NEWS: Trouble For US in Geneva: US Likely to Lose Control of Internet

After 11 days of negotiations among the world's governments in Geneva regarding control of the internet, the foreign governments are expected to agree to a deal which awards themselves ultimate control. US refusal to relinquish control was only met by stiffer opposition, and faced with the international consensus the US may be forced to acquiesce at an upcoming UN summit of world leaders in November. After prolonged stalemated debates, the EU proposed a new forum deciding public policy and a "cooperation model" comprising governments that would be in overall charge.



My biggest concern over this if the US loses control is the likelihood of ultimate censorship and freedom of speech. Let's face it, many other countries do not see things the way we do, and within all the orbiting questions remaining to be answered is one in particular for me: How will issues such as freedom of speech, porn and human rights be dealt with on a global scale? Will this bring about the need to debate issues such as these on a global level, thereby resulting in decisions that will go against the very grain of freedom of expression?

I think the US as the main inventors and distributors of this technology ought to retain the right of its control. Just because it has global implications does not justify it being yanked right out from under us. If that's the case, then what's to stop the world from taking any other system or invention originating in the US?

Related News Links:
www.eetuk.com
news.zdnet.co.uk
www.iht.com

Related AboveTopSecret.com Discussion Threads:
U.S flat out rejects calls for it to give up control of the internet

[edit on 6-10-2005 by TrueAmerican]

How will issues such as freedom of speech, porn and human rights be dealt with on a global scale?

They won't be. Thus freedom of speech will be ensured. If one government has control then regardless of any constitution guarenteeing free speech, rules will be fitted to US standards. US standards are not recognised as the pinnacle of free speech elsewhere.

It should be pointed out that the internet is a culmination and coming together of a number of inventions and not all made by the USA.

[edit on 6-10-2005 by John bull 1]

Sir Timothy John "Tim" Berners-Lee, KBE, FRS (TimBL or TBL) (born June 8, 1955) is the inventor of the World Wide Web (along with Robert Cailliau) and director of the World Wide Web Consortium, which oversees its continued development.

Berners-Lee was born in London, England, the son of Conway Berners-Lee and Mary Lee Woods. His parents, both mathematicians, were employed together on the team that built the Manchester Mark I, one of the earliest computers. Berners-Lee attended Emanuel School in Wandsworth. He is an alumnus of Queen's College, Oxford University, where he built a computer with a soldering iron, TTL gates, an M6800 processor and an old television. Whilst at Oxford he was caught hacking with a friend and was subsequently banned from using the university computer.

en.wikipedia.org...

Charles Babbage (December 26, 1791 – October 18, 1871) was an English mathematician, analytical philosopher and (proto-) computer scientist who originated the idea of a programmable computer. Parts of his uncompleted mechanisms are on display in the London Science Museum. In 1991, working from Babbage's original plans, a difference engine was completed, and functioned perfectly. It was built to tolerances achievable in the 19th century, indicating that Babbage's machine would have worked.

Charles Babbage was born in London on December 26, 1791, most likely at 44 Crosby Row, Walworth Road, London. His father, Benjamin Babbage, was a banking partner of the Praeds who owned the Bitton Estate in Teignmouth. His mother was Betsy Plumleigh Babbage. In 1808 the Babbage family moved into the old Rowdens house in East Teignmouth, and Benjamin Babbage became a warden of the nearby St. Michael’s Church.

en.wikipedia.org...

just two examples.

[edit on 6-10-2005 by John bull 1]

The US " "can't in any way allow any changes" that go against the "historic role" of the US in controlling the top level of the internet."





Did I hear that right?

And he who controls information and knowledge, controls the world.



Thank goodness there are other bullies in the sandbox. Let them wrestle while we play.

This will fracture the current WWW like the to the Tower of Babble fable... in this case the Tower of ICANN shall crumble. The company Neustar have already created a root DNS server for their .gprs domain.

The Internet War Begins. Watch out for falling servers.

Just because they no longer control it, doesn't mean they will not stop their people from seeing certain sites. It is what we see with China after all...

How do you say Google in Mandarin?

Originally posted by John bull 1
They won't be. Thus freedom of speech will be ensured. If one government has control then regardless of any constitution guarenteeing free speech, rules will be fitted to US standards. US standards are not recognised as the pinnacle of free speech elsewhere.

Yeah, thats all well said and good, JohnBull1, but exactly how will freedom of speech be ensured if the corrupt UN takes it over?
It would seem to me, and others, that the UN could set their own UN standards, and block creation and access to websites as it sees fit.
Are you indicating that if an individual or individuals create a website dubbed www.theunsucks.com, that the UN won't simply turn around and not recognize it, deny service, and/or simply block access to it, etc.?
Freedom of speech ensured the UN way and by UN standards.
Btw, UN standards are what, exactly?

Next, the UN will tax the internet. You will happily agree to it?
Next, the UN [via Chirac's initial suggestion] will institute a global tax. You will happily agree to it?

Hey, maybe those seeking to have the UN control the Internet may want to try and control Internet 2, as well. That would be acceptable too?

This IS a conspiracy site, right?
All politics aside, but would this not be interpreted as just another step towards the New World Order?
Hello New World Order, if it means taking control of the internet out of US hands, huh?
Let me guess, this is also acceptable, as well?






seekerof

[edit on 6-10-2005 by Seekerof]

The EU wants control of the Root DNS servers taken out of ICANN (US Govt) control and given to an international body (UN). That in itself is not a big deal, I'm wondering if the EU is getting really worried that our economy here in the US is on the brink and this a move to secure their business interests.

Why shouldn't something that is international, be over seen by an international organisation? Or am I missing something?

Originally posted by Jakomo

How do you say Google in Mandarin?

Would it be Google?
Google launched a blog in Mandarin, here, and the announcement of such can be found here, 5th article down.

Mandarin for Google would be Google?




seekerof

Originally posted by Passer By
Why shouldn't something that is international, be over seen by an international organisation? Or am I missing something?

You mean like ownership of property?
Publications?
Internet access companies?
Gun rights?
Telephone exchanges?
E-mail?
Radio Stations?
Magazines?
IM's?
Newspapers?
Etc.?
Etc.?

International control is all the New World Order seeks also, correct?
Btw, the New World Order would or could be viewed as an international organization, as well?
Or am I missing something here?




seekerof

[edit on 6-10-2005 by Seekerof]

As Seekerof mentioned, the UN having control/ownership of the internet would only bring us one step closer to the NWO taking over....you guys don't seriously think the NWO in NOT an international effort, do you?

For the most part, every country regulates thier own internet...let's just keep it that way.

OTENA: Ilewhay earchingsay orfay upidstay hitsa, I oundfay isthay.
erehay

ortyspay





[edit on 6/10/2005 by SportyMB]

OK, someone please explain to me how ANY country can rule the Net? I read the article and still don't see how any entity can control it. Maybe the internet IS the NWO you're talking about? NWO= people. Not gov'ts.

All I have to say about that, is IF the UN takes controll of the internet, then I will be getting rid of my internet. There was life before the internet, and I am sure that I could remember what that was if you give me a day or two.

What do they mean 'control the internet'? How can any one country, phsyically, control it? Its dispersed thru many countries.

Originally posted by Seekerof

Originally posted by Passer By
You mean like ownership of property?
Publications?
Internet access companies?
Gun rights?
Telephone exchanges?
E-mail?
Radio Stations?
Magazines?
IM's?
Newspapers?
Etc.?
Etc.?

No, I mean as the air, the tides, the moon light - you know. Like that.

Originally posted by Seekerof
International control is all the New World Order seeks also, correct?
Btw, the New World Order would or could be viewed as an international organization, as well?
Or am I missing something here?

seekerof

[edit on 6-10-2005 by Seekerof]

Ahh, the boogey man. Sorry dude, scare tatics don't work. Not that much of a coward. The new world order is easy to deal with, what isn't and is more problematic for the world, is this seeming entity that likes to use these scare tatics to herd people like cattle and rattle the NWO order everytime "their" version of reality feels threatened to snap the people back in line for protection.

So really, I do feel you are missing something - but lets chalk that up to different strokes for different folks. If some fictional, possible future super secret organsation with world overtunes - that has to be one of the most public secret's in the history of man, is what drives you to be how you are, and you like it, then great. But for me, anything that obvious, isn't to be frightened of.

But that is just me

The rest of the world is welcome to set up all the root servers they desire, but they will not get control of the ones in the U.S. and as I understand 10 of the 13 root servers in the world are located here. We could end up with a situation wherein foreign/U.N. controlled root servers come on line to service whatever other people want them to serve, but if they want to tie into the U.S. internet they will have to conform to our protocols and any funny domain names, etc. will of necessity have to go through some sort of translation process.

Further, I believe market economics will pretty much insure any foreign root servers do comply with U.S. rules. A situation like that would pretty much guarantee less than 100% connectivity around the world.

[edit on 6-10-2005 by Astronomer68]

Yeah, I would concur, Passer By.
Rational minds think alike, but even a broken clock gives the correct time twice a day.

Anyhow, as skeptical as you or I may be, this is a conspiracy site, this story has a definate conspiracy slant, and you might want to consider hitting the NWO forum and do a little digging through the archives at how the NWO may or may not fictitiously be implemented.

You know, better safe than sorry, and all.
But thats just me.






seekerof

[edit on 6-10-2005 by Seekerof]

I have got an extremely bad feeling about this. Things on the internet have been doing incredibly well under control of the US. Theres no point in giving over control to the UN. Besides, it's not like the UN is exactly trustworthy. Just another NWO scheme...

However what does happen if the US refuses to give over control (which I hope so)? It's not like they can exactly keep us out of the UN seing as we've got a permanent seat on the security council. That and without the US being invited, they know that they'll lose our massive contributions to the UN. Without US money the UN wouldn't even be in existance. Seing as we built the UN building own our territory there's little they can do to actually prevent us from just walking into a UN meeting.

Sure they've got international security guards, but are they really going to stop an ambassador escorted by a platoon of US Marines?

Giving up control of the internet is quite possibly the worst thing this country could do short of nuking Russia. And personally I hope that we continue to refuse. Because seriously, what's the UN going to do about it?