Imagine that.

The ruling class wants to regulate the internet. I thought they might wait a few months, but I guess they need to push this while their boy Julian Assange is still in the spotlight.

No one that believes in the free exchange of ideas and thoughts should find this sort of thing acceptable.

The elitists love to push their progressive agenda until it is used against them. Then it's time to crackdown..




UN mulls internet regulation options.

WikiLeaks sparks push for tighter controls.

The United Nations is considering whether to set up an inter-governmental working group to harmonise global efforts by policy makers to regulate the internet.

Establishment of such a group has the backing of several countries, spearheaded by Brazil.

At a meeting in New York on Wednesday, representatives from Brazil called for an international body made up of Government representatives that would to attempt to create global standards for policing the internet - specifically in reaction to challenges such as WikiLeaks.

The Brazilian delegate stressed, however, that this should not be seen as a call for an "takeover" of the internet.

India, South Africa, China and Saudi Arabia appeared to favour a new possible over-arching inter-government body.

However, Australia, US, UK, Belgium and Canada and attending business and community representatives argued there were risks in forming yet another working group that might isolate itself from the industry, community users and the general public.

"My concern is that if we were to make a move to form a governmental-only body then that would send a very strong signal to civil society that their valuable contribution was not required or was not being looked for," an un-named Australian representative told the meeting.

Debate on the creation of a new inter-governmental body stemmed from a UN Economic and Social Council resolution 2010/2 of 19 July.

The resolution invited the UN Secretary-General "to convene open and inclusive consultations involving all Member States and all other stakeholders with a view to assisting the process towards enhanced cooperation in order to enable Governments on an equal footing to carry out their roles and responsibilities in respect of international public policy issues pertaining to the Internet but not of the day-to-day technical and operational matters that do not impact upon those issues."

Much debate concerned the meaning of "enhanced cooperation" and whether a new inter-governmental body was required. Participants also debated the roles of existing organisations - such as the Internet Governance Forum, ICANN and the ITU.

The IGF - an organisation that informs the UN but makes no decisions - is running close to the end of a five-year mandate, due to expire at ?the end of the year.

The likes of ISOC, ICANN and more recently the World Information Technology and Services Alliance (WITSA) have recently expressed concerns [PDF]? that a working panel to decide on the future of the IGF has been limited to representatives from member-states.

"Australia is a very strong supporter of the Internet Governance Forum," the unidentified Australian UN representative said at the New York meeting this week. "That is very much due to the multi-stake-holder approach of the IGF. It is an inclusive process."

Australia's Department of Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy said that Australian Government welcomed the resolution of the Second Committee of the United Nation General Assembly (UNGA) to extend the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) for a further five years.

The DBCDE said it would like to see the organisation retain an open and participatory membership.

"Australia has always supported the participation of civil society and the private sector in the IGF and regards their participation as being integral to the IGF's success," a spokesman told iTnews.

http://www.itnews.com.au/News/242051,un-mulls-internet-regulation-options.aspx

I understand this, to some degree. Because of the BROAD scope of the internet, I understand certain regulations, similar to those for cable tv.

This seems fine now, but I wonder about future repercussions. News stations put spin on things, and I'm not saying that the internet is politics free, but at least there are many view points here. With the introduction of an internet police force, any site that posts information counter to the current UN administration's views could find itself the victim on their attentions. Plus, they would probably get rid of Richard, and that would be horrible!

With control and regulation comes censorship.

Bad Idea

having some unelected bureaucrat deciding what content you can or cannot access.. is a bad idea..

COMPLETE AND UTTER BS! Screw the UN! I hope dingos eat their babies!

Why does everything have to be regulated? Once it begins, it snowballs into a nightmare of bureaucratic red tape. Besides, I would think the freedoms of the internet might actually help law enforcement agencies because they have fewer issues to dance around and can focus on the job at hand: catching cyber-criminals!

obama has been pushing for an internet kill switch since he's been in office

Here's another good reason to withdraw from the fascist UN.

Because the majority of the citizenry are ignorant and/or corrupt enough to accept regulation of everything. As Ludwig Von Mises wrote,

"Whoever wants lastingly to establish good government must start by trying to persuade his fellow citizens and offering them sound ideologies. . . . There is no hope left for a civilization when the masses favor harmful policies."

Fuc the UN............

But I want my tentacle porn!

When I see U.N. attached to anything, I automatically turn my nose up at it!

The UN You wanna put these idiots in a position of control over information flow?!



"The old UN Human Rights Commission was a body so biased and farcical that it was disbanded last year. The commission met once annually for a six-week session in Geneva, formally devoting one week of each session to condemnations of Israel along with much additional bashing of the Jewish state. Despite protests, the commission’s 2003 session was chaired by a paladin of human rights known as Libya.

But the UN Human Rights Council, set up to replace the commission as part of a putative reform of the UN, doesn’t look much better. As UN critic Anne Bayefsky already noted last February 24 when the president of the General Assembly issued a blueprint for the council, the new design “promises an institution more contemptible than its predecessor.”

The old commission’s basic problem, she pointed out, was its membership, which included beacons like China, Cuba, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Venezuela, and Zimbabwe. But such states adamantly opposed setting any criteria for membership on the new council, and they won. So the council still includes China, Cuba, and Saudi Arabia along with other models of virtue like Algeria, Azerbaijan, Djibouti, Indonesia, Pakistan, and Russia."

from http://archive.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=3651

You mean Lieberman wants the president to control the internet?

no, i mean obama wants a kill switch to turn it off at his will....

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/06/25/internet-kill-switch-appr_n_625856.html