U.N. Trying To Take Control Of Internet U.S. Warns

By: Richard Stalker - June 1, 2012

In what has been a rarity during an election year, bi-partisan government officials have warned that a December summit by the World Conference on International Telecommunications is hearing proposals by China, Russia, Iran, and Saudi Arabia to try to take control of the internet.

The summit will review a set of telecommunications regulations established in 1988 and will propose the U.N. establish an new “information security” regime or create an alternative to ICANN. “These are terrible ideas,” Rep. Fred Upton said in a house hearing. This opens up the doors for countries with a weak appreciation of free speech and civil liberties like Russia and China to further oppress their citizens.

This proposal has the ability to drastically effect the way we all use the internet unless the United States can effectively block it. If the US cant block it, they “just might break the Internet by subjecting it to an international regulatory regime designed for old-fashioned telephone service,” Rep. Greg Walden(R) from Oregon said.

The ball in in the United States court being as they are one of the 5 permanent members of the UN Security council and have veto rights over any measure that goes through the system. They will however rely on some of their allies to keep the internet free from this, with Japan, Canada, Mexico, and many European countries on their side.

About the Author

Richard StalkerRichard Stalker is a staff writer for WebProNews. Google: +Richard Stalker StumbleUpon: http://www.stumbleupon.com/stumbler/RichardStalker Pintrest: http://pinterest.com/richternyr35/

View all posts by Richard Stalker
  • Louis Leclezio

    GOOGLE : ‘Vint Cerf’ : ““The greatest strength of the current system of Internet governance is its meritocratic democracy. Anyone who cares can voice ideas and opinions, but the ultimate decisions are governed by broad consensus. It might not always be the most convenient of systems, but it’s the fairest, safest, and historically most effective way to ensure that good ideas win out and bad ideas die.”

    Those are the words spoken by Mr. Vint Cerf.

    In the real world what do Google actions reflect? Check out: http://www.snocadia.blogspot.com and/orwww.truthremldarland.blogspot.com

    From personal experience, I question Google’s Policy and offer the solution.

    Does GOOGLE believe that: In America, Free Speech from ‘Africa’ Is NOT A MUST if it disturbs the ruling wealthy?

    BUT: In China, Free Speech IS A MUST to disturb the ruling Chinese Government!

    Is it not a wonder, how a small time, pro tem Judge from small town in America could achieve during a marathon hearing, in just about less than thirty minutes, through an ‘off the cuff’ court order, what China failed to do over months?

    That is to force Google, without trial or due process, to cower down docilely and to allow itself to be muzzled up as far as my International right to Free Speech through the Google platform is concerned and simultaneously compromise the availability of impartial information accessible to all through the Google platform.

    Considering the above fact, how ambiguous and contradictory are Google policies?

    Should Google not have one and the same policy towards all to meet its global objectives in line with its Mission Statement?

    “Isn’t it high time for new LEGISLATION by the UNITED NATIONS, an impartial world organization, to govern Freedom of Speech for the benefit of all world citizens on the world wide Internet?

    Otherwise, how does anyone from Africa, or anywhere else in the world, manage to access the court of any potentially biased Judge in America in order to protect and defend his sacred rights and obtain redress?

    If and when, as in this case, at any time, anyhow, any why from any small town in America, any kind of a Judge can arbitrarily and capriciously deny anyone anywhere in the world: Free Speech and Free access to impartial information!”

    Additionally, is it discriminatory against the poor and against foreigners outside America if Google elects to remove certain posts only by Court order obtained by the American rich?

    Such Court orders are expensive to obtain. And they are virtually impossible to attain by a foreigner outside America.

    Would such a policy by Google be then designed for the ‘sole’ benefit of and strictly in favor of the wealthy American citizen?

    How does the average world citizen get redress in America when the US controls the Internet?

    My wife and I would be glad to testify in Dubai in December 2012 from the little guy’s point of view.

    We want to add our voices from the tiny Republic of Mauritius –‘Africa’ to the voices of Russia, China and the Arab States after suffering, first hand, from a dictatorial and biased ruling handed down against me in rural America by any kind of a Judge. (Call for entire Trial Brief by writing to: leclezio@hotmail.com)

    Considering that a number of small countries are hankering to be heard in support of Russia, China and the Arab States at the next December meeting in Dubai, I hope that, when completed, my web site will spur my Government in Mauritius and the Government of other smaller nations to vote in favor of Internet control passing from the US to the UN for the greater good of all.