UN Considering Control of the Internet

Dangerous_Minds writes "News has surfaced in the wake of the WikiLeaks story that the United Nations is mulling total inter-government regulation of the internet. The initiative was spearheaded by Brazil and supported by other countries including India, China, Saudi Arabia and South Africa. Drew Wilson of ZeroPaid commented that while the Cablegate story may be bad, attempting to destroy WikiLeaks would only make matters worse for various governments around the world, given what happened when the music industry shut down Napster ten years ago."

Comments

global standards for policing the internet

[YrWrstNtmr]

global standards for policing the internet
Otherwise known as least common denominator. Say what you want about the US, but do you really want China and Saudi Arabia defining global internet standards?

Re:global standards for policing the internet

[Anonymous Coward]

Lowest common denominator sounds nice. The set of regulations that all nation states can agree on should be fairly lightweight, and the decision making process involved in keeping it up to date far less agile than the network itself. Now if governments also agree not to add their own layers on top this would be total win.

Re:global standards for policing the internet

[duggi]

What it means in Diplomatese is that they are going to set up a commiteee first, talk to each and every nation about their preferences, and then create a document, laying the bare minimum regulations that need to be imposed. Of course, some countries will not like this, and will not opt-in. A few will opt in, but the implementation will be so broken, that each country will set up its own regulation mechanism on the top of it. As these clash with the UN, the UN regulation mechanism will be completely broken.
The UN cannot tie its own shoe laces. This will only justify the creation of a government approved 'regulation' process, which is often referred to as cencorship.
The Internet was nice while it lasted.

Re:global standards for policing the internet

[aliquis]

China and Saudi Arabia and the US and North Korea and South Korea and Liechtenstein and Mexico and Canada and Australia and Britian and France and New Zealand and Japan and Russia and Sweden and Finland and Greenland and all other UN member states, yes.

Actually? No.

Zero policing is what I want.

Child porn, Islamic terrorists, Joe not-so-much-of-an-sex-pack? Sure.

I can decide where I spend my time myself.

Re:global standards for policing the internet

[betterunixthanunix]

The Internet was nice while it lasted.

If the difficulty US law enforcement has had in policing child pornography on the Internet is any indication, any mandated censorship is going to be very difficult to pull off. Every so often, people will get busted, but for the most part free speech online will be difficult to kill. Let them try to censor the Internet; we'll just see an age of common people learning more and more about cryptography, steganography, and computer security.

Not that I think the Internet would be a nice place if everyone had to take those sorts of measures to protect their freedom of speech.

Re:global standards for policing the internet

[Jason Levine]

To be fair, a lot of right-wingers want government control of the Internet also. They just differ on what they want controlled. The religious right would love it if everything "harmful to children" (read: anything inappropriate for a 5 year old to read) was taken off the Internet. They've tried multiple times to get laws passed enforcing this but it has always been struck down in the courts. (This coming from the father of a 7 year old and a 3 year old... I'll police how my kids use the Internet, I don't need the government to do my job for me!)

Re:global standards for policing the internet

[mwvdlee]

You either have a ridiculous amount of things to freely say or you're not really using Usenet for freedom-of-speech stuff.

Re:global standards for policing the internet

[TaoPhoenix]

US - China - North Korea - France - Australia - Britain -

Aren't these the countries always hitting YRO for opressive initiatives?

Re:global standards for policing the internet

[erroneus]

Indeed. It's a good thing that we can't agree on anything at all, or I would be worried.

Re:global standards for policing the internet

[click2005]

Only until the UN allows then to block these kinds of stories.

Re:global standards for policing the internet

[JackieBrown]

Lowest common denominator sounds nice. The set of regulations that all nation states can agree on should be fairly lightweight,

You are assuming they start with an "allow everything" policy. If they start with a "deny everything" policy then "the set of regulations that all nation states can agree on should be fairly lightweight" will result with a very heavily restricted internet.

Re:global standards for policing the internet

[poetmatt]

well, you can enjoy that all you want, but I'll take P2P DNS.

Re:global standards for policing the internet

[Quince alPillan]

In an age that multiple gigabytes of information can fit in a card the size of a fingernail, sneakernet is alive and well. Even if the government starts policing the internet, the underground will still live on in the shadows as it does in China today.

Re:global standards for policing the internet

[mcgrew]

Agreed, it's YOUR job as a parent, not the government. It's YOUR choice what you think is appropriate, not the government. When my kids were still young, there were NC-17 movies I didn't mind them seeing, while at the same time there were PG-13 movies I thought were too violent for them.

I didn't mind them watching Cheech and Chong with me (especially the ones with Pee Wee Herman, they loved his kid show on Saturday mornings, and so did I), but I wouldn't let them watch the "sanitized for TV" (read "dirty words and sex scene cut out") version of the Terminator.

Who would want their kids having nightmares?

Re:global standards for policing the internet

[interval1066]

Good point. 2 things; The UN general council is comprised of the usual cabal of thieves and murderers who can't agree on when to have lunch much less any kind of internet standards, and no one pays any attention to them unless it benefits their country's national policies anyway. The UN declares things all the time and member nations ignore those declarations all the time, so, this is a real non-issue.

Re:global standards for policing the internet

[LWATCDR]

It hilarious because for the most part western nations are trying to restrict things that most people agree should be restricted. They sometimes go to far but for the most part they get ruled in by their own laws. In other words every once and a while they try and go too far.
China and NK both have succeeded in their repression.

Re:global standards for policing the internet

[clone52431]

It hilarious because for the most part western nations are trying to restrict things that most people agree should be restricted.

Just from your list I could single out gambling (US) and not-child-porn-but-we’re-banning-it-anyway (Australia already, US appears to be headed in that direction); Britain has basically made it illegal to have data on your hard drive that looks like it could be encrypted data but which you don’t have (or won’t give the authorities) a password for...

China and NK both have succeeded in their repression.

He never said they were all equally repressive. The fact that some of the countries he mentioned are already much more repressive is beside the point... the western nations are also steadily moving in a more repressive direction, as indicated by what keeps surfacing in the news.

Re:global standards for policing the internet

[kheldan]

I don't think you get it: It all starts there. Once they have successfully exerted control, then it expands to include whatever they want, and don't sit there and tell me with a straight face that it isn't going to happen: Historically, power seeks more power, control seeks more control, and if something like this happens then it won't be too long before the internet resembles a swiss cheese for all the censorship that will be done to it.

Re:global standards for policing the internet

[LWATCDR]

Gambling isn't a freedom of speech issue. It is a taxation issue. One doesn't express ones self in online poker.

Re:global standards for policing the internet

[Shakrai]

One of the reasons the US founding fathers used the 3-branch system was that they hoped the branches would spend most of their time fighting each-other for control and leave the common man alone.

That was a good theory until political parties came along. The whole point of a political party is to get people in those 3 branches to cooperate with each other. Witness the Republican outrage over TSA's antics now that a Democrat is calling the shots and contrast it against the silence when GWB was calling the shots. Witness the muted response from Democrats when the Obama Administration declares that you have no right to privacy in public and contrast it against the response when GWB tried to do the same.

Napster was ten years ago?

[Anonymous Coward]

Holy crap, I'm old!

How much more

[Darkman, Walkin Dude]

Will nobody rid us of these lawyer politicians, whose only understanding of communication is how it can be used to control others? For countless millenia, these fools have been holding back humanity, calling themselves priests, or the aristocracy, or the upper class, or whatever. Enough! Can we not have a "normal people's congress" on the internet or something. They want to control the internet? I say let the internet control them.

Re:How much more

[Darkman, Walkin Dude]

No, I want normal people to be allowed to determine their own fates and communicate freely with one another without the intervention of those who dream themselves our masters.

Re:How much more

[Anonymous Coward]

No, I want normal people to be allowed to determine their own fates and communicate freely with one another without the intervention of those who dream themselves our masters.

But normal people don't want freedom. Normal people don't want to live without the intervention of masters - they want to be the masters who "help" all those other poor unfortunates out there. You want freedom to choose. Most people are paralyzed with choice, and elect politicians who offer them freedom from choice. Not because they're naive; because they really want to be ruled :(

Remember the conjugation: I am erotic, you are kinky, they are disgusting perverts.

"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."
- C.S. Lewis

"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule."
- H. L. Mencken

Re:How much more

[DrgnDancer]

He didn't say stupid. He said followers. Most people are followers. It's a reasonably well established fact of the pack dynamic. Under the right circumstances nearly anyone becomes a follower. Have you ever noticed that most groups, no matter how loosely organized, have leaders? From a gang of kids, to a raid group in an MMO, to a multibillion dollar company, if there's no one in charge, we put someone in charge. Depending on their personal charisma and the institutional nature of the group in question they may answer to rest of the group to one extent or another, but they're still "in charge". Even when the group rises up against the leader, the usual result isn't "no leader" it's a new leader.

We're hard wired to want someone in charge. Some of us want to be in charge, and some don't, but we all feel better if there is some one who is in charge. Of course we're all different, we want to have have various relationships with authority (possessing it, being close to it, being ignored by it, etc), and a very few of us would actually prefer to live completely outside of it, but in general its existence makes the vast majority of us happy.

Re:How much more

[jandersen]

Can we not have a "normal people's congress" on the internet or something.

The problem with The People is that it consists of, well, people. This is something revolutionary do-gooders have come face to face with many times throughout history; and ordinary people aren't highminded, good or noble, they are just average. They don't care all that much for liberty when it comes to it, they are not all that concerned about democracy or justice in general. They just want life to be relatively easy to live from day to day.

Don't you realise that your democracy and your Congress etc were once exactly the "normal people's democracy/congress"? Only, normal people don't care enough to take part, so it always ends like this, and that is the fundamental problem we have to solve.

Apart from that - what kind of ordinary people did you have in mind? What if it turned out that what a large majority really wanted was to to ban firearms? Or were in favour of something you would find intolerable - would you still want that kind of democracy? Ordinary people are not necessarily nice.

Re:How much more

[crunchygranola]

"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." - C.S. Lewis

Interesting quote. Here is another similar, but even more revealing, statement by Lewis: "The baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity at some point may be sated; and since he dimly knows he is doing wrong he may possibly repent" (from Reflections on the Psalms, Chapter 3.).

We have seen over the last half century a revolution in American political philosophy - that of self-justifying wealth. Ayn Rand style Objectivism/Libertarianism holds that self-interest is the highest moral principle and altruism is evil; wealth is proof of moral rectitude, and poverty is proof of sloth and moral degeneracy. This philosophy has provided us with the perfection of the robber baron, now dominating American political life - cupidity that is never satiated, and extinguishing all moral doubt. Wealth is virtue; there can be nothing wrong with how the wealthy acquire or use their wealth; there is nothing to repent, and thus there is no possibility that the robber baron will change.

Re:How much more

[MindKata]

@”Will nobody rid us of these lawyer politicians, whose only understanding of communication is how it can be used to control others? “

@Darkman, Walkin Dude ... Brilliantly said. Your whole post sums up so many centuries of problems, repeated all around the world, caused by these same kind of greedy, corrupt, two faced, lying, control freaks that each generation has to suffer.

But then from so many diplomatic leaks, regardless of what we think of the leaks, one fact remains. We now have absolute confirmation our control freak governments (in almost every country) lie endlessly to us (so our leaders can get their own way and so they show they don't really work for us), yet they say they represent us even though their actions prove they are really seeking to deceive us. That isn't Democracy. It shows we are really dealing with an increasingly Authoritarian lying greedy Kleptocracy which is increasingly showing signs of becoming an outright Totalitarian Dictatorship. Worse still its becoming a global problem.

But then the act of seeking power over someone else, is the act of seeking to dictate their will over the wishes of others. So is it any wonder people who seek power over others end up seeking to dictate their will over us on the Internet. After all, the Internet is helping to highlight how much our power hungry leaders lie to us and so don't really represent us. They know if we see the truth, we can argue against them, so they lie to us, for their own greedy gain.

If that isn't bad enough, here's a shocking dictionary definition that shows how bad our lying greedy leaders actions really are against all of us. See if you can guess the word it defines. "A violation of allegiance to one's sovereign or to one's state. The betrayal of a trust or confidence; breach of faith; treachery." The word it defines is Treason. Its shocking to think of it, but our leaders really our in complete betrayal of our trust and confidence; breach of faith; treachery against their entire country, all for their own greedy gain. They really are showing acts of Treason!. They don't represent us, even though they say they do, when they want us to vote them into power.

Some countries still have the death sentence for Treason. So is it any wonder more people are getting angry at all our leaders in most countries and why our leaders seek to control the Internet even more, to cut off ways for us to see the truth and discuss what our leaders are doing.

The Internet has revolutionised many industries already so perhaps its time it also revolutionised the management of everyone where openness is forced into our two faced leaders, to stop them being able to lie to us all. After all if they want to represent us, then they take the job on that basis.

Re:Only the naive didn't see this coming

[dragonhunter21]

I'm sorry, Tor and the myriad other proxy services floating around China would like a word.

Re:Only the naive didn't see this coming

[Spad]

Of course you can regulate the internet - you can regulate anything in principle - but enforcing that regulation is something else altogether.

You can't get most countries to co-operate when they're dealing with the big issues; do you really think you're going to be able to get them to co-operate over that guy from country X who posted something objectionable about someone from country Y on that message board hosted in country Z?

All government is the absolute enemy of freedom

[evanism]

Even our own. Threaten their power and they will take us out. It is time to fight back, reassert public control and or natural freedoms. Encryption everywhere, massive obsfuction via dns sprays, dummy requests and TOR. Fight these bastards!!!!!!

Re:Anonymous stands ready

[Spad]

Thing is, reality is not a movie. Rarely do the well-intentioned, rag-tag band of rebels overthrow the evil world government and usher in a new era of freedom and prosperity.

Cry, the beloved country.

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm from South Africa and I cannot believe a government that was once itself censored heavily, and violently when speaking out against such censorship, is now becoming one of it's staunchest supporters. First (draft) domestic legislation regulating what newspapers can publish, and now this.

Freedom? No, it doesn't seem to me like that was the end-goal of the struggle.

In the wake of Thursday...

[Tom Rothamel]

News has surfaced in the wake of Thursday that the UN is mulling total inter-governmental regulation of the internet.

The UN has wanted control of the net for a while now, the WikiLeaks thing is just the excuse of the day for trying to take it.If it wasn't WikiLeaks, it would be some other reason.

Re:Only the naive didn't see this coming

[oztiks]

Regulation will turn into taxation. Taxation will be self regulated. If you fudge your tax returns you go to jail. Wikileaks will be looked upon as a regulation violation and people would be dragged before a judge.

I knew this would be the result of Wikileaks where the end game is now a sped up process which otherwise would of taken the next 10 years to procure if left open-ended and unnoticed.

Wikileaks has set a new precedence welcoming the age of having to hold a broadcasters licence to setup a website.

Re:Anonymous stands ready

[paiute]

Thing is, reality is not a movie. Rarely do the well-intentioned, rag-tag band of rebels overthrow the evil world government and usher in a new era of freedom and prosperity.

Usually, when the well-intentioned, rag-tag band of rebels do win, the resulting government devolves into a totalitarian regime as bad as what was deposed. In the US, our view is skewed because our well-intentioned, rag-tag band of rebels was not headed by such. Recall that some wanted to make Washington King of America, but he bared his wooden teeth at them and refused.

Sure, UN, Sure

[Publikwerks]

The UN can't get pisspot dictators to stop comitting genocide, does it REALLY think it's going to be able to do anything with really powerful nations? Especially with the US, we don't want to give up control. So the UN thinks it can force the US to do so?

Re:Sure, UN, Sure

[Ltap]

If you think that the UN taking control of the Internet involves the United States losing control rather than gaining it, you're remarkably ignorant of the true state of international politics.

Re:Yes, yes, /. is all against this, but...

[betterunixthanunix]

Can someone shed light on whether they can actually control the internet, on a technical level?

Sure they can; the Internet is not like the old Usenet/UUCPNet, where it is controlled by its own users. All the UN would have to do is go after a handful of companies that really run the Internet, and by force of law require them to do whatever the UN wants them to do. Sanctions against a country could suddenly mean a loss of Internet access -- just force the ISPs to drop any route to that country from their routing tables.

The real question is, will they be able to convince the most powerful nations to play along? I am just going to guess that the answer is "yes," since the world's most powerful nations also happen to stand to gain the most from having a controlled Internet.

NO controls

[Wowsers]

Hang on, all these countries that want control of the internet, they are some of the biggest despots out there and love censorship. Why don't they have their own version like China, and keep everyone else that loves freedom and democracy stick to the "Wild Wild West" internet.

The UN are a bunch of retards who's time to disbanding has come. They claim to represent international laws, but enforce them for some countries, and ignore others. Get rid of the UN.

Just Say No

[Valen0]

Let me get this straight: The Emperor was caught with his pants down, some people took pictures and posted it to etc.com, people started learning via etc.com that the Emperor has no clothes on, and now the Emperor wants to ban all knowledge of the incident by destroying the greatest communications invention since the printing press. I think the approach in this situation is completely wrong. Several common sayings such as "we had to destroy the village in order to save it," "shoot first and ask questions later," and "shoot the messenger" all come to mind and none of them should be encouraged.

I propose the following solution to the problem: Do a comprehensive security audit of the information and everyone that had access to it. Find out who leaked the information, how they received access to the information, and how they removed the information from secured storage. In addition, do a comprehensive audit on the classification of documents. Having a minimal amount of classified material will cut down on the risk of loosing it. Document classification should be used to guard national security interests (e.g. the keys to the castle) instead of hiding potentially embarrassing material or promoting a political agenda. When you have successfully identified the responsible party and method of attack, fix the glitch and prosecute the offender to the fullest extent of the law. The Internet does not need collective punishment for the actions of a select few individuals.

Re:Just Say No

[DigitalSorceress]

I used to consider myself Fiscally Conservative, but Socially Libertarian... think Gov. Bill Weld in Massachusetts.

Bill and Hillary Clinton made my skin crawl.

Then, George W. Bush got elected and completely betrayed every conservative fiscal principal, condoned torture, started two wars, and generally let big business/corporations have free reign with no risks to themselves personally.

I've since deiced that given the choice, I'd much prefer the liberals' view than what the conservatives are pushing these days.

George W. Bush, Glenn Beck, and Rush Limbaugh (used to like Rush) have completely betrayed my trust and I will always have special dislike for Bush as he did something I NEVER thought anyone could do: he made me miss Bill Clinton. /disgusted!

So, yeah, count me as a former conservative who couldn't stand the direction the Right is going and can't stand their hypocrisy any more.

Re:Just Say No

[cronius]

Having a minimal amount of classified material will cut down on the risk of loosing it. Document classification should be used to guard national security interests (e.g. the keys to the castle) instead of hiding potentially embarrassing material or promoting a political agenda.

Just a comment on that: None of the cables that wikileaks has their hands on are classified as top secret. That's why a lot of it is basically gossip: It was given a low classification because it's simply unimportant (which is why someone was able to so easily get their hands on it, if the rumour of the press is correct). So in that regards, the classification system is working as intended: The really nasty stuff (US national security etc.) is literally top secret and still remains undisclosed.

Wikileaks cables:

# 15, 652 secret
# 101,748 confidential
# 133,887 unclassified

Common Sense

[cstacy]

They are merely proposing common sense communication safety legislation. Surely we can all get on board with that? Do you have any idea how many injuries and injustices unpoliced thought caused last year?

a serendipitous article on the first war on terror

[Alan R Light]

Serendipitously, this article about the first war on terror - governmental suppression of 19th century peaceful anarchists - was just published by Reason.

The authorities made extensive use of agents provocateurs because the anarchists were too peaceful to be threatening enough. Accidental side effects included the Russian Revolution and the exacerbation of the First World War (which events of course led to the Second World War and the Cold War).

It looks like history is repeating itself.

The end of democracy

[gmuslera]

No freedom of information means no freedom of choice. You could hang the label you want over the governments after that gets passed, but none would really be democracy.

Their greatest trick...

[copponex]

Their greatest trick has been making you believe that you aren't in control already, if you live in the United States. They thrive on your apathy. They rejoice whenever some new mindless form of entertainment takes over. That's why Iran left gaming lines open during their crackdown of democracy.

Personally, I have no pity for the American public. We are receiving the democracy we are asking for, which is "whatever the powerful are willing to give me." The Tea Party just re-elected the only party that openly expresses more support for millionaires than it does for the middle class. The guy in the House who plays a major part in our environmental policy also quotes from Genesis to avoid discussion of the impact of climate change, because God promised that he wouldn't flood the earth again. (Despite some more barbaric claims in Revelation that He will indeed come back to destroy the world, and the claim that the rainbow is a symbol of God's promise, instead of a result of light refraction.)

Regular Joes can't be bothered to give a shit about extrajudicial assassination, or trillions of dollars wasted on war. Until they can address those sorts of issues, I'm afraid the openness of the internet will be easy fodder for elite control.

Re:Their greatest trick...

[copponex]

Please stop copying ad hominem politics from everyone on talk radio.

Re:Their greatest trick...

[hittman007]

The "Tea Party Movement" has a specific set of core beliefs. However, this also is a loose affiliation of different groups within the movement have differing beliefs. Believe it or not there are many Democrats that support this group and call themselves members of the movement. I personally am not a member, however I am sympathetic to some of their core beliefs. People on a grass roots level, primarily the middle class that is largely ignored by both parties have made their mark on politics, and weather you agree with them or not they are trying to make a difference. When the silent majority speaks you would do well to listen or their will or their will be hell to pay, and this goes for both parties, neither one of which has shown much care for this group of people.

The Republican Party at least plays lip service to the beliefs and has given such lip service every time they have been the minority party, before they won control and acted just like Democrats with their enormous spending.

So you think Republicans are only for the rich? Of course this could potentially be true as those on the far right I know seem to believe that anyone who actually has a job is considered rich by Democrat standards. Ironically these two beliefs, while both wrong, seem to be compatible...

Re:Their greatest trick...

[copponex]

I'm getting that you are saying just because someone makes more money that they should pay a higher percent of that money in taxes. I don't agree with this on a fundamental level, for even at the same rates they are already paying more in taxes than someone who makes less money.

Is taking $10,000 away from someone who makes $30,000 more unjust than taking $400,000 away from someone who makes $1,000,000?

If they pay enough of a higher percentage what is the point of trying to better oneself as the gains quickly dwindle and the extra effort is more and more for not. In the end this line of thought is ultimately self defeating and will eventually lead to collapse, unless you can find a new source of income as the "rich" will not always be "rich".

Tax rates in the 50s were 90% for the top tier. America still had rich people willing to work hard then.

On your statement of rich Americans being traitors you need to define you definition of "rich". All to often to may people blame the "rich". If you poll pretty much any American they will consider those who make usually not that much more then themselves as rich, and thus being "rich" takes on a different meaning to different people.

I define it as the top 10% of income earners in the United States, who wield disproportional power and change tax laws to their own benefit.

They're doing what they know best

[geekymachoman]

And that is.. controlling people. When things start getting out of hand, they start enforcing and censoring stuff. Like they want to do with internet now, because internet is biggest threat to them. Internet is communication freedom.

Authority never liked that, because it undermines their power to do what they want. Religion... Governments, no difference there. All they want is power. And if people don't rise up now, and let their voices be heard, whatever the cost, we and future generations are properly screwed, because this now is our best chance, and if we miss it, the whole point of internet will be lost soon, and we'll go back to getting tailored info from our masters which suits their interests, not the truth.

I'd rather have anarchy then this dictatorship masked as democracy/freedom shit.

Stop that!

[killmenow]

You'll let your kids watch the government approved violence on TV and youtube and we'll protect them from any and all kinds of human sexuality (except the Disney approved sexualization of teen/tween "stars", of course) AND YOU'LL LIKE IT!

Think again

[Anonymous Coward]

This IS democracy. It just isn't what you dreamed it would be. Quite a rude awakening, isn't it?

I have long believed that democracy is every bit as likely to deteriorate into authoritarianism as monarchy, dictatorship, communism, or any other form of government you can name -- possibly even more likely since democracy removes the element of ownership from government. A king, for example, wouldn't be nearly as quick to risk billions on war, because those billions actually belong to him, and he actually risks losing his royalty forever.

When you're spending other people's money, on the other hand, you have nothing to lose -- and therefore you can exploit that cash flow for personal gain. For those at the top of a democratic pyramid, the more spending the better.

So what can be done? There's only one solution: strict limits on government power and revenue. STRICT limits, as the founders of the US intended. Of course, strict limits on the scope of government is nothing but a pipe dream for radicals and libertarians, right?

Re:Think again

[misexistentialist]

It is a dream though, just like the dream of democracy. The Founders tried, but people end up with the government they deserve.

Re:Only the naive didn't see this coming

[moeinvt]

"You poke a dog with a stick often enough and eventually it'll go for you. "

I agree with that, but are you suggesting that the U.S. government is analogous to the dog and Wikileaks and its supporters are poking said dog with a stick? That's how I'M reading your words. It is with a mixture of sadness and frustration that I listen to the argument: "We better behave ourselves, or the government will crack down on the Internet!" I'm not saying that Wikileaks and Anonymous won't be used as an EXCUSE for government attempts to implement greater control of the Internet. That's a certainty. Actually ADVOCATING that we change our behavior to appease the government is the mentality of a serf or a slave. Better not do anything to make the Lord/Master angry because he'll punish us? Not only does that indicate a belief that the government has assumed the role of RULER of the people as opposed to "Representative" of the people, it indicates that the servitude is something that we must accept.

Wow! That thought just blows my mind. It just seems like we've very abruptly crossed a threshold into a whole new paradigm.

Next up...

[MadKeithV]

Next up: UN considering control of gravity, also considering extensions to other laws of physics.

Inclusive ?

[mbone]

The Internet Governance Forum (IGF) has been grinding along for almost five years, so this is something of late news. Unlike the Australian commenter in the original article, the process is inclusive only as to governments, not people or even NGOs. This has the Internet Society (ISOC) worried enough that they have an online petition on it :

The UN Needs to Ensure an Open and Inclusive Approach to Internet Governance

(Yes, you will get a fundraising pitch at the end, but that's not the reason for this petition.)

Government censorship of the internet?

[grasshoppa]

Are they insane? Do they have any idea what this will do to the economy, let alone the precious information they are trying to hide? It's almost like...wait, it's the UN?

Nevermind. Here's hoping they'll be as effective in this initiative as they are in everything else.

UN = Bad Idea

[couchslug]

The United Nations was a horrid mistake like the League of Nations before it.

World government by lawfare in a world mostly composed of anti-freedom governments was never a good idea. People should fear international law more than its absence.

Law is fine locally, useless internationally, because in the international context being free of law is an overwhelming advantage.

Re:UN = Bad Idea

[Rockoon]

The UN isn't a world government. They have absolutely zero power.

..and by zero power you mean that the most high tech armies in the world fights for it, and is backed by multiple nuclear arsenals, and that decisions made on its floors can effect everyone on the planet... sure..

is zero power a euphemism for ice-cold power?

Folks. Relax. It's the UN

[Opportunist]

By the time they finally agree on a resolution, there is no longer an internet to govern.

Plus, whatever they'll agree on will be SO watered down that it amounts to little more than "look, we did something!"

Re:Only the naive didn't see this coming

[moeinvt]

Thanks for the "suggestion" but I'll pass. Your hostility bespeaks an anger born of helplessness and frustration. I know how easy it is to get depressed with the goings-on of the world, but things are not yet hopeless.

To what "buzz words" are you referring? Serf? Slave? Please enlighten me as to the appropriate terminology for someone who cowers in fear and tells their fellow CITIZENS to behave themselves lest they incur punishment from their Lords and Masters?

"You can hallucinate some world where ...an imaginary line drawn by words on a piece of paper is permanent and impenetrable"

You can burn the paper and the words, but the ideas live on, and as of now, those ideas are still the law.

"... then reality[TV] comes knocking to remind you ... don't have the support of The People(tm) ... all you're doing is harming everyone who would rather get on with their lives"

How are we supposed to "get over it" when the "it" isn't just a static situation, but rather a sinister ongoing process? How are you going to blindly "get on with your life" when everything that's happening around you is making your life more difficult by the day? I don't give a shit if my "rhetoric" is interrupting your television/junkfood induced state of semi-consciousness and you would rather get back to your gaming console.

We'll see how things play out, but in my observations, the corporate-government oligarchy doesn't have as much control as they might think they do. Their backlash seems rather reactionary and thus far relatively ineffectual. I don't think this was exactly part of the plan.

P.S.
"Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our country[man]."

Re:Yes, yes, /. is all against this, but...

[Joe U]

The real question is, will they be able to convince the most powerful nations to play along? I am just going to guess that the answer is "yes," since the world's most powerful nations also happen to stand to gain the most from having a controlled Internet.

I'm going to say No, the US will not allow their baby to fall under the UN.

Protecting children from economic predators

[Paul Fernhout]

"The war play dilemma: what every parent and teacher needs to know"
http://books.google.com/books?id=-loYzCV11JcC

It mentions an unholy alliance from Reagan administration media deregulation leading to boys being saturated with violent content 24X7 between media, food, toys, and apparel.

The version for girls:
"So Sexy So Soon: The New Sexualized Childhood and What Parents Can Do to Protect Their Kids"
http://books.google.com/books?id=O7NrhdwTeCkC

Good luck. At least these two books will help you understand what you are up agsainst when you dismiss the need for much help. Of course, what kind of help is really useful is a different question...

Other background reading:

"Supernormal Stimuli: How Primal Urges Overran Their Evolutionary Purpose"
http://books.google.com/books?id=HQlg3rQquUoC

"The Pleasure Trap: Mastering the Hidden Force That Undermines Health and Happiness"
http://books.google.com/books?id=Nh6qAAAACAAJ

"Disease-Proof Your Child: Feeding Kids Right"
http://books.google.com/books?id=-W_LYnBFIY8C

"Treating Disease With Vitamin D" (since kids are indoors so much at media)
http://www.vitamindcouncil.org/treatment.shtml

"In defense of childhood: protecting kids' inner wildness"
http://books.google.com/books?id=MAB3CciL40UC

"The Underground History of American Education"
http://www.johntaylorgatto.com/underground/toc1.htm

Re:Tell me how you really feel

[Rakarra]

These people have worked hard to get where they are and I do not believe they should have to pay a higher percentage of tax because they are sucessful.

For myself, it comes down to civic duty -- everyone should feel the same amount of "pain" of supporting government. It should be just as much of a hassle, just as much of a burden for the rich as it is for the poor, and $1000 less from a poor person's salary is far far more damaging to them than it is for a rich person.

One thing they can agree on

[GameboyRMH]

There's one thing every government in the world can agree to ban from the Internet:

Classified government documents.

Second most likely to be banned is corporate trade secrets, third most likely is child porn, fourth is unauthorized copyrighted material and cicumvention tools, and fifth is pics of Mohammed.