WTO + SDMI = NWO

Andy Oram's latest article has a nice analysis of the future of intergovernmental organizations and the internet. He covers the PICS bait-and-switch, DVDs, and ties it all in with the actions of groups like the WTO and WIPO. The intertwining of government and corporations to limit freedoms on the internet is a topic that every internet user should pay attention to, but few do. I personally plan to cover this situation in as great a depth as possible on slashdot in the future - stay tuned.

Comments

...

[Signal 11]

The article makes several good points but I think it's ignoring the root issue here. As computer geeks we often can fully understand the implications of a new law passed restricting online access or a piece of technology with a way to uniquely and globally identify you. As such, we also have the ability to circumvent, limit, or work-around those things to maintain our own personal freedom and privacy. This is why most geeks, while upset over these developments, are not rioting in the streets. We can work around it, defeat it, or be aware of it and alter our actions accordingly.

Let me give you a common example - mp3 ripping and software "piracy". With a few exceptions (you may have one or two at work who are well known for it), most geeks don't have an issue with copying software or other information (audio) for personal use. It's a non-issue. So how come the average joe, after watching an SPA commercial is scared that the cops are already on their way to his house to bust him because he borrowed a windows 98 CD from a friend of his at work? Because he doesn't know that isn't going to happen. We have more information that he does. I know atleast 30 people off the top of my head that freely exchange their software with each other. Photoshop 5, ask john. Need Back Office, go to david. You get the idea. Am I a criminal? Yeah, probably. I simply happen to know the probability of the SPA even caring about my meager collection are about as good as MS winning the trial. You'll also note I'm posting with my e-mail address attached. I dare the SPA or RIAA to come over to my house. I know it would cost local law enforcement more in transportation and manpower than they would hope to gain by "busting" me.

This is the reason why the WTO is dangerous - we already have ways to circumvent it. Talks of creating digital havens outside of US or WTO control are already underway and servers are doubtless being setup as we speak. Information does not want to be free - it already is. The problem is getting the non-geeks to understand this. And that, my friends, is the heart of the issue.

Revolution-proofing the elites

[konstant]

One interesting ramification of forcing nations into codependency is the resulting immunity of institutionalized power to popular revolution.

Revolutions are local affairs, instigated by people on the streets and swept along by physical proximity, excitement, and charisma. Revolutions are generally also mob actions. Even the most widely spread revolutions in history, such as those in the 1840's and the 1960's could be regarded as a series of "brush fires" rather than one giant, ongoing conflagration.

Popular revolt is dangerous to elites (that is to say the wealthy and the government) because they may not have sufficiently well organized propaganda to subvert them. Or, failing that, they may lack enough brute might to suppress them physically. Once a hierarchy topples, there is no failsafe for the elites. Their last card has been played and they wind up disgraced or occasionally dead. These local successes can inspire further uprisings in other nations with similar social structures. One excellent example of this is the French revolution as a reflection of the success of the American revolution.

However, with the introduction of a so-called "world economy" and "world government", local elites do have a second tier of defense. Namely, that a region that has become dependent upon interactions with other regions can be starved and ostracized into submission. For example, consider the remarkable conformity among third-world nations to austerity policies established by the IMF. Austerity may or may not work, but it certainly is not a popular economic path for locals, involving as it generally does the elimination of goods subsidies and social programs, and the granting of special privileges to large international businesses. Yet local potentates comply with the IMF because without the goodwill of the world community, upon which they are dependent, their countries would collapse.

Such co-dependent nations face only disgrace and economic disaster if a revolution occurs. Ultimately, the revolutionaries either toe the "international-friendly" line as will probably be the case in Pakistan, or they submit. Would-be revolutionaries in other regions observe this failure, and some of the fire goes out of them for their own uprising.

The elites, who are essentially fluid in the absence of international boundaries, retreat as they have always done to an amenable nation and agitate for harsher punitive measures against the now "rogue" state. This is precisely what has occurred in southern Florida, which is settled by many very wealthy Cubans.

This trend is certainly in the best interests of entrenched power.

-konstant

anti NWO resortiments

[dermond]

NWO. what does that mean. "new world order" and what people usually mean
with that is globalisation and a shift towards a kind of world government.

i would say NWO (the shift towards some kind world government) is more or
less inevitable. we will have that in some form or another anyway. the
question is not if we want that kind of thing but how we want
it to look like.

• if national governments do not try to solve global problems on a global
  scale (and the most important problems are usually global problems) then no
  one will solve those problems. instead big corporations will more or less
  rule the world. small countries can not afford to object those big
  corporations.. "if you do not give us the right to pollute your environment
  we will take our $$$ elsewhere.." etc.. only very big countries could afford
  to object here.. the USA comes to mind. but unfortunately the USA is mostly
  in the hand of big $$$ corporations anyway because the political system
  allows bribery (lobbying, donating money to senators etc..) and is not
  really democratic.. so i guess big corporations are not unhappy with the
  status quo of competing national government. as long as there is no real
  international political power which could stand up against big corporations
  then they are the king of the hill...
  
  
• so to avoid the disadvantages mentioned above we need some political power
  that can operate on a global scale. we need institutions where these
  problems are discussed but moreover we also need institutions which have the
  legal power to do something about the problems. so international
  organisations are necessary. but we want them to be democratically
  controlled. until we have world wide voting this could be achieved if the
  national governments send representatives there and each one has votes..
  
  

so when arguing against international organisations like WTO etc: it is
important that people argue against the politics this organisation makes in
case it is too much oriented towards the interest of corporations but not
against the institution as a place where there would be power to do
something to control international corporations

an example: international corporation wants to produce something very cheap
and the cheapest way to produce it is in a way that pollutes our atmosphere.
now they say ask: "which country has no laws to prohibit the pollution about
the atmosphere" of course they will find one somewhere.. (bribing a senator
in the USA or going 3rd world country..etc.). now each sovereign small
country can say: oh but we will not buy these goods from this company
because they pollute the environment... but will they really do it? after all
it gives them competitive disadvantage compared to the other nations which
do not hesitate to buy that goods.. when it is a small country then they can
not do but buy.. (maybe they have a little bit more tax on it so they can
tell the environmentalists among the voters that they are doing something
but most of the time they will just buy it). would there be a powerful
organisation then they could just say "producing with this kind of
environmental is not allowed."

somehow the reason why we want supernational organisations is the same as
the one why we want workers unions => so that the people together are strong
against too much capitalism. and i guess most of the resortiments against
NWO is actually promoted by big corporations and right wing parties.
(together with a few left who are just to stupid to grasp it).

greetings from vienna, austria.

der mond.