U.S. Congress to consider U.N. Regulation of the Internet

[Jimbeaux]

This will of course go nowhere in Congress, if they know what's good for them.

http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valley/technolog...

[Jimbeaux]

I am bumping this because I want to know if anybody supports the U.N.'s scheme. No matter what, it appears to be going for a vote at the U.N. in the near future. Either way, enforcement of such a thing, if passed, is dubious I suppose.

[JagLover]

Given the Internet is a global presence it makes sense for it to be regulated at UN level in principal. It is the form of that regulation that matters.

[Jimbeaux]

JagLover said:

Given the Internet is a global presence it makes sense for it to be regulated at UN level in principal. It is the form of that regulation that matters.

The internet, IMO, is the ultimate checks and balance tool. While much evil is perpetrated by its use, more good comes of it. None of the recent views of or organization against dictatorial rule would have been possible or been as successful without the internet. There is little mystery to why China, Russia, etc. want this type of regulation. The people that designed the internet did so in a way that it may survive a nuclear attack. By making no central location but rather many nodes, they not only accomplished their goal but inadvertently made it very difficult for a government to clamp down.

[davepoth]

Jimbeaux said:

The internet, IMO, is the ultimate checks and balance tool. While much evil is perpetrated by its use, more good comes of it. None of the recent views of or organization against dictatorial rule would have been possible or been as successful without the internet. There is little mystery to why China, Russia, etc. want this type of regulation. The people that designed the internet did so in a way that it may survive a nuclear attack. By making no central location but rather many nodes, they not only accomplished their goal but inadvertently made it very difficult for a government to clamp down.

As it stands of course, POTUS still has an effective off-switch. Enough of the internet is still routed through the USA and US based companies to mean that if he pressed the button, it would go very dark.

[Jimbeaux]

davepoth said:

Jimbeaux said:

The internet, IMO, is the ultimate checks and balance tool. While much evil is perpetrated by its use, more good comes of it. None of the recent views of or organization against dictatorial rule would have been possible or been as successful without the internet. There is little mystery to why China, Russia, etc. want this type of regulation. The people that designed the internet did so in a way that it may survive a nuclear attack. By making no central location but rather many nodes, they not only accomplished their goal but inadvertently made it very difficult for a government to clamp down.

As it stands of course, POTUS still has an effective off-switch. Enough of the internet is still routed through the USA and US based companies to mean that if he pressed the button, it would go very dark.

True, but that would have to be an un-reproachable reason or he would be toast. Even then, I see it quickly regenerationg, sort of of like the Borg collective.....to use a Star Trek TNG reference.

[bitchstewie]

davepoth said:

As it stands of course, POTUS still has an effective off-switch. Enough of the internet is still routed through the USA and US based companies to mean that if he pressed the button, it would go very dark.

Or if China gets bored again. http://www.zdnet.co.uk/news/security/2010/11/18/ch...

[Jimbeaux]

bhstewie said:

davepoth said:

As it stands of course, POTUS still has an effective off-switch. Enough of the internet is still routed through the USA and US based companies to mean that if he pressed the button, it would go very dark.

Or if China gets bored again. http://www.zdnet.co.uk/news/security/2010/11/18/ch...

I like Google's attitude toward that:

http://www.zdnet.co.uk/news/regulation/2010/03/23/...

[Halb]

Jimbeaux said:

The people that designed the internet did so in a way that it may survive a nuclear attack. By making no central location but rather many nodes, they not only accomplished their goal but inadvertently made it very difficult for a government to clamp down.

Skynet?

[Jimbeaux]

Halb said:

Jimbeaux said:

The people that designed the internet did so in a way that it may survive a nuclear attack. By making no central location but rather many nodes, they not only accomplished their goal but inadvertently made it very difficult for a government to clamp down.

Skynet?

I suppose if we can imagine it, we can build it.

[martin84]

Is this the same United States which criticises state control and censorship of the internet in places like China and North Korea?

[Jimbeaux]

martin84 said:

Is this the same United States which criticises state control and censorship of the internet in places like China and North Korea?

I suppose you don't get it. The U.N. asks nations to support this. As a courtesy, the Congress agrees to hear it. They have no intention of passing it. So, yes, the same U.S.

[nelly1]

http://phys.org/news/2012-05-internet.html

[Jimbeaux]

nelly1 said:

http://phys.org/news/2012-05-internet.html

There you go Martin84, get it now?