UN Plan for Internet Control Tiptoes Forward

Intellectual Conservative ^ | 21 April 2004 | Cheryl Chumley

[softengine]

According to the UN, the management of the internet should be multilateral, transparent, and democratic, and "ensure an equitable distribution of resources."

The phantom of government-controlled Internet has raised its menacing head again; this time on the global level.

“Even the definition of what we mean by Internet governance is a subject of debate. But the world has a common interest in ensuring the security and dependability of this new medium,” said Secretary-General Kofi Annan at the opening of a March 25-26 United Nations Global Forum on Internet Governance. “The medium must be made accessible and responsive to the needs of all the world’s people.”

In UN-speak, that means America better ready itself, once again, to relinquish a bit more of its free-market freedom and accompanying hard-earned dollars to support the policies and expenses of a socialist system that demands equality for all at whatever cost.

The idea of government control of the Internet is not new, not even in this country where pending congressional bills reflect very different opinions on if and how this technology should be regulated.

Representative Christopher Cox (R-CA), for instance, wants a permanent moratorium on Internet taxation via H.R. 49, while Senator Lamar Alexander (R-TN) proposes to tax email and Internet access in S. 2084. The difference between these contrasting regulatory proposals being discussed at the US federal level versus the talks at the UN, of course, is that congressional representatives are accountable to their constituents.

The members of the United Nations, primarily anti-American in ideology and deed, are not.

So when United Nations leader Kofi Annan announces publicly a “common interest” in providing Internet access to “all the world’s people,” suspicion should be the prevailing feeling among all those who claim reverence for the right of the individual and for free market dogma. This is not an idle pronouncement, an off-the-cuff expression of a personal dream or childlike desire for all in the world to have equal rights and access to this technology.

Rather, Annan’s formal statements come on the tail end of a UN meeting on “telecommunications” regulation that was planned in December 2003, the same month the global body solidified its Declaration of Principles and its Plan of Action for actually achieving control of the Internet.

This UN push for control is not going to die. Already scheduled is a follow-up meeting in Tunis November 16-18, 2005 to give updates on how successfully these principles and action plans have been implemented in the various member states, including America. In terms of what the UN wants to accomplish, here’s the gist of what we face.

“The Internet has evolved into a global facility available to the public and its governance should constitute a core issue of the Information Society agenda,” the Declaration of Principles states. “The international management of the Internet should be multilateral, transparent and democratic …It should ensure an equitable distribution of resources.”

So what does this mean to you, an American citizen with constitutionally guaranteed individual rights, freedoms, privacies and free-market abilities? Well, there’s that niggling “equality for all” philosophy again, the socialists' dream of achieving absolute uniformity among those of dissimilar abilities and resources that runs completely contrary to our constitutional system of capitalism.

This is how the plot for global control will unfold. In its Plan of Action, the United Nations lists ten goals, most aimed at linking various Internet users and records to one, single, master global system. Planned connections include “villages, universities, colleges, secondary schools and primary schools, scientific and research centers, public libraries, cultural centers, museums, post offices and archives, health centers and hospitals (and) all local and central government departments.”

Also planned is adapting “all primary and secondary school curricula to meet the challenges of the Information Society,” ensuring world-wide access to television and radio and encouraging “conditions in order to facilitate the presence and use of all world languages on the Internet.”

This is UN language; in simpler terms, the principles and actions outline the goals and means for taking charge of the Internet at the international level. By their own statements, UN members want access to medical records. They want to know what’s being taught in the schools, from elementary grades through college. They want to keep abreast of all scientific advancements. They want to know what’s being mailed, what’s being exhibited in museums and what’s being discussed in town hall meetings.

They plan to achieve these objectives by 2015.

Once realized, our free-market system will surely crumble. Not only does the United Nations call for sharing technology with disadvantaged and possibly even hostile states, but this body will also be in position to impose whatever access and usage fees deemed necessary for the good of all, regulate business, and oversee all content placed on the Internet for public access.

[softengine]

"...but this body will also be in position to impose whatever access and usage fees deemed necessary for the good of all, regulate business, and oversee all content placed on the Internet for public access."

Control over content would be the coup d'etat, and certain death to sites like FreeRepublic.

[zip]

ping

[kcar]

WWon't happen, but worst case, just create a new internet and leave them holding the porn-laden bag?

[Dark Knight]

Kofi: We need to start an Internet for Food program!

DK

[this_ol_patriot]

I wonder if those Nigerian guys know about this?

[Bogey78O]

What would stop ISP's from disconnecting from the internet and creating a new internet? Correct me if I'm wrong but wouldn't that actually be better since the advancements in backbone technology would be a boon to it?

[glorgau]

They've already thought up a name for the UN controlled internet - it's called Minitel!

[JRandomFreeper]

...but worst case, just create a new internet and leave them holding the porn-laden bag?

I have thought through that scenario. Some smart pup would bridge between the two internets with a Timex Z-80, or S-100 box, or a Cray, or something, just so he could get his porn, and suddenly, there is once again... one internet.

In every thought experiment I have run, there is exactly one internet per populated planet, and no government can control it.

Intranets are subsets, and generally have serious problems in not merging with the internet. A parallel internet will eventually merge with the other. There can be only one.

/john

[Bogey78O]

Minitel doesn't sound that special. Bell had a huge closed network long ago. They still do. In fact up till a few months ago when our old dedicated terminal went down I used to pull down LMOS trouble tickets on it.

[Warlord David]

Control over content would be the coup d'etat, and certain death to sites like FreeRepublic.

I agree. It would also be the death of conservative christians sites that would not be politically correct in content, to what the UN point of view is. Making it impossible to evangelize thru the internet.

[Tax Government]

What they want to do is tax the exchange of information and ideas.

[kcar]

Monte Carlo simulations in your head? My eyes glaze over thinking about it. But doesn't this creativity that inadvertently integrates bipolar systems also mean that there's a snowball's chance in the Sahara of successfully "controlling" it in the first place?

[JRandomFreeper]

What would stop ISP's from disconnecting from the internet and creating a new internet? Correct me if I'm wrong but wouldn't that actually be better since the advancements in backbone technology would be a boon to it?

Your question presupposes some misconceptions. The internet isn't tied to any backbone (and never has been), it can use and does use and does upgrade itself as better paths become available. It started on phone lines. At 300-1200 baud between nodes.

The internet isn't a thing, a place, or a service. It's an agreement on how to communicate. And that's all it is.

And that's really difficult to control, because, to control something, you have to be able to destroy it. And you can't destroy the internet. Ever. Without destroying the inhabitants (all of them) of the planet.

That's why Arapanet became the internet. It is nuke proof. So I'm not too worried about some UN socialists that can't hide their tracks on some oil-for-payola scheme.

/john

[RonHolzwarth]

reply to: "Intranets are subsets, and generally have serious problems in not merging with the internet. A parallel internet will eventually merge with the other. There can be only one."

Kind of reminds me of Abraham Lincoln, June 1858,
for some odd reason:

"A house divided against itself cannot stand." I believe this government cannot endure permanently half slave and half free. I do not expect the Union to be dissolved -- I do not expect the house to fall -- but I do expect it will cease to be divided. It will become all one thing, or all the other. Either the opponents of slavery will arrest the further spread of it, and place it where the public mind shall rest in the belief that it is in the course of ultimate extinction; or its advocates will push it forward till it shall become alike lawful in all the States, old as well as new, North as well as South.

[Bogey78O]

What I was talking about disconnecting I was talking about just using new connecting nodes. Just disconeect from their pathways and create new ones.

[JRandomFreeper]

But doesn't this creativity that inadvertently integrates bipolar systems also mean that there's a snowball's chance in the Sahara of successfully "controlling" it in the first place?

No, I don't think so. At best, you may be able to control individual points by forensics, that is, by tracing the bits and hanging the barstid, but that's slow, and there's lots of barstids.

Our cold war thinkers were some of the best. Arapanet rocks. Especially in the 21st century. Who knew?

/john

[Army Air Corps]

Und zey vill haff ze final zay-zo on zose politikal zites, Ja?

[Army Air Corps]

"I wonder if those Nigerian guys know about this?"

I am representing a Government official who has monies in a Bank in Lagos. The monies are from the Nigerian National Internet Authority. As you know, the UN...

[William Terrell]

. . .and there's lots of barstids.

Ah, but the word gets around.

[Humidston]

"FOLLOW THE MONEY."

[kcar]

Arapanet rocks. Especially in the 21st century. Who knew?

I give. Eyes too seriously glazed - think I'll be craving for donuts tomorrow a.m. when I wake for work.

[JRandomFreeper]

Just disconeect from their pathways and create new ones.

That's what the internet is/does every second. And it uses any available pathway. There is no 'their pathway' or 'our pathway' there is only 'the pathway'. I know that sounds sorta zen, but it's basic engineering. Someone will want, and implement, comms that meet his/her/it's needs. It becomes a gateway.

I did a quick check, and my path to FR uses a node in San Fran. If San Fran slides off into the Pacific in the next 5 minutes, the data will automatically reroute to some other pathway that is available. It may be slower, but it will reroute according to the agreement on how to communicate that is the internet.

/john

[Bogey78O]

Yea but it uses the same general network structure. If someone started setting up their own DNS and their own server then connected it to another server and so on and so own from my point of view you'd have a new internet. It seems to me like the backbone is simply servers and nodes strung out nationwide.

Perhaps my idea of the architecture is vastly different from what it actually is.

[TheLion]

I'm wondering how long it is going to take us to get rid of this useless organization. They can't control much of anything, much less the internet.

[Gideon7]

Relax, the UN is not going to "govern" the Internet.

As a practical matter nobody "governs" the Internet. Well ok, there was a window of opportunity back in the late 1980s when it was possible that AOL, MSN or some other gigantic service provider might have bought out everyone else and become the de-facto monopolist on internetworking. But thankfully it never happened.

The UN lost its chance to run the Internet in the late 1980s, when the Europe and the UN via the ITU (International Telecommunications Union) tried to replace the Internet TCP/IP communicaton protocol standards with something called OSI. Basically it was an attempt by the world PTT (Postal, Telegraph, and Telephone) monopolies to wrest control of the Internet out of the hands of the US government. The PTT monopolies are especially strong in the 3rd world countries and they dominate the ITU, which sets world telephone standards.

The ITU is a big reason why phone calls to 3rd world countries are so ridiculously expensive. The bureaucracy of the ITU is Kafka-esque: The OSI documents for TP4/X25 are written in uncomprehensible legalese and you must pay through the nose just to peek at them. (This was one reason why OSI failed - TCP/IP was evangelized through the wide distribution of the source code of BSD Unix; OSI/TP4/X25 had no equivalent.)

If the EU/ITU/UN had taken over the Internet 15-20 years ago with OSI/TP4/X25, today instead of paying $24.95/month for your megabit DSL you would be paying ten times that amount for your X25/ISDN connection at 64 kbps.

But this is all on the dustbin of history. The war is over and decentralization has won. The modern Internet is a concatenation of millions of independent networks that all agree to talk to each other voluntarily (the word "Internet" comes from the term "inter-network"). World connectivity happens through an untold number of independent bi-lateral contractual agreements between peering ISPs.

The only centralization on the Internet is at the root DNS nameservers. These suffer ICANN only by the grace of their respective independent owners. (The largest owner of root nameservers being the US Department of Commerce.) There is nothing to prevent them from bolting and setting up their a new root DNS, or from anyone else using an alternate root DNS.

The transnational progressives and lefty social engineers can chit-chat all they want at their UN workshops about how they want to govern the Internet. But as a practical matter it is a waste of hot air.

[Jeff Chandler]

UN members want access to medical records. They want to know what’s being taught in the schools, from elementary grades through college. They want to keep abreast of all scientific advancements. They want to know what’s being mailed, what’s being exhibited in museums and what’s being discussed in town hall meetings.

Who do they think they are, the NSA?

[Dr. Marten]

There they go again. Trying to control yet another innovation in technology that would not even exist for their conveniences if it were not for the United States.

Pack sand Commies!

[Nip]

You may be on to something here.

Last summer there was a tech meeting in California where a whole new system was proposed.

We are currently running under Internet Protocol V4 (IPv4). At this meeting it was proposed to jump to IPv6. The biggest difference is IPv6 is, if I remember correctly, a 128-bit system. It will be able to read the legacy IPv4 but I doubt IPv4 (a 56-bit system) will be able to read IPv6.

If there are any tech types out there please correct my faulty reporting as I am a computer user not a computer wizard..

[JRandomFreeper]

. If someone started setting up their own DNS and their own server then connected it to another server and so on and so own from my point of view you'd have a new internet. It seems to me like the backbone is simply servers and nodes strung out nationwide.

Correct.... That is an intranet. A private network. Most companies have them, some are quite large.

The problem arises when there is a connection from the intranet to the internet (or extranet, as they say in swenglish). Suddenly, the private network, generally isn't. Certainly, you can keep some data inside the intranet, but it's very difficult to keep data out of the intranet.

For a while, I thought VPNs would change the structure of the internet, but they merely proved to be intranet extensions, except where they have been hacked and are being used illegally as gateways....

/john

[softengine]

Agreed. But I cannot help but feel that eventually some form of control will evolve from their persistance.

[excalibur1701]

If any of this will help the Spam issues, then I'm all for it.

[Maria S]

"Control over content would be the coup d'etat, and certain death to sites like FreeRepublic."


Bingo! This is precisely what "Hillary's Private War" by Richard Poe is ALL about...

Drudge, FreeRepublic (and Mr. Jim)...it's all in there, along with some fascinating info I'd never read about Andrew Sullivan and others. Hillary Clinton recognized, several years ago, how important the internet is...and she did NOT like it!!

P.S. Miz Clinton does not seem to be a very nice person! LOL!

[Tailgunner Joe]

bttt

[bigdcaldavis]

When the UN gains control of the internet, you can look forward to these unholy policies :

- hate speech and politically incorrect speech will be illegal, and those using such speech will be brought before the ICC and have their internet licenses PERMANENTLY REVOKED (banned from the internet for life)

- internet access will be taxed; an annual internet license fee (similar to the BBC's annual TV license fee) will be required for MERE OWNERSHIP of any internet-capable machine (including internet-capable cellphones, WebTV, and any internet-capable video game console); any citizen who fails to pay the fee will have their equipment confiscated and they will be brought before the ICC and permanently disqualified from having an internet license

- talking about religion will be strictly forbidden; violators will be brought before the ICC and have their internet licenses PERMANENTLY REVOKED (banned from the internet for life)

- anybody who uses the internet to criticize then UN will have their internet licenses PERMANENTLY REVOKED (banned from the internet for life)

Likewise, all citizens with internet licenses will be subject to random inspections (without notice) of their internet-capable equipment to make sure that they have no pirated music, pirated software, infringing software (so say goodbye to Linux and MacOS as the UN declares Windows the only legal computer operating system), and anything deemed hate speech. Possession of such items on the computer will result in confiscation of equipment and...you guessed it, PERMANENT REVOCATION of the internet license.