dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
827
share rss forum feed


ctceo
Premium
join:2001-04-26
South Bend, IN
Reviews:
·Virgin Mobile Br..

1 edit

Like always

So the Ministry of communications commissar (or ) is calling the internet Commie controlled?

Or does this mean if your not with DHS Secretary (The FSS equivalent of Aleksandr Bortnikov) you must be communist? I thought she supported a soviet style totalitarian one-world order?

Isn't that like the pot calling the kettle black?

Better yet, lets ask Czar Sunstein at the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs what his position is on who should regulate the internet and how.

LOLZ


FFH5
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ
kudos:5
said by ctceo:

So the Ministry of communications commissar (or ) is calling the internet Commie controlled?

McDowell never said any such thing. That is purely Karl's interpretation because McDowell pointed out Russia and China. But he didn't point them out as Communists but as dictatorships that want to implement crushing censorship on the internet. And those 2 countries along with much of the mideast and South America want a heavy censorship control implemented based on the wishes of a large number of UN General Assembly members.

He also said many countries would not agree to that and this would result in many countries withdrawing from international organizations and lead to an internet split asunder.

quote:
And let's face it, strong-arm regimes are threatened by popular outcries for political freedom that are empowered by unfettered Internet connectivity. They have formed impressive coalitions, and their efforts have progressed significantly.

Today, however, Russia, China and their allies within the 193 member states of the ITU want to renegotiate the 1988 treaty to expand its reach into previously unregulated areas.

Reading even a partial list of proposals that could be codified into international law next December at a conference in Dubai is chilling:

Subject cyber security and data privacy to international control;

Allow foreign phone companies to charge fees for "international" Internet traffic, perhaps even on a "per-click" basis for certain Web destinations, with the goal of generating revenue for state-owned phone companies and government treasuries;

Impose unprecedented economic regulations such as mandates for rates, terms and conditions for currently unregulated traffic-swapping agreements known as "peering."

Pro-regulation forces are, thus far, much more energized and organized than those who favor the multi-stakeholder approach. Regulation proponents only need to secure a simple majority of the 193 member states to codify their radical and counterproductive agenda. Unlike the U.N. Security Council, no country can wield a veto in ITU proceedings. With this in mind, some estimate that approximately 90 countries could be supporting intergovernmental Net regulation—a mere seven short of a majority.

Upending this model with a new regulatory treaty is likely to partition the Internet as some countries would inevitably choose to opt out. A balkanized Internet would be devastating to global free trade and national sovereignty. It would impair Internet growth most severely in the developing world but also globally as technologists are forced to seek bureaucratic permission to innovate and invest.
--
The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, I'm from the government and I'm here to help.
»www.politico.com/2012-election/



ctceo
Premium
join:2001-04-26
South Bend, IN
Reviews:
·Virgin Mobile Br..

1 edit
That's why it was followed by a "?".

Let's take a look here and determine what his motivations truly are. Just like you are what you eat...

»en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_Doctrine


KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK

1 recommendation

reply to FFH5
In my opinion, the heavy handed tactics of the USA in recent years has fueled the world opinion that the USA has "too much power" over the internet and ability to exercise control and pressure over foreign sites and even Governments. (Bully)

As a result this opens the door for "control" to be "wrested" away from the US supported bodies and handed over to the auspices of some "U.N. Governing Internet Commission".

Which of course would be a disaster, IMHO, but again we have ourselves to blame.

Some of these proposals are truly very detrimental.... and the sad thing is the US doesn't even act like it's too concerned about this idea, it appears. Worse could be that some of our "Security" forces may support the idea of increased regulation, and some of our big telecom companies certainly wouldn't mind finding new ways to "generate revenue" so I'm wondering how strong our opposition to this really would be.

If anything, the Internet should remain as is, and the US should actually BACK OFF and stop trying to over police it. IMHO, anyway. You want to showcase freedom and liberty, try leading by example instead of practicing "Do as we say, not as we do."
--
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini


ctceo
Premium
join:2001-04-26
South Bend, IN
Reviews:
·Virgin Mobile Br..
I concur KrK.

Though my personal preferences are being seen as "anarchic" or even Communist, I am heavily leaning toward an RBE over Capitalism OR Socialism. I also agree that the net should remain neutral and left as a constructed manifestation of our group heritage and a tool to use for communication and sharing rather than a tool to enforce political positionism across the globe thus enforcing the, IMO, VERY fascist state of the US.

When the systems fail us we need to rework or replace them, and right now reworking them hasn't been working.
--
----
As long as superstition prevails, we will fall short of eradicating war, poverty, and hunger. -J. Fresco

khanacademy.org
en.lernu.net
www.k12.com
churchofreality.org
kopimistsamfundet.se
zeitnews.org
thezeitgeistmovement.com
thevenusproject.com
---

Rekrul

join:2007-04-21
Milford, CT
reply to FFH5
said by FFH5:

That is purely Karl's interpretation because McDowell pointed out Russia and China. But he didn't point them out as Communists but as dictatorships that want to implement crushing censorship on the internet.

Wait, I thought China was the shining example of measured internet blocking that the US should aspire to duplicate...

Rekrul

join:2007-04-21
Milford, CT
reply to KrK
said by KrK:

Some of these proposals are truly very detrimental.... and the sad thing is the US doesn't even act like it's too concerned about this idea, it appears.

Why should it be? It's not like the US would obey any UN created law that they don't agree with.


ctceo
Premium
join:2001-04-26
South Bend, IN
Reviews:
·Virgin Mobile Br..
This will only happen until it (the US) starts treating it's allied states, like Israel, as more of "it's bitch", no offence intended to the people of any of these countries and I'm truly sorry in advance for anything stupid our government does "on our or the worlds behalf". I so tire of that f*n attitude from the US. You have my word that I personally do not condone anything other than self defense. I don't believe in a US only led "InTernational Guard" or any of it's bastardized counterparts.

Instead we need to LEARN from the mistakes presented to us by the emergence of a global society. Whether your a Capitalist, Communist or whatever type of "ist" you are I'm sure you can find some good that comes from each new progression of society and it's cumulative cultural awareness.
--
----
As long as superstition prevails, we will fall short of eradicating war, poverty, and hunger. -J. Fresco

khanacademy.org
en.lernu.net
www.k12.com
churchofreality.org
kopimistsamfundet.se
zeitnews.org
thezeitgeistmovement.com
thevenusproject.com
---


Flibbetigibb

@lmco.com
reply to Rekrul
said by Rekrul:

said by KrK:

Some of these proposals are truly very detrimental.... and the sad thing is the US doesn't even act like it's too concerned about this idea, it appears.

Why should it be? It's not like the US would obey any UN created law that they don't agree with.

And rightly so. The Constitution doesn't give any authority to super-national organizations. The Bill of Rights isn't subject to a vote of foreign dictatorships.

viperlmw
Premium
join:2005-01-25
said by Flibbetigibb :

said by Rekrul:

said by KrK:

Some of these proposals are truly very detrimental.... and the sad thing is the US doesn't even act like it's too concerned about this idea, it appears.

Why should it be? It's not like the US would obey any UN created law that they don't agree with.

And rightly so. The Constitution doesn't give any authority to super-national organizations. The Bill of Rights isn't subject to a vote of foreign dictatorships.

Uhh, there's a whole section about treaties, and how the senate has to ratify them with a 2/3 vote, isn't that then, 'the law'?


Flibbetigibb

@lmco.com
said by viperlmw:

Uhh, there's a whole section about treaties, and how the senate has to ratify them with a 2/3 vote, isn't that then, 'the law'?

Indeed. And I'd like to see any UN-created "law" (there's actually no such thing, but you brought it up) that meets that criteria.


ctceo
Premium
join:2001-04-26
South Bend, IN
Reviews:
·Virgin Mobile Br..
The UN is a "global power base" established by the 1% behind closed doors as a sort of "test" NWO. Right now it's not terribly efficient because it works for the corporate interest of the EU, US & Oil countries right now.

As for a "Bill of rights" I'm pretty sure that document is only a "flower" on the dung pile right now alongside the Constitution, well, the framers version anyway, until our global society breaksdown and reforms.
--
----
As long as superstition prevails, we will fall short of eradicating war, poverty, and hunger. -J. Fresco

khanacademy.org
en.lernu.net
www.k12.com
churchofreality.org
kopimistsamfundet.se
zeitnews.org
thezeitgeistmovement.com
thevenusproject.com
---


KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
reply to Rekrul
They wouldn't have a choice in this case!


ctceo
Premium
join:2001-04-26
South Bend, IN
Correct, If the majority of countries in the UN participate in a vote that sanctions the US or determines that it needs to do something and they don't, bad things would happen, guaranteed.

Crookshanks

join:2008-02-04
Binghamton, NY
reply to viperlmw
said by viperlmw:

Uhh, there's a whole section about treaties, and how the senate has to ratify them with a 2/3 vote, isn't that then, 'the law'?

Look up Reid v. Covert. Treaties can not confer power to the Government free from the restraints of the Constitution.


ctceo
Premium
join:2001-04-26
South Bend, IN
Reviews:
·Virgin Mobile Br..
No, but it does nothing to prevent barry from issuing an executive order in the name of "national security". Since he and his appointed cabinet support a "global order" he said himself that he was willing to effectiovely "create an appropriate legal framework from scratch", essentially to hell with current laws.


ctceo
Premium
join:2001-04-26
South Bend, IN
Reviews:
·Virgin Mobile Br..

1 edit
reply to Crookshanks
I'll see your Reid vs. Covert and raise you 1 x Continuity of Operations Presidential directive 51 (NSPD-51) & Raise you by 1x HSPD-20, FCD-1 and FEMA CGC-1.

Also Executive Order 12803 has some importance when looking at the bigger picture here.