posted on November 19, 2003 08:12:52 AM new
Have any of you heard anything about this proposal? I hadn't. Would you want the U.S. to agree to put the Internet under the leadership of the U.N.? Or leave it where it is? Or maybe you believe this will never happen anyway, so why be concerned about it?
Sure came as a surprise to me when I read it, today. Never even entered my mind that this would be considered.
After reading this article, what came to my mind was the countries who were threatening ebay about their not allowing sellers to sell certain items, for different reasons. Would more of the same come about under a UN leadership? Would other freedoms/restrictions come about under a UN management of the Internet?
What are your thoughts/opinions?????
-----
U.N. group seeks control of Internet
By John Zarocostas
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
GENEVA
Governments spearheaded by China, Brazil, India, Russia and Saudi Arabia are trying to place the Internet under the control of the United Nations or its member governments, a move that the United States and other developed countries are determined to resist.
The issue has cropped up in preparatory talks for a world summit on the information society to be held from Dec. 10 to 12 in Geneva, with the stated goal of advancing the management and worldwide use of the Internet, especially in poorer nations.
Delegates from rich and developing nations remained divided on the matter at the end of the latest round of talks on Friday, senior diplomats said.
"We will continue to fight hard to ensure that Internet governance remains a balanced enterprise among all stakeholders and continues to be private-sector-led," said the chief of the U.S. delegation, Ambassador David A. Gross.
Pierre Gagne, executive director of the world summit, earlier identified control of the Internet as one of two key issues in the talks, adding that control and financial issues "will probably be the last issues to be resolved" at the summit.
Many developing countries argue that governments need to play a greater role in managing and setting policy for the Internet, while the United States, the European Union and Japan, among others, say government interference could stifle the development of the dynamic medium.
The Internet, at present, is loosely managed by a private organization in California named the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, which coordinates such matters as Internet servers and domain names.
[put the above highlighted info under the learn-something-new-everyday file, for me anyway]
Countries with developing and emerging economies would like to hand over that authority to a U.N. agency, such as the International Telecommunications Union (ITU).
posted on November 19, 2003 10:16:19 AM new
LOL - NTS
The military? I don't know. During the early years of the Vietnam war one of our friends was involved in the computer field while serving in the Navy. When he got out he made some big $$ because of his knowledge and skills of computers. At that time, if memory serves me , no businesses were using computers yet....only our the military.
When reading this article I was thinking about how, was it China?, who was limiting what information could be read by their citizens on the internet.
posted on November 19, 2003 10:29:08 AM new
Yes... China does. It also censors American movies. Funny thing about their censoring... my brother has been there quite a few times, not Hong Kong, mainland China, and he was in a hotel, and they have the movies you can pay to watch...and they were older ones, but he got, oh God, forgot the name the Arnold movie, where he is in the CIA, and his wife doesn't know, and she gets involved... anyway! they had a 'sex scene' (which I didn't think was THAT bad) it was his wife sent on an 'undercover' mission to a hotel room, and to meet a guy (Arnold), acting like a prostitute, the guy had her dance.... and take off her clothes, (NOT all of them) anyway.. he said they took all that out. They didn't take out any fighting or killing though. strange huh?
Wanna Take a Ride? Art Bell is Back! Weekends on C2C-www.coasttocoastam.com
posted on November 19, 2003 10:32:23 AM new
About the 'computer age', all I know, is Mike went to school for 'all he knows' in the mid 70's for computers... good time to get into it. He has had to keep up with all the latest stuff, because that is one of the things he does now... not PC's but he is in IT.
Wanna Take a Ride? Art Bell is Back! Weekends on C2C-www.coasttocoastam.com
posted on November 19, 2003 10:40:41 AM new
By the way, wanted to say what a beautiful family you have. Thanks for posting those pics on the other thread. You're beautiful too.
----------
Another thing that concerns me about going International with the Internet would be all the sensorship that, imo, would most likely take place. Right now it's pretty much open. But I can see all kinds of things 'banned' if this ever happens.
I just don't understand the need/drive of 'one world, one economy, one religion' one everything'. This world is too diverse to agree on what should be allowed, and what wouldn't be allowed to be accessed on the internet.
[ edited by Linda_K on Nov 19, 2003 10:43 AM ]
posted on November 19, 2003 10:52:55 AM new
You'll likely see that anyway. There are plenty of folks--in both the public & government sectors--who have already started trying to censor the Net. Of course, they use as their rallying cry "it's to prtect the CHILDREN."
And what they can't censor, they'll tax. Censorship, like charity, should begin at home; but unlike charity, it should end there --Clare Booth Luce
posted on November 19, 2003 11:03:08 AM new
True, bunni - For me, I've always been one that feels child pornography should be removed. Websites like NAMBLA that promote abuse of children. IMO, that promotes breaking our laws too. So...I admit I'm guilty in that area.
But your point is exactly what I mean. No one agrees on what should be allowed, and what shouldn't.....and now some think the UN should decide these matters for all the countries in our world.
posted on November 19, 2003 04:53:50 PM new
That is exactly why, if the UN tries its hand at this, that it will fail. Different countries, and different people within those countries, have differing views on what is & is not "good."
If a country regulates what its own citizens can view on the Net, that's their business--though I'd feel sorry for the folks having to endure that censorship.
For the rest...if you or anyone else is so concerned about what's on the Net--for the children's sake or otherwise--then you need to install a filter on your computer and regulate what your children can and cannot view. But keep in mind that its not really possible or even healthy to totally cocoon kids in cotton wool to protect them from the big, bad world. Censorship, like charity, should begin at home; but unlike charity, it should end there --Clare Booth Luce
posted on November 19, 2003 05:44:11 PM new
I saw a commercial not too long ago, about AOL, they now have Kids AOL, called KAOL? For kids under 12 or something, I guess their own service?
And I just remembered the movie they censored in China... True Lies LOL... the 'sexual content'.... which showed his wife in her underwear... man... they took that out of the movie, but kept all the shoot 'em up, killings etc.... go figure
Wanna Take a Ride? Art Bell is Back! Weekends on C2C-www.coasttocoastam.com
posted on November 19, 2003 07:17:38 PM new
Linda, unlike you, I believe that it's healthy to read from a variety of sources, and yes even a site owned by extreme religious cults like the Moonies, ie.Washington Times.
But you should really be aware of the bias to which they are subject.
http://www.exmoonies.org/
Christianity:
"I know the established Christian theology....I know the enemy, but the enemy doesn't know me. Thus the enemy has already lost the war..."(Rev. Moon, Today's World, Feb 95, p. 14)
If you doubt the info on this site, just do a search for Reverend Moon or Moonies or Unification movement; and perhaps you may at least consider some problems that may arise out of failing to separate religion from state.
Certainly sound a lot more dangerous than Aljazeera
Anyhow, back to topic;
not that I understand it all, but; http://www.sabcnews.com/sci_tech/computers/0,2172,66330,00.html
“The US delegation said that if it did not get its way on the relevant clause, its president would not attend the Summit - a threat not without precedent in previous UN summits. “
posted on November 19, 2003 08:52:09 PM new
Rather than the flagrant give away of the public airwaves by our FCC communication should left up to the individual to choose. Televisions have both a tuner and an off switch, on a computer you can choose the URL of the site you wish to view or you can shut your monitor if a site offends you.
If Nambla offends you don't look at it (I never have). I also have never looked at Liberty U's site, any number of hate sites and who knows how many other sites that I disagree with or have no interest in. I do believe these sites have the right to express their opinions.
With regard to censorship it is reprehensible in any form why just recently a mini series was withdrawn from the marketplace because of political pressure and I have to say this was not in China.
ICANN does not censor any content on the Internet they maintain a directory that directly relates to the names of various sites (URL's) that are currently available
Friends don't let friends vote Republican!
posted on November 19, 2003 09:17:41 PM new
This is as silly as trying to tax emails. Anyone who spends a half an hour googling can figure out how to surf and send anonymous emails...Controlling the net is impossible, except in totalitarian garden spots like China and Saudi Arabia...people who suggest it are fools. For every regulation or attempt to regulate that is implemented, it will take hackers about 15 minutes to find a way around it. It'll never be taxed or controlled in any real sense, and that's exactly the way it should be.....
___________________________________
The Republicans are the party that says government doesn't work and then gets elected and proves it.
-- P. J. ORourke (Holidays in hell, 1989)
posted on November 20, 2003 04:58:47 AM new
austi - Linda, unlike you, I believe that it's healthy to read from a variety of sources.
Unlike me??? Just how in the world do you profess to know what I read and what I don't? I seriously doubt you are clairvoyant.
I too read a variety of sources, and I form my own opinions on what I agree with and what I don't. You make too many assumptions.
---------------
And to those who say one should just filter out what one doesn't want to view, or doesn't want their children to view....I couldn't disagree more.
To me that's turning you head the other way to the sexual abuse of children, no matter what medium it's presented in. It is against the law and a moral outrage. We're not talking about adults who want to share their mutual sexual perversions with other adults. It's children who need our protection.
Those who wish to turn their heads and ignore what groups like Namble are doing are supporting allowing their sick, and illegal, agenda to continue.
That's what we're all about. A society of laws. Sounds like some think/support the stand that their right to encourage law-breaking sexual abuse of our children is more important than how many children will continue to be abused.
There are limits to 'free speech'. That's already been established.
posted on November 20, 2003 05:02:58 AM new
dave - With regard to censorship it is reprehensible in any form why just recently a mini series was withdrawn from the marketplace because of political pressure and I have to say this was not in China.
You are correct. This was not in China. But then you're mixing apples and oranges. This mini-series was not censored by our government. But rather by calls from citizens who found the lies objectionable. Not the same things at all. And it was CBSs decision to pull the show. They could have chosen to hold their ground, show it anyway, and accept the consequences of their actions. That's what they were afraid of....losing those $$ because too many were objecting. NO censorship there....just public outrage and protest.
posted on November 20, 2003 07:31:47 AM new
Just because it wasn't by the government doesn't mean it wasn't censorship. It was--of the I don't want to see/read it, so no one should variety. Censorship, like charity, should begin at home; but unlike charity, it should end there --Clare Booth Luce
posted on November 20, 2003 07:36:36 AM new
bunni - Trying to be clearer. No one *forced* CBS to give into the pressure of the protestors. It was their decision to do so because of concern for their 'bottom line'.
People are free to let anyone know how unhappy they are about anything. Just like the anti-war protestors...their hoped for goal is to cause change to come about. To me this is no different.
posted on November 20, 2003 07:45:12 AM new
Wrong--they were forced to give into the will of people who didn't like the idea of the project. They are a business and the protestors were threatening to hurt that business. Censorship. We don't want it, so no one else should have it either--and we'll cause you financial harm if you go ahead with it. A fine bit of extortion.
I see the see sort of thing all the time in schools and libraries. Censorship, like charity, should begin at home; but unlike charity, it should end there --Clare Booth Luce
posted on November 20, 2003 08:06:26 AM new
It works the same way when the other side is upset with what they are against. There are many examples of the left trying to squash the free speech of those on the right. It's all the same thing. Pressure for change of anything they're against.
posted on December 10, 2003 06:39:11 AM new
I am a happy Democrat, colin. You will have to ask someone more knowledgeable about socialism than I am to answer your question.
posted on December 10, 2003 06:49:30 AM new
colin,
Government is only as perfect as the administration in charge. In this great country we have the option to change that administration by voting and as you know, I am looking forward to that election day. When we rid our good country of George Bush, we will have a country that is as perfect as any government can possibly be.
