maybe you are not as original a mind as I would have thought.

In fact, your description is probably more a self-description than anything.

Very interesting.

It would explain why you think there should be limits on the internets (and a number of your other positions).
 
Why should the internet be regulated and if it is whats next and what gives the U.N. the right to do it especially with it's record.
 
Back
Top