India's Proposal For Government Control of Internet To Be Discussed In Geneva

First time accepted submitter cvenky writes "The Indian Government is proposing to create an intergovernmental body 'to develop internet policies, oversee all internet standards bodies and policy organizations, negotiate internet-related treaties and sit in judgment when internet-related disputes come up.' This committee will be funded and staffed by the UN and will report to the UN General Assembly which effectively means the control of the internet passes on to World Governments directly."

Comments

Re:Oh Boy...

[jd]

The US did not create the Internet. DARPA (quasi-independent) created the protocols, the NSF (quasi-independent) installed the US infrastructure and research institutions in other countries (wholly independent) installed the rest. The US (as in the elected government, or the corporate entities within it) did absolutely bugger all apart from make life difficult.

I didn't say equal in free speech, I said equal in MEANINGFUL free speech. The freedom to speak in the US is absolute provided it can't actually achieve anything. The total amount of influence you, I, or any other individual has is no greater than that of any North Korean. We can do nothing that has any substance, any real material worth, we can only play-act that what we say will do any good. Being able to uselessly scream in the dark might well make you feel better and make you feel like you've done something worthwhile, but you haven't.

Look at the "Occupy" protests. They were massive, they were long-lasting, they were crushed through excessive violence and the political leaders responsible for that crushing have seen their poll numbers RISE as a result of using terror and intimidation on those who were asking only that the 1% pay fair dues. How's a protester getting his head smashed in and left in a vegetative state in Oakland that different from a protester getting his head blown off by a North Korean guard? Both are functionally dead, neither has done any good and neither had any free speech worth a damn.

Sure, the US protestor was completely free to set up a website and colour it pink to protest, because that would have done bugger all. Sure, you can march in protest all day in the middle of Death Valley, where nobody can see or hear you, but protestors in Seattle for the WTO talks there got blasted with tear gas, water canons and probably shot at with the occasional live round. Speech where it matters isn't free in the slightest.

Joe the Plumber only had any impact at all in the US precisely because he wasn't Joe and wasn't a plumber. If he had been, he would have been ignored utterly. It's because he was well-to-do and had connections that he was groomed, positioned and then hyped. How's that different from the way the Chinese government works?

The US control over territories it illegally seized from Mexico is not legally or morally distinct from the Chinese illegally seizing Tibet. Both were criminal acts at gunpoint, both have been supplemented by attempting to replace the indigenous population with imports together with destruction of indigenous traditions and attempts to eliminate the indigenous languages. Both have been justified by the occupying power as having civilized barbaric regions.

To me, that says that perspective isn't on the side of the US on this one. Once a criminal, always a criminal.