General discussion

  • Creator
    Topic
  • #2296901

    The United Nations waned to control the Internet

    Locked

    by maxwell edison ·

    The United States, backed by the European Union, Japan and Canada, has turned back a bid by developing nations to place the Internet under the control of the United Nations or its member governments.

    But governments, the private sector and others will be asked to establish a mechanism under U.N. auspices to study the governance of the Internet and make recommendations by 2005.

    The whole story:

    http://www.washtimes.com/world/20031208-125717-6682r.htm

    (REMOVE SPACES from the pasted URL.)

    Who should “govern” the Internet?

All Comments

  • Author
    Replies
    • #2686441

      Dang – a typo in the title

      by maxwell edison ·

      In reply to The United Nations waned to control the Internet

      The title should read, “The United Nations wanted to control the Internet”.

      Sorry bout’ that.

      • #2686429

        Who governs it now?

        by lesdabney67 ·

        In reply to Dang – a typo in the title

        And why do we need to change it?

        • #2686425

          Who controls the Internet now? Nobody and Everybody

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Who governs it now?

        • #2684984

          Ah so

          by lesdabney67 ·

          In reply to Who controls the Internet now? Nobody and Everybody

          why not leave it alone?

        • #2684911

          Pleast test links ….

          by jardinier ·

          In reply to Who controls the Internet now? Nobody and Everybody

          before submitting your post. The first of the two above gives a 404 message.

        • #2684901

          That dreaded space appears

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Pleast test links ….

          I should have posted the tiny url, but I did mention to remove the space from the pasted url. For some reason, when a url is cut and pasted into one of these threads, a mysterious space sometimes (almost always) sneaks in somewhere. After cutting and pasting into your browser, you’ll have to find that dreaded space and “close the gap”. (sometimes it’s rather difficult to find.)

          Example:

          ——————-

          http://www.webdevelopersjournal.com/columns/ajs_who_controls _internet.html

          Remove the space that mysteriously appeared between the s (last letter of controls) and _ (the underscore).

          ——————-

          http://www.w3concepts.com/w3Main/Gover ningTheNet.htm

          In this one, the space in the middle of the word governing is the culprit.

          ——————-

          http://www.washtimes.com/world/20031208-12571 7-6682r.htm

          In this one, the space appeared in the middle of the number 125717, between the last 1 and the 7.

          ——————-

          Okay, here are the tinys:

          1st: http://tinyurl.com/yagz

          2nd: http://tinyurl.com/ycri

          3rd: http://tinyurl.com/ycrm

          Next time, I’ll take the extra effort to convert the url into a tiny url. (But I’ve even seen the space appear in the tiny!)

          Later…

        • #2684900

          Did you notice the SECOND space?

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to That dreaded space appears

          After I cut and pasted the original URLs, a SECOND space appeared.

          1. ht(space)tp instead of http

          2. w(space)3concepts instead of w3concepts

          3. washt(space)imes instead of washtimes

          Okay, that does it. I’m going to always use the tiny url from now on.

        • #2684789

          tinyurl…

          by mrbill- ·

          In reply to Did you notice the SECOND space?

          If possible could you please post both the original url and the tinyurl. Our system block the tinyurl, it thinks it is a sex site. I have asked the admin guys and they say it is from higher up and I am not going to ask AF for just one url block. Thanks

        • #2686421
          Avatar photo

          In answer to you’re question

          by hal 9000 ·

          In reply to Who governs it now?

          Nobody controls the internet now.

          And we need to change it because there are preditors out there corupting our children or worse still abusing our children all with the tacid approval of some small countries who make a killing from this type of trash.

          The Internet is a great thing but there need to be some guidelines set or we will see our children totaly corupted by this media that presently has little to no controls over it. At present several countries pass laws that govern what can be displayed via the net but because of the way it is setup these laws only apply in thta country and there is no way of stopping the same trash comming in from another country.

          This is the only area that needs looking at and possibly some of the Spam/Fraud and things like that where we need a “World WIde” approch to stop this from comming through which presently doesn’t exist.

        • #2684971

          and the UN is the solution??

          by dksmith ·

          In reply to In answer to you’re question

          Is Spam really that bad? Yes I hate it, but do we need to establish an extra-governmental organization to police and ban it? How is it defined? What is you spam is my marketing and advertising. Did you know enough people actually click on the links and buy the crap sold in those emails? That makes it legitimate business. What is not legitimate is how they get the addresses in the first place, but we’re not discussing that right now.

          Re: Protecting The Children
          I think the only solution is for people to become loving and benevolent, but that and a buck buys me coffee.
          It’s amazing how many people will hand over their rights and freedoms to anyone “for the children.”

          What you are calling for in the larger sense is government sponsored censorship. When you talk about corrupting children what do you mean?
          — Let’s assume you are talking about sex and nudity.
          The US and the Europeans differ largely on that, how can the US and the Middle East, which is far more culturally conservative when it comes to what is displayed in the media, ever come to an agreement?

          — Let’s assume you mean free speech.
          The Germans have laws about Nazi and Aryan based websites. Whereas most (99.9%) Americans oppose such thoughts most would object to censoring the ideas completely. the right for some stupid moron to post anti-semetic statements is the same right that lets me post this to the discsussion board. You can’t have free speech both ways.

          Anyway,

        • #2684844
          Avatar photo

          OK in answer to what you’ve said here

          by hal 9000 ·

          In reply to and the UN is the solution??

          I understand that the US has just passed Laws concerning Spam but if it originates Off Shore how is this policed?

          Secondly in all the developed world there are Laws currently in place covering Kiddy Porn and it is Illegial to use these sites or download anything from them which is as it should be bu the sites still exist. A few years ago I had a friend who was doing a Thesis on Government and he decided to look up the Americian Government Web Site to see what information he could find. Now not knowing just where to start he typed in “whitehouse.com” which to him seemed a sensible place to start and got a Kiddy Porn site I don’t know if it is still active as I’m not interested thinking he had made a typo he tried again and spent a total of under 2 minutes on the site but I do know what happened to him his ISP reported him to the Federal Police as is the Law here and they raided his place and charged him with various offences and worst of all took his computer with all his PHD work on it. Now after 2 years the charges where dropped but his PHD studies where by that time shot to hell as all his reference sources where now not available to him not to mention the injunction that was taken out against him to prevent him from using a computer at all. The wash up was he was cleared and advised to Sue his ISP for damages and they where only following the Law here but they where responsible for him missing out on completing his studies or at least putting him back something like 3 years and even now he is reluctant to even go on the net without first knowing exactly where he is visiting so now he only visits sites that he has previously visited which hardly makes for open and full research does it?

        • #2684726

          And the point is???

          by dksmith ·

          In reply to OK in answer to what you’ve said here

          I don’t understand the point. I feel sorry for your friend. He got screwed; he really did and it is tragedy. (no sarcasm)

          But how will the UN solve the problem? Not all countires are in the UN and kiddie porn people will always have web sites. Sad to say, but it is true.
          Your story sort of proves my point. In a case in which money can be made and people can be bought, a small, desperate country (you said all developed countries) can and will allow anything and Kiddie Porn can be one of them. There will always be loopholes. I know a SPAMMER in Seattle and he says if the US really bans SPAM, then he will buy a boat and sit in international waters and use sat links to send SPAM.

          You can not stop evil until it wants to stop.

          DKS

        • #2672482
          Avatar photo

          Sorry for the delay in getting back on this one

          by hal 9000 ·

          In reply to And the point is???

          I really don’t know if the UN is the right place to control the net but what I do know is that no one country can control the net no matter how hard they try.

          While you are correct that there will always be loopholes at least there will be some Universal Guidelines as I personally think that our technology is fast outstriping our ability to monitor and control it, but honestly we don’t want the net turned into a place for the Ben Ladens of this world to communicate their orders without hinderance do we?

          I can see a need for some controls but how and by who I really don’t know the UN seems the obvious place right at the moment as there is no other World Body who could take on the job but then again I doubt that the UN could either, they just appear to be the obviouis canditate.

          Even if the USA was prepared to shut down the NET on its soil which is unlikely what effect would it have business would continue on without a hinderance by just installing Satalite Dishes on their roofs and bouncing their required signals off whatever satalite was available the the world would continue.

          The Ben Laden crowns would revert to satalite phones which are harder to intercept and would be harder to find and track it would not make any difference really other than making life harder for millions of people who have nothing to do with anything else other than their routine business.

          It would also slow down software development which may be a good or bad thing depending on which side of Microsoft’s fence you are standing on but very little would change and more than likely the current administration would be voted out of office at the next election even if the other side didn’t promise to reintroduce the net.

          While I love the basic idea of what the Internet was developed for the free exchange of ideas and information this has been severly curopted by now anyway with all the online business and their ilk so where do we move from here?

        • #3371042

          not a good idea

          by jay_h ·

          In reply to OK in answer to what you’ve said here

          First, whitehouse.com is a well known, but as far as I know, COMPLETELY LEGAL adult porn site (I’ve never bothered to look but it’s a continual source of chuckles and practical jokes on newbies), so that is not likely the cause of your friends problems.

          But more importantly, do you think that the situation would get BETTER with more government involvement? This whole fiasco was due to an intrusive government activity, based on government officials with more power than wisdom which, as you see, got very much out of control very fast. The VERY LAST thing we need is a more intrusive government control.

        • #2684949

          What does Australia do?

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to In answer to you’re question

          One of the links I provided above is to an article that stated the following:

          “How about governments? Do any nations exert great influence? A few have gone for the iron fist approach. Examples are China, Burma, Indonesia and Australia, where Internet access is tightly controlled and only people with sufficient technical knowledge are able to break the law and use the Internet as they want.”

          Colin, what does Australia do that’s different than, say, the U.S. or Canada? (Or is that statement from the article a bunch of bunk?)

        • #2684839
          Avatar photo

          Actually Maxwell I don’t know

          by hal 9000 ·

          In reply to What does Australia do?

          If I can fully answer that question but I can say that anything concerning Kiddy Porn has to be reported to the Federal Police by the ISP’s and the Fed’s act from there.

          What you have to remember is that the first “Hackers” originated here in Australia from Melbourne if I remember correctly and they reaked havock on the US networks at the time and since there where no Laws in ploace they where “Legially” doing nothing wrong.

          Anyway a friend of mine who was doing a PHD of Government tried accessing a US Governemtn sits and not knowing exactly where to start he naturally thought the “whitehouse.com” would be a good starting point. Now this was several years ago and that was a kiddy porn site at the time he spent all of under 2 minutes on the site twice as he thought that he had a typo on the first occasion and when the same thing came up the second time he just tried elsewhere. About 2 days latter the Fed’s came in wearing their Jack Boots and tore the place apart because his ISP had reported him for visiting this site as they are required to by Law and they charged him with all soughts of things about Kiddy porn impounded his computer and got an injunction to prevent him for using any computers again “well for 12 months at least.”

          All his research was on that computer and all of his work was as well and other than his off site backups which he couldn’t access as by that time no one wanted offer him any help because they where afraid of getting mixed up in the mess. Eventually he was cleared but it took well over 16 months and by that time he was under treatment for a few problems that he had developed and he had to leave the Uni as well until the matter was cleared up in his favour but at the samre time he was continued to be charged fees for his Post Grad work.

          It was a mess and what makes it worse is that the ISP’s have to report this type of thing but are offered no protection from any adverse conquences so he eventually sued his then ISP “which incidently he no longer deals with” and they had to pay “talk about a no win situation Dammed if you do and Dammed if you don’t.”

          Anyway he eventually got his PHD but now will not visit any web site that has not been previously listed as a valid site for his needs so he restricts himself to a limited number of sites which hardly makes for open and full research either.

          Then there is Online gambling which has been outlawed here so all the then current sites just moved off shore and continued as normal the only difference was that they had to e-mail all their customers their new URL so that they could continue gambling.

          Currently our Government passes Laws which are unenforcable as they seem to think that the Internet is only limited to Australia and what is outside is unimportant. Typical Politions but then what else can you expect from a “Polly” {which incidently over here is a native bird which just repeats what it has been taught.}

          They seem oblivious to the fact that www actually means “World Wide Web” but then again I suspose that the public servants haven’t told them yet.

          But actually provided that you don’t visit any really offensive sites or try to learn how to make bombs/drugs and the like you are fairly safe here unless of course you use some “Key” works in e-mails/faxes/phone converstaions and the like which are then automatically recordered for futher investigation but then again that is not limited to Australia as the computers at Pine Gap that I used to administer did exactly the same thing.

          Actually the really funny thing about the GAP was that when I first started there I was given a tour of the whole place and once I was given my security clearence I was not allowed in certian buildings which of course they showed me when I first went there. I could never fully understand that but then again I didn’t really care as I wasn’t all that interested in those places anyway.

          I hope that goes some way to answering you’re question Maxwell.

          Colin

        • #2673671

          i call BS

          by mrafrohead ·

          In reply to In answer to you’re question

          I think that we need to leave it as is.

          That’s the great thing about the net is it’s one of the last few things left on this rock that are pure and left untouched and raw.

          If we’re worried about our kids seeing things that they shouldn’t see. Then act like parents and PARENT!!! Don’t leave it to some government to start monitoring this shit and screwing it up for the rest of us.

          You think I let my kids on the net if I’m not in the same room with them? Hell no.

          Internet filters only work to a point. Therefore it’s up to US to watch what’s going on.

          Don’t screw up MY pr0n because you want to be lazy!

          Mrafrohead

        • #2673569

          Nobody mentioned that

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to i call BS

          Nobody mention my prOn would be screwed up!!!
          Now I’ve spoken out against this FREE menium being censored just like everything else that is supposedly my freedom, but when you start talking about Sylvia Saint and Jenna going bye bye, I’m gonna have to call Aria and complian.

          This is absoutely ridiculous and must be stopped at all costs!!

          At this time, I would like to formally announce to The Great President Bush that the UN is harbouring Weapons of Mass Destruction (I saw them myself) and that they MUST be eliminated at all costs immediately, F-CK the Allies, just go and kill them before they harm my prOn, I mean my family !!

        • #2673566
          Avatar photo

          But OZ the US has already started

          by hal 9000 ·

          In reply to Nobody mentioned that

          In a limited way to disable the UN after all they are not paying their dues to the UN currently this is the only way that they can act until they “Declare that the UN is a Terriost Group” which will be a bit hard while they are still a member of the Security Council with the right of Veto.

          Actually it wasn’t even the current President who started this action as it was started many years ago.

        • #2673547

          But they don’t have a country

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to But OZ the US has already started

          There’ snobody to invade. What will they do, invade the UN offices in NYC?
          THey can obviously gain from getting the UN ousted, then the US can play UN and achieve thier goal of becoming world leader. How do you train all those soldiers to help people instead of killing themthough?? Perhaps they need more Jessica Lynches instead of gun happy corn fed boys that don’t realize that there is a world SURROUNDING thier country.

        • #2673568
          Avatar photo

          But Mrafrohead the NET isn’t untouched!

          by hal 9000 ·

          In reply to i call BS

          After all we already have anti hacking laws which where not around when the net was first introduced Do you put forward the idea that these should be repealed as well?

          Currently there are numerious mostly unenforcable laws out about the www and what needs to be done is to make these enforcable after all you do not want open slather for people like those who wrote Slammer, The Love Bug and the like do you?

          Yes I realise that we will never completely stop these types of activities but we at least need to make it reasonable to punish those that do perform things like this.

          Anyway I was not specificialy thinking about our kids when I originally posted the previous item but more like those who get their jollies from looking/downloading kiddy porn and the preditors who frequent chat rooms where teenage females frequent just how many stories this year have you heard of children being lured away from home to meet a so called friend who is not what they claim to be the last one that I remember was a US citizen going to Britian and effectively kidnapping a 14 yo girl to Europe for a couple of weeks. Surely it is far too late after the event as the damage has already been done. Honestly if you where that involved as a parent you would listyen in to all you’re childrens telephone converstaions as well and then when they complain to their school Social Workers theyt would be taken into “Care” because of the type of parent that you are who is considered by the “Politicially Correct” as a control freek who is out to totally control their childrens lives.

          Unfortantly there is a fine line here and it is hard to know which side you are standing on!

        • #2673544

          It has happened in my family

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to But Mrafrohead the NET isn’t untouched!

          “preditors who frequent chat rooms where teenage females frequent just how many stories this year have you heard of children being lured away from home to meet a so called friend who is not what they claim to be”

          You may have read that I have experienced this with my sisters daughter also.

          I spent some time tracking the guy and he was found in the USA with my neice in tow. Him apparently 21 but actually 35. Her, 18 yr old straight A honour student. Her parents VERY attentive yet working long hours to stay afloat.

          It happens to the best of us and YES laws would reduce this but VERY hard to enforce as borders are crossed.

          But PLEASE, just leave my free PrOn alone! Actually, I think the amount of free pornography available in the Internet has desensitized me to the most BIZZARE things and now it all seems relatively boring.

          Perhaps the Internet would reduce the amount of sex crimes as opposed to those that feel it increases them, people can get any flavour of pornography and get so bored they end up in these discussions rooms instead.

        • #2671588

          by mrafrohead ·

          In reply to It has happened in my family

          Yeah, these rooms are kind of erotic aren’t they. 😉

          BTW – explain the mental case… why the change in name?

        • #2671555

          What’s in a name

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to It has happened in my family

          A fellow peer whom is very fond of me, actually tried to use the OzMentalcase to enforce a supposedly nastly point. Apparently I was to take offense if my alia was used incorrectly.

          I am not bothered by tags, I didn’t even know how to get logged in with my new PC until I had the user name AND password resent, I don’t give a toss. So the moniker was changed and I just never bothered to change it back.

          I don’t care if it is just “….” it is completely irrelevant.

        • #3370369

          Meeting people from online.

          by cuppb ·

          In reply to It has happened in my family

          Well maybe if your niece had a little bit of common sense and not just book smarts it wouldn’t have happened. I’ve met 3 dozen plus people from online, and a even flew to Utah to stay with some online friends for 2 weeks. I don’t mean to be harsh in this, but seriously…who really goes to chat rooms anymore? They’re filled with a bunch of immature kids and “preditors” all over the place. You can make much better online friends at a message board that has a system of proving who you are so you’re not fake.

          The internet itself holds little in free “pr0n” as well, you’d have a better chance at finding better stuff from p2p networks.

        • #3370357
          Avatar photo

          I think you answered you’re own question

          by hal 9000 ·

          In reply to It has happened in my family

          Who goes to chat rooms ect….

          Well the kids do as they think they are all grown up and can do as they please this also attracts preditors so it is probably why the likes of you and me stear clear of them as they are full of rubbish or as I like to say “BS for the Brain Dead.”

          But they are popular with the teenyboppers and over here even the TV stations who run these chat rooms for their target audience make it plainly clear that these rooms are monitored and any adverse behavour will not be toleritated and will be meet with imediate expulision. They also go on to say that nothing you post will be placed there imediatly as it is all screened before it is posted.

          Since I haven’t visited one of these places and I’m unlikely to either I suspose there are still ways to get around the system and thsi is where the problems come from. It is rarely that someone like you or me would be foolish enough to go somewhere just to meet someone who we meet online without first checking them out a bit but kids are different and take most things at face value.

          Remember this is not limited to the USA but most of the world and proves almost impossible to do anything about until it is far too late like that 14 year old girl in the UK who took off with an ex Marine or something earlier this year.

        • #3370234

          CuppaBS

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to It has happened in my family

          Your simplistic view of reality is quite sweet/ My neice was extremely streetwise as a result of her neighbourhood in elementary school. Your comments are simply uneducated and I will dismiss them as fluff.

          Your closing statement that there is little free pRon on the net also tells me just how little you know about the Internet. There is an entiire industry devoted to backdoors and hacking of pay sites. Nothing REALLY costs money on the internet.

          This is an old discussion anyway, BOO!

        • #3370175

          Believe what you wish.

          by cuppb ·

          In reply to It has happened in my family

          I actually don’t have a simplistic view of reality, I know what is out there. No, I don’t know everything because I’ve not experienced or seen everything. I guess being 18 hasn’t allowed me the years to do, see, and experience all that some older have. Maybe she was streetsmart, but allowing that to happen to herself wasn’t a good move.

          The net is a big thing sir, and no I have not explored every boundry of it. Yes I do know that there are companies and places where you can get keycodes and such for paysites, so I’m not totally lost on the subject.

          Old discussion or not, I’m sorry I bothered offering my opinion. I was reading and just felt I’d throw in something.

        • #2671589

          That’s funny too.

          by mrafrohead ·

          In reply to But Mrafrohead the NET isn’t untouched!

          Because my kids aren’t allowed to use the phone. I don’t think that they’re old enough yet… They don’t have any business being on it. Telletubbies and Yu Gi Oh chat can be talked about outside when they’re playing. The phone is for ordering pizza’s.

          As for hacking laws. I think they’re bull hockey. They’re written to make ignorant people feel better that are too stupid to download patches that are readily available to protect their computers. These kind of people shouldn’t be on the net. These are the kind of people that have kids when they’re twelve. They don’t understand that unprotected sex lead to viruses and unprotected surfing leads to viruses. They’re very similar. If your lucky they can both over write your MBR and either way your you know what.

          Honestly, I think that if users are getting infected by those viruses it’s by their own fault. And they should take it as a learning experience! I even got myself infected by Code Red once. I found it quite fascinating that all I needed was to be connected to the net without a firewall or AV. It was beautiful. Then I ended my experiment and formatted and that was that… Game over

          Newho – there’s a nickle dime and a quarter…

          Tag, you’re it ;p

          Mrafrohead

        • #3370355

          Totally agree

          by cuppb ·

          In reply to That’s funny too.

          I totally agree with you on these statements. I’ve been browsing the internet since 1996 and have yet to be infected with any virus’ that would cause any threat to my system. My parents and brother on the other hand, I have reformatted their system on countless occasions. Anyways, ignorant people that complain about virus’ because they don’t prepare themselves for them should take a step back from the computer and find something else to use their lack of brain power on.

        • #2651879

          Yup.

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to i call BS

          This will appear more ironic than intended, being a reply to alias=”mrafrohead” but that’s how it should be, ‘pure and left untouched and raw.’

          [i] i call BS

          I think that we need to leave it as is.

          That’s the great thing about the net is it’s one of the last few things left on this rock that are pure and left untouched and raw.

          If we’re worried about our kids seeing things that they shouldn’t see. Then act like parents and PARENT!!! Don’t leave it to some government to start monitoring this **** and screwing it up for the rest of us.

          You think I let my kids on the net if I’m not in the same room with them? Hell no.

          Internet filters only work to a point. Therefore it’s up to US to watch what’s going on.[/i]

          Internet filters are flawless, if:
          (1) You begin with policy=block
          (2) [b]whitelist[/b]=”only sites you & the missus both agree are 100% A-OK”

          Sorry, again, about the irony, but your corporate sponsors want to sell you greylisting technologies, because the un-cut Internet is a blacklist, with a low ratio of exceptions. Put your content filter in a locked closet, insist that your school district do the same, and the only remaining gap will be Little Johnny & Susie’s pals — same as it was for you.

          Technology created the problem.

          Government is just not smart enough to solve it. Whoever your favorite is, watch your least-favorite for 5 minutes. Then, concede that only technology can solve problems created by technology.

          Merry G*ddam Christmas.

          😐

      • #2684917

        Many thanks for the typo …

        by jardinier ·

        In reply to Dang – a typo in the title

        It makes me feel ever so much better when someone who is normally as accurate as yourself is also vulnerable to the occasional slip up.

        Perhaps we could all threaten to boycott TR until they include a spell-checking facility in discussion posts.

        Technically I don’t think it would require much effort … just a simple spell-check before “submit” as is the case with email services.

        • #2684897

          It would have been really funny. . .

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Many thanks for the typo …

          …if the word “waned” made some kind of sense.
          Wait a minute, does it make sense?

          Actually, waned is a real word. In this context, however, it’s just used incorrectly.

          “The United Nations waned to control the Internet”

          MS Word spell checker found the preceding to be “correct”.

          Waned: to decrease in size, extent, or degree. To dwindle. To diminish in phase or intensity. To become less brilliant or powerful. To flow out. EBB. 2: To fall gradually from power, prosperity, or influence.

          On second thought, “waned” and “United Nations” certainly belong together.

        • #2673315

          Yes I noticed the irony …

          by jardinier ·

          In reply to It would have been really funny. . .

          of the “waned” instead of “wanted.” But I do find as I watch a spell-checker scan the item that I notice other errors which I had overlooked on first reading.

    • #2686397

      You’ve made this point many times Maxwell

      by oz_media ·

      In reply to The United Nations waned to control the Internet

      It is not up to the world to control our children’s lives, it is the parents responsibility.

      As I was growing up, I had very little interest in computer games and gadgets. I was too busy with living life to sit in side and game or code.

      On rainy days, the Atari 2600 would come out and it was game time. My parents would get on my case if I played vids for an hour without finding something more constructive to do. I learned to fill my day with other, more creative things instead.

      Now I know that your pet peeve is people who look at the government to solutions for all their problems, whether it be welfare or the kids being out late at night.
      Does this not also apply here?

      Parents should monitor kids on the computer, bottom line. When you’re 18 have your own home and computer, you can do as you wish, while you live in MY house, I want to know where you’re going and what you’re doing. Now obviously this would take a parent sitting at the computer for several hours at a time with their children, heaven forbid. Instead of this being a negative, it should be assumed that people would WANT to work on line with the kids, it can open up a whole new avenue of communication for you and you can help you kids find useful content and interesting sites that will help them in the long run, as opposed to MSN Chat.

      My niece was abducted through a chat room. She was found in IDAHO by the US police (she’s from Vancouver). Since she was abducted she turned 18 so they can’t do anything about it even though she was only 17 originally. She had told the guy she was 21, he invited her for coffee and they were never seen again. He has, since the original meeting, convinced her she could do better than she was (straight A honor role student)and that he can help her find a better life (he works at a bakery warehouse?).

      Love is blind, she is young and has never had a steady boyfriend, the extra attention MUST be appealing, not to mention this 35 years old man wants to keep this young girl on tow so he will feed her any line needed to keep her.

      Now here’s where it falls back to, my sister worked EVERYDAY until 7:30 as an art teacher, spent a few hours after work to eat and then bed time, no kid time.

      Her husband had just been employed as a shipping controller and therefore had many hours of homework each night, again my niece was neglected somewhat.

      Her younger sister is very independent and is always bust with other activities.

      My niece was then forced to turn to Internet chat rooms for peer support, virtual love and the absolute worst for children CYBERSEX (which is RAMPANT in MSN chat ICQ and all the teen rooms). What they don’t realize is that others will lie
      about age and success to sound more appealing too.

      All in all, it is not the Internet that was to blame, there were hundreds of places she could have surfed safely and found great content.

      Her parents, admittedly were forgetting about the important time we MUST spend with our children no matter HOW busy you are. They have learned, lost and now are focusing on not repeating these mistakes for their other two children.

      Parental control shouldn’t simply be adding Net Nanny to the PC, it is time spent with the children learning top use the Internet effectively that works. These are OUR children not the governments.

      • #2684973

        I didn’t make any point

        by maxwell edison ·

        In reply to You’ve made this point many times Maxwell

        I didn’t mention children or anything else. I just relayed a news story about the United Nation’s desire to become the governing body that oversees the Internet, a desire that was squelched, for the time being, by the governments of the United States, Canada, Japan, and some European countries.

        I was going to let the thread run a bit longer before I interjected an opinion on the matter.

        • #2684969

          Not in this thread

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to I didn’t make any point

          Slow down, too defensive Max.

          You have made a solid point several times about your distaste for people who feel the government should always be responsible. Not specifically toward this subject but in general.

          You also expressed your dislike of people who WELCH welfare cheques where there are SOME who are actually in need of assistance.
          (If you are now denying that is you opinion, I will sift through the piles of old crap to find it, but you should stand by your convictions)

          All I am saying is that YOU have said you don’t agree with everyone who expects the government or others to take responsibility for thier childrens actions.

          In this case, I feel a large part of the problem is due to people NOT monitoring thier child’s surfing habits or working with them one-on-one to teach safe computing habits. We enforce policies at work, why not at home?

        • #2684953

          Repercussions of a United Nation’s governed (controlled) Internet

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Not in this thread

          .
          I think the repercussions of a United Nation’s governed (controlled) Internet extend far beyond parental responsibility for their children. Actually, as far as the Internet goes, you and I are in apparent agreement when it comes to responsibility for children. I don’t really disagree with anything you said in that regard.

          I believe the past thread you’re talking about is the one I started some time ago titled, “protecting children from the Internet”, or something like that. But the intention behind that particular thread was not to shift responsibility from a parent to the government (or anyone else). On the contrary, that thread was intended to gather ideas to pass on to parents who did indeed want to accept that responsibility, but were unsure as to the best ways to do it, the various options available, what configuration methods they could implement, and so on. As a “computer expert” (whatever that is), I was asked to give a presentation to a couple of dozen parents (about 50 people attended) at my son’s school on various methods that could be employed to either block or monitor Internet usage, address Internet security concerns, how to enforce policies, and so on. These parents WERE taking responsibility, and were attempting to educate themselves accordingly. And, I might add, that my discussion thread on the subject did indeed provide some good ideas and material for my presentation.

          As far as “being responsible for one’s child”, I’m very consistent in that regard. It’s the parents, period. It’s not the government; it’s not the schools; it’s not “the village”. It’s up to the parents to be responsible for their children’s Internet activity, just like it’s up to the parents to be responsible for their children’s “school” lunch and/or medical care. I don’t understand people who think it’s the government’s responsibility to provide and/or be responsible for “some” things in that regard, but not others.

          As far as my “defensiveness”, go ahead, look for that “protecting children” thread (or any other) and try to find a statement of mine espousing government responsibility for an individual. You won’t find it. I’m quite consistent with my convictions. And as far as your “welfare” comment, I’m consistent in that regard as well. Those in need should indeed receive it. However, it’s oftentimes other people’s definition of “need” that I have a problem with.

        • #2684946

          Still on the defence?

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Repercussions of a United Nation’s governed (controlled) Internet

          Max you’re either not understanding me or something. You actually supported MY only point by stating it IS the parents responsibility.

          I never said that you posted anything about protecting children,
          I never read your post titled “protecting children from the Internet”, or anything like that.

          Some discussions have been related to parents expecting the government or school to accept responsibilities they have neglected themselves. I don’t know what they were about specifically but I know a few were either started by yourself or you at least offered in depth opinions to that effect.

          All I’ve said is that as YOU have said many times, which you HAVE, that parents shouldn’t look to other organizations to teach their children or that the parents blame the government for too many things that should be the parents responsibility. You DO remember these statements.

          THIS is one of those situations, let the parent regulate the Internet. As for SPAM, buy some spam protection, good software DOES work, I’ve seen it block easily 99% of SPAM without a single false positive. Again, it’s not those that abuse the weaknesses of the Internet, people buy crap from spammers, children fall prey to predators.

          It’s those who are NOT educated enough to know how to rid themselves of SPAM, how to realize that the 21 year old cutie is a 65 year old pervert that are the problem.

          If proper usage was taught in schools fine, if people were learning about the pros and cons of chat rooms in school fine, if not, TEACH THEM YOURSELF!

          Why would we need an Internet police? Failure to teach our own.

          Why would we need Internet censors? Everything else is censored.

          It seems people can’t handle truth anymore and NEED censorship and government interaction to survive. Is the world REALLY that naive?

        • #2684943

          You’re right

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Still on the defence?

          I don’t understand what your trying to say, what you are implying, or what point you’re trying to make. (Except that it’s a parent’s responsibility to control their kid’s Internet activity. And on that, we agree.)

          I suppose I’m losing something in the translation from your brain to your fingers to my eyes to my brain. But why am I not surprised?

        • #2684940

          Your insecurity perhaps?

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to You’re right

          Is it perhaps that you are very insecure and feel that if someone YOU don’t like, posts an agreement, there’s got to be something else intended.

          Is it perhaps a NEED to lead and be looked up to? I don’t follow or look up to you, that would be an issue.

          Is it perhaps a lack of respect that you once had in the military? Now you demand respect. Thus the Scout leader position (as a former Scout leader I’ve seen the ex-military guys push for that last few years in a leadership role.).

          I don’t know, but if YOU can’t understand, that is out of my control.

          If YOU can’t accept someone agreeing with you, that is out of my control.

          I don’t know nor do I want to know what goes on in your head, THAT is out of my control.

          Next time, remind me to disagree, it makes no difference either way, you have a bias against me and it shows, unprofessionally of course.

        • #2684932

          You can’t resist, can you, Oz?

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to You’re right

          .
          As often is the case in these threads, messages can and do get misinterpreted and/or misread and/or misplaced. Some people can write more distinctly than others. Some people might read things too fast. People read and write differently. So it’s understandable, especially in an international forum, that true intentions sometimes get lost in “the translation”.

          But must you always resort to insults and name calling? And your attempt to psychoanalyze me is really quite humorous, not to mention way off the mark, by the way, and is certainly an indication of your “bias against me”.

          But I blame myself. I should have known better. I should have treated your initial message the same way I’ve been treating all of your messages the past couple of weeks.

        • #2684885

          Oh well, I tried.

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to You’re right

          Back up a little :”But must you always resort to insults and name calling? ”

          I posted in agreement with you. You austomnatically took the defensive against my post by denying you’d said things that you have without ANY doubt in my mind said firmly on more then one occasion. You’re not the type of guy to hide your convictions, which is fine.

          You then get snotty as usual. When someone comes back at you, you then say,

          “I suppose I’m losing something in the translation from your brain to your fingers to my eyes to my brain. But why am I not surprised?”

          NOW you’re saying “But must you always resort to insults and name calling? ”

          You know Max, I have made an effort to be civil with you on many occasions. You are unrelenting in your aility to preach but not hear yourself. I find that you are the first one to accuse someone of something that you often do yourself.
          I am not far off on my psychoanalysis at all and you know it. If you don’t realize your own weaknesses or insecurities now, perhaps you should inside yourself a little, you’re not getting any younger and it’s better to find yourself now than when it’s too late and you never had the chance to know who you were or could be.

          I had an extremely eye-opening ecperience in my life and realized who I was and who I was MEANT to be. I’m sure that if I stray from my new realization, as I often do, I will have my eyes open and be aware enough to guide myself again.

          What I’m saying Max, is that you are so ‘busy being you’ that you’ve forgotten who you COULD be.

          I think you know who you are but refuse to accept yourself, or others opinions of you or anything else, wrong or right.

          I agreed with you wholly, you rebutted, that’s a sickness.

          You don’t accept someone being like you, you won’t accept opposition, you won’t accept someone agreeing with you.

          So why don’t you take some time and figure out exactly what you want.

    • #2686395

      Ah yes – another attempt by the UN to establish the NWO

      by jimhm ·

      In reply to The United Nations waned to control the Internet

      The UN again is attempt to get its foot into the door way to establish the NWO. Lets see what would they do with China that wants to restrict access by their people to some western sites. What about Americans that want to restrict access to child sites … but its legal in Dutch and Japan.

      So the UN wants to mandate that all citizens of the world have access to all information available on the internet.

      The UN can’t control food – let alone something like the internet… then who’s going to police the police …. try again – UN –

      • #2684983

        The UN and the NWO?

        by lesdabney67 ·

        In reply to Ah yes – another attempt by the UN to establish the NWO

        So the UN is at the fore-front of pushing the NWO? Can you provide any evidence of this?

        • #2684975

          Here ya go…

          by dksmith ·

          In reply to The UN and the NWO?

          The UN is attempting to establish a World Court that has powers that supercede the autonomy of the state (i.e. they can come to Kansas and arrest some farmer if he violated some environmental law passed by the UN OR arrest a high ranking General for a war crime even though the US objects to the arrest).

          The International Law of the Sea would dictate how countries use their coastal waterways. This includes tributaries, inlets and beaches. Currently land governed by a country is only subject the laws of said country, but not if the UN gets their way.

          UNESCO is pushing it’s one-culture policies all over the place from telling kids that all cultural ideals are right (except for western democratic, pro-capitalist views) to instituting “crimes against culture” (see above).

          Did you know the UN wants to own all public parks and natural resources? Clinton almost gave them away (not trying to start a Clinton discussion, just fact) but was stoped just short.

          Don’t ignore the fact that a) not everyone likes freedom, b) small (economically and hegemonicly) countries see the US as a threat to their development and lastly c) people want to tear down what they fear and dislike. The UN is not a benevolent organization.

          DKS

        • #2684966

          We should be so lucky.

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Here ya go…

          I strongly oppose a NWO or world police based on the intentions but your statement “arrest a high ranking General for a war crime” brings tears to my eye, if we were only so lucky. Bye, Bye, Bush, you lying, cheating and misleading pig.

          You’re right it would never happen though, too bad.

        • #2684854

          Then I guess – Wiston Churchhill would be the same

          by jimhm ·

          In reply to We should be so lucky.

          I guess then W. Churchhill would also be arrested for authorizing the bombing of Dresden? Or Franklin D for dropping the A bomb twice – or Stalan for killing millions of Russian Jews – or Saddam for Killing thousands of Kurds and Shehit Muslins (SP) – or Edie – or what was his name in South Africa for Apartied(SP) –

          Hum – the question would come into to play then – where does it all end? Who Polices the UN – You speak of a Generals – then blow up the man you Love G.w.B. – You know Tony Blare was the first one to speak of WMD – because of a Iraqi high level military person in London, being fed from the Iraqi Watch group in London … But no GWB is the liar – nothing about your hero Tony in that comment…

          Oz – your pretty one side aren’t you ..

        • #2684832
          Avatar photo

          Actually JimHM

          by hal 9000 ·

          In reply to Then I guess – Wiston Churchhill would be the same

          Tony Blqair isn’t the much loved can do no wrong Prime Minister that you seem to think he is in the UK he gets a hell of a lot of adverse publicity not to mention his wife who was mixed up with an Aussie who is one of the more unsavory types.

          What the difference is however is that the people of the UK don’t rush to Tony’s defence everytime something is said against him they just accept it and then get on with thir lives after all unless they are directly affected that are not concerned by Mr Blairs actions and even then while it is unlikely to ever happen there is always the posibility that Elizabeth 2nd can remove him from office and order fresh elections. Unfortantly the same can’t be said for America can it?

        • #2684774

          Sure Can – Happened to Clinton

          by jimhm ·

          In reply to Actually JimHM

          It’s called being Impeached – Clinton was impeached for lieing to Congress and other offenses. But the Senate failed to get the required 2/3’s votes to get him out of office.

          But he was impeached – just not removed from office – where in GB you only require the Queen or King – we need a 2/3’s vote of the Senate to kick them out of office..

        • #2684737

          Blair

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Actually JimHM

          Tony Blair was WARNED of WMD btu that is not the reason he gave to the British people for the war.

          He was approached with a letter from 350,000 Iraqi exiles in the UK. That’s almost a hlad million people asking him to follow through and LIBERATE the country.

          He had mentioned the POSSIBILITY of uninspected shipments of dual purpose gods. He didn’t try to instill a fear of attack from WMD in the people of England, however it was a possiility. Liberation was his first and foremost issue to be resolved.

          After the campaign had turned up no evidence of WMD Bush then jumped on the Liberation bandwagon as he realized that people were accepting Blair’s actions while criticiing his own.

          You guys have seen this whole war unfold the exact same way that I have and others aroung the world have. Don’t go backstepping now just like Bush did.

          In response to Colin’s comments, you are right and this is one statement for which I have been called a traitor and uncaring of ANY country. People have even said they feel sorry for the country I live in because I don’t suport it.

          This is all so far off base, as you said other countries don’t bow to thier government the way Americans do. The PM is just a guy with a job in politics, if it doesn’t effect us directly, we don’t give a toss.

          Tony Blair did NOT go to the same ectent to convince th British they were under threat of attack by WMD. It was a possibilty but the lain reason FROM THE START was to Liberate Iraq.

          A few covert teams successfully accomplished thier missions as given. They didn’t kill Aerican soldiers, they didn’t kill each other.

          They went in, they found some mass graves, they cleared a few buildings had a few men killed by US sodliers and got the hell out to ket US kill each other by themselves.

          If BUSH had launched a successful, well executed mission, even if they remained in Baghdad until new policies and a government were in place, I’d have no problem.

          The way the war was SOLD to the people is what I don’t like, pure BS that was contested but not changed until the turn was to liberation.
          The fact that Saddam has been temporarily removed from power is not my issue at all, I don’t think he should have remained as the dehumanizer/dictator either. the means for gaining pubic support was unprofessional, unjust and most certainly unwarranted.

          I feel the only need for GWN to resort to these tactics was to expedite his actions so that he needn’t comply with the wishes of allies and could act alone and still have supported justifications.

          The allied parties had not refused to support the action, they had merely doubted the reasons given and wanted to wait for further confirmation of the types of dual purpose goods sent to Iraq.

          Looking back at things now, there was some mention of Russian arms being traded under the oil-for-food program and this was peopbably Bush’s MAIN fear. Obviously these were not weapons to be feared as they certainly didn’t cause any MASS destruction of the American or British soldiers that were invading the country.

          The arms I’ve read about, I think it was in the Report to Congress I posted, were antiquated weapons that had no capability of Mass Destruction as they were common arms, not chemical weapons. Remember the Anthrax scare? This had people so scared of chemical warfare and therefore created an EXREMELY strong base for which Bush could launch his ”fear of attack” campaign on America.

        • #2684670

          The UN doesn’t operate in a vacuum

          by lesdabney67 ·

          In reply to Here ya go…

          who do you think it is that controls the UN?

        • #2673265

          Depends

          by dksmith ·

          In reply to The UN doesn’t operate in a vacuum

          Depends on which program it is. If the smaller countries want the program, we pay for it and they run the show.

        • #2673260

          I realize that your question was “rhetorical”. . .

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to The UN doesn’t operate in a vacuum

          .
          …(at least I think it was), but who do you think “controls” the United Nations?

        • #2684931

          UN is the mechanism

          by thechas ·

          In reply to The UN and the NWO?

          The core for a new world order is business interest who would profit from a single world government.

          There are more business interests that profit from the current status quo.

          Right now, the UN is the easiest mechanism for anyone who desires to press for a new world order.

          IMHO, a single world government is inevitable.

          The problems of unscrupulous individuals profiting from the mindless internet users is but 1 problem that needs a global solution.

          Pollution, hunger, and globalization are all issues that CANNOT be completely resolved by individual countries.

          Again, IMHO, the European Union is actually a greater threat for a NWO and a single world government than the UN is.

          Any company that wishes to sell products to EU countries has experienced the coming NWO for business.

          The EU is much more apt to FORCE strong pollution controls than ANY of the radical environmental groups in the US.

          Chas

        • #2684713

          if inevitable

          by john_wills ·

          In reply to UN is the mechanism

          If some expansion of the present world state’s effective powers is inevitable, what are the next steps in chainging the constituion of the world state so as to make such power beneficent? I have an opionion, which you will find in my book Albatross 0-595-19418-4, but I am looking for other opinions. I am not asking for a complete project, just for one next step.

    • #2684942

      overwall governing

      by oz_media ·

      In reply to The United Nations waned to control the Internet

      Upon rereading the article I saw a couple of points that bothred me.

      1) Why do we need the INternet controlled? It is the ONLY free medium we have in todays society, EVRYTHING else has some form of restriction on it, speech, written material, Television, radio, even telephone conversation is regulated.

      2) “But the United States and its supporters have argued that government interference could retard growth of the Internet.”

      This scares the hell out of me! It’s implying indirectly that the US doesn’t want to lose it’s ability to capitalize on the Internet. Nothing Retards the growth of open soure or developer sites. This sounds like they are scared of resrictions that would stop “legitimate” SPAM (legitimate meaning SPAM from MY company but not the other guys), commerical ads etc.

      If this is the case, I’d rather see a governing body AGAINST companies capitalizing on the Internet. Not small business operations but capitalist companies who wish to control or flood the Internet.

      I think the following statement shows it’s not only me that saw this angle:
      ” “We feel as the system gets more complex, we don’t want the whole question of Internet governance to be concentrated around the existing ICANN, which is closely linked to the U.S. Department of Commerce,” a senior Brazilian diplomat said.

      • #2684849

        First who developed the internet – and what the heck are you saying

        by jimhm ·

        In reply to overwall governing

        First – who developed the Internet and TCP/IP – You got it Oznutcase – The DOD of the USA. That nasty little group of people that is Call the Department of Defense.

        It grew to be opened between college computers to share computing power – then opened to the public – then grew and grew and grew.

        Me thinks you speak from lack of information – the US wants to keep it free and unrestricted – wants the free trade of information – China wants and has restricted their citizens from most western sites and information.

        And why not have unrestricted access – can you figure a way to stop spammers? Would a UN law – make others change? You point to the unrestricted opening SPAM – how do you figure that – when most spam and viruses are from Euro – there is a law coming up for vote in the US Senate – that will require – all commerical Email sites to require a return mail verification – with fines for SPamming – will not work because we can enforce our laws overssea…

        You are way off base – Oz …

        • #2684831
          Avatar photo

          Exactly how does the US enforce

          by hal 9000 ·

          In reply to First who developed the internet – and what the heck are you saying

          Its internal Laws overseas where they don’t have bases?

          Even then how would you consider that the US could enforce its internal laws in lats say Australia for example?

          Currently all the M$ pirates caught here in AU are proscuted under AU Law not US Law even the 3 guys who set up a defacto Napstar site here only got a slap on the wrists for their trouble and that was for breaching AU Law. The recording industry was upset by that one as they had spent far more on bringing the case to court than the fines that where dished out and then they overspent something to the tune of a factor of 20 times the total fines that may never be paid.

          Perhaps you could enlighten me exactly how the US would enforce any of its Laws that I chose to break here in AU?

        • #2684777

          That’s just it – The US can NOT enforce any laws overseas or even next door

          by jimhm ·

          In reply to Exactly how does the US enforce

          That is what I was saying – that even if that anti-SPAM law passes in the Senate of the USA it will only effect companies Email companies in the US. It will have no affect on those outside of the US boarder.

          That is why I said that law will never work. It is like the California law that they past that if a hacker gets your credit information the company that was hacked must notify users of possible thief of their informaiton. Well – California law can not be enforced outside of it’s boarders – so that law has kind of died on the vine as they say.

          Same with the US Anti-Spam law … Can’t be enforced – outside the boarders… and internal relay has been shut down pretty tight for most sites inside the US.

        • #2684725

          Take Germany for example

          by dksmith ·

          In reply to Exactly how does the US enforce

          The Germans wanted to petition the UN to write internet laws that would force webhosts to block illegal material from being viewed if it violated local/national laws.
          (e.g. Someone in Berlin could not view a Nazi website that was established in the US.)

          How ridiculous is that?

        • #2684693

          Spam regulation

          by road-dog ·

          In reply to Exactly how does the US enforce

          is difficult due to the US’s inability to enforce laws outside it’s borders.

          Our politicians would LOVE to be the one to end spam, but if they were to stop all spam in the US, spammers would be dropping OC12s in from offshore, laden with penis enlarging miracles.

          I doubt it will be stopped domestically, I know that your average spammer knows a hell of a lot more about it than most politicians will ever know.

        • #2684781
        • #2672367
          Avatar photo

          While those links may prove useful

          by hal 9000 ·

          In reply to Info for all – Internet Timeline

          I didn’t see any reference to WEL or the need to produce network cards or the need for the major networks that where the forerunners of what we know as the Internet today.

          Before we could have the internet we had to have intranets so the technology could be developed to transmitt packets of data over whatever distance is required weather it be next door or around the world. There was a very brief reference to TCP/IP but that came late in the game and was what till the present time has been considered as the standard but that could all change very quickly because no one knows what comes next but the one thing that we all know is that once something has been let loose on the world it is impossible to uninvent it again and it will only become more technically advanced.

        • #2684727

          I read the right article I think

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to First who developed the internet – and what the heck are you saying

          “First – who developed the Internet and TCP/IP- You got it Oznutcase – The DOD of the USA. ”

          Well the posted timeline shows otherwise BUT the entire argument is irrelevant to any part of this topic. If you’re just looking to blow your horn, that’s fine and I apologize for offending you, I had NO idea that you were the DOD and wanted some recognition.

          As for “Me thinks you speak from lack of information – the US wants to keep it free and unrestricted – ”
          Lack of information? My comment was based on the article Max posted, is that not the information this argument is based upon?

          Then you said: “…can you figure a way to stop spammers?”

          Yes, and very effectively. 200-300 SPAM mail daily is now 1 or 2 at the VERY most, with NO false positives shown in capture records, $3000.000 well spent. Hey you’re a Netware guy, check out GWGuardian at http://WWW.GWTOOLS.COM, it REALLY works.

          Then “You point to the unrestricted opening SPAM – ”
          Did I, are you sure it was me? I re-read the last post I made but couldn’t see any reference to unrestricted opening of SPAM. If you can post the quote or link to the page, I’ll certainly review my commments.

          My point I was making is that OTHER developing countries have noticed a negative to WHO controls the new Internet laws.

          The US has only said they don’t want the UN in charge. This would then point toward ICANN controlling the laws. ICANN is closely linked to the U.S.Department of commerce. So now it is applying the idea that the U.S. Department of Commerce should be in control, via ICANN of course.

          If the U.S. Deparment of Commerce is in control, would it not then be up to them to decide what is a legitimate business advertisement and what is ilegitimate? Therefore, it is HIGHYLY likely that all of the larger corporations would find a work around for conducting business and advertising by email, while competition and home enterprise is seen as SPAM and would be controlled. This is just another opportunity to capitalize on Internet advertising and marketing.

          That’s what the developing countries feel and should they not have an opinion on the GLOBAL matter.

    • #2684929

      There ought to be a law

      by thechas ·

      In reply to The United Nations waned to control the Internet

      Max,

      Any movement for a world-wide group to monitor and control the internet grows from the irresponsible mentality that “there ought to be a law”

      I am sure that at the root of this movement is some individual or company that was too dumb and irresponsible to prevent themselves from being taken advantage of by some scam artist.

      It might even be the strict anti-pornography movement on the far right that is behind moves to place global controls on the internet.

      Chas

      • #2684821
        Avatar photo

        Chas while I partialy agree

        by hal 9000 ·

        In reply to There ought to be a law

        What about the time when the Internet was in its infancy and restricted to the Military and Learning centres. Back then it was not illegial to hack a system and gain access to the www.

        Now if I remember correctly it was the Melbourne University that first experienced this problem as “Hackers” would use their facilities to access computers world wide but mainly in the US and not pay for the privilage and for that matter it wasn’t illegial as there where no Laws at the time to make it so.

        Network Security was an unknown thing and if you had access to one terminal you could access the entire planet or at least as much of it as was connected.

        Now if we where to take you’re argument to its logical conclusion we would currently have no Laws against Hacking/Virus realising and the like as it isn’t the responsibility of the person who does this but the responsibility of the organisations who are connected. While I partialy agree with this there has to be conquences for those antisocial people out there who take pride in “Hacking” or “releasing Viruses” on the net and while no Law will ever prevent this from happening there has to be penelities for those who do this just so it makes it worthwhile to bother to catch them in the first place.

        While there will always be people who think it “Cool” to write something the likes of Slammer and all the others there has to be some form of comeback when a susposely secure system is hacked or the responsibility ends up on the person/company who suffered the breach through no fault of their own because they didn’t as yet know of the problem. After all most companies use Microsoft Windows and that OS is so full of holes that it makes a sieve look leak proof.

        Until they have a better option what are their choices?

        • #2684675

          Root Problem

          by thechas ·

          In reply to Chas while I partialy agree

          The root problem with laws governing the internet is the global nature of the web itself.

          While a specific country can have laws governing what it’s citizens do. It becomes a very different problem when the person hacking into your network or scamming your Grandmother is in another country.

          My main point is that in the US, we have a number of “busy bodies” that run to their elected representatives any time something about someone else’s activities bothers them.

          While most of the “dumb” laws are passed at the local level, there often are movements to get a national solution to specific problems.

          Among the “busy body” laws that I have come across:

          No signs for garage sales can be posted within some communities.

          You cannot perform car repair in your own garage.

          Lawn mowing laws that specify a groomed appearance.

          All driveways and parking areas must be paved with cement.

          Pickups cannot be parked outside a residence.

          These are not universal in the US, but the disease of limiting what your neighbor can do IS.

          Chas

        • #2684672

          A gee I can’t beat the Jonse’s approach?

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Root Problem

          Some of the laws you mentioned don’t suprise me no matter how insane, Canada has them too as I’m sure all countries do, like you said the “busy body” syndrome, which hits people with nothing better to do than watch the neighbours.

          You mentioned that “These are not universal in the US, but the disease of limiting what your neighbor can do IS” again I think this aplies almost everywhere, it seems ore rampant in the areas full of snotty rich people who think they are above the neighbours. Do you think this can be attributed to the “Beat the Jonse’s” virus? Perhaps when you have a tonne of cash, your neighbour has more, you feel your success is challenged, if you can’t beat em, why join em if you can at least keep fighting them?

          You see less of this in low income areas I think as people are more humble and accepting of the four cars in the neighbours driveway, all on blocks for months as he gets the cash to rebuild them. When I was first starting out as a rebuilder, I had cars in the drive (not eyesores) but nice cars thet were being restored, nobody complained and in fact many stopped to see how things were coming and what I was working on , some even offered to help (being very particular about my rebuilds I prefer to just do my thing though).

          Now years have passed and i ilve in a much more upscale area of vancouver island, even though my neighbours are very humble and kind due to the surroundings. I still have cars out back and two in my shop but never get a complaint, i think this i just because everyone has so much land here. Houses don’t sit beside each other and the neighbourhood consists of trees for miles.

          If I was living in a similar classed neighbourhood in Vancouver, I’d have the city at my door in no time.

          Sorry Chas, pretty wild segue but my point was made early I hope. 😛

        • #2673249

          Just for Oz

          by cactus pete ·

          In reply to A gee I can’t beat the Jonse’s approach?

          Let me know if this makes you cringe –

          I just bought an `82 Jaguar XJS.

        • #2673143

          No not at all

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Just for Oz

          And I’m lying. I have tears welling up in my eyes. Do you have a pic yet?
          ozmedia@excite.com or ozmedia@shaw.ca
          when you do.

          Where did you find an ’82?

          Is this some sort of wierd segue like mine? Just email me.

        • #2673000
          Avatar photo

          We have a similar problem here as well

          by hal 9000 ·

          In reply to Root Problem

          With some comunities even going so far as to tewll you what type of Dog you can have in a certian street.

          I once asked that council when they where going to pass a law govening what sex children each street could have but he sarcasam was lost on them and they took it serriously.

          Our Federal Government is currently passing Laws govening what is acceptiable content on the www bu they are unable to see that these laws will be unenforcable when passed as all the content will just move off shore if it hasn’t already.

          This is one area where we need a better approch to the problem and a World Wide approch seems like a better alternative to me rather than the current “Ad Hock” approch that we currently have.

          This is another area where technology has outstriped the ability of current governments to “Police” what goes on in their countries and something better than a “Industry Code of Pratice” is needed as these never work. There are always loopholes in these Industry Policing policies and they never seem to be effective.

      • #2684701

        United Nations intentions

        by maxwell edison ·

        In reply to There ought to be a law

        In my opinion, the United Nations’ motivation for wanting to “govern” the Internet is primarily for money. Actually, I believe that’s their motivation for almost everything. There’s no way I can believe that some UN delegate from (fill in the name of any country here) will lobby and cast a vote that’s not in the best financial interest of his/her particular nation. And, in most cases, bleeding the rich countries dry, especially the United States, is what motivates almost all of them.

        As far as the inevitability of a one world government, I suppose I can’t really disagree with you, but it won’t even come close to happening during the 21st century, maybe even through the 22nd.

        It might take 200 more years for the rest of the world to figure out that the United States has the right idea, and that they should follow our lead, not the other way around.

        • #2673240

          U.S. lead

          by john_wills ·

          In reply to United Nations intentions

          The world is following the US lead by having the UN: it is a US idea. Many people complain about the UN being a US tool – although one doesn’t often hear that in the US itself. The UN is founded on essentially the same principles as the US, which makes it odd that the US has been reluctant to ratify the human-rights conventions. There are two internal US problems that hinder stronger influence of US-foundational ideas in the UN: one is the chauvinist element, notably those people who find it hard to be patriotic about the US (I used to live in SC…), let alone anything higher; the other is the pseudoliberal element which opposes human rights in the name of civil liberties, although civil liberties are actually corrolaries of the basic human rights. Oh yes, there is a third: the Zionist lobby. Without these internal anomalies the US would be leading the UN much better.

        • #2673192

          UN is US Lead??? We Owe them a Billion dollars

          by jimhm ·

          In reply to U.S. lead

          You Californias – lost in the fog and smog – and Green – The US owes the UN over a billion dollars and will not pay it. There is a move in NYC to get the UN headquarters out of the city because it pays no taxes – is behind on its utility bills…

          The UN came from the League of Nations – and other organization after WWII … to perserve the peace ??? – Now that worked for Korea and Vietnam and where else… Right… UN is US lead – thats why we couldn’t get agreement on the invasion of Iraqi – OK Mr. Cal – go back to Accidemia and dream somemore…

        • #2673142

          The US owes the UN over a billion dollars and will not pay it.

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to UN is US Lead??? We Owe them a Billion dollars

          “The US owes the UN over a billion dollars and will not pay it. There is a move in NYC to get the UN headquarters out of the city because it pays no taxes – is behind on its utility bills…”

          Hang on?!?

          “The US owes the UN over a billion dollars and will not pay it. There is a move in NYC to get the UN headquarters out of the city because it pays no taxes – is behind on its utility bills…”

          Nope, still doesn’t make sense. If I lived in YOUR apartment building and YOU owed ME $10,000.00 how could you justify kicking ME out for not paying my bills???

          The US owes THEM money but is tryin gto kick them out for not paying taxes and bills? Isn’t that just a little hypocritical? Is it a typo? Did you read it before you posted it?

          Do me a favour Jim, before slamming me at least make some sense out of this, then have at ‘er.

          Oz

        • #2673125

          There is a fee that each nation pays

          by jimhm ·

          In reply to The US owes the UN over a billion dollars and will not pay it.

          There is a fee or due’s whatever you want to call it when you become a member of the UN. The US has not paid its fees – If I remember since Uncle Ron was in office. The building is in New York city – and owes taxes for the property – owe utility bills – Electric, gas, water – that kind of thing (or are those all free in Canada?)

          They are behind on the taxes – and utilities and clam to be on forigen soil so they don’t owe the property tax.

          Now – to your point about you live in my apartment building and haven’t paid rent in 10 months. Why should I keep a free loader in hopes a dead beat would pay his back rent. If I kick you out – get a good paying tentant I now have a win – you are still liable for the past rent – and I can file suite to recover the payments. So what is your point?

          Stop paying your rent or bank loan or taxes and see how long you stay in your home, or how long you keep one of those cars in your back yard. I would say not that many months before they come by and take the stuff and kick you out. Again – unless that is all freebee stuff in Canada.

        • #2673117

          OK Jim

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to There is a fee that each nation pays

          I think between you US and UN quotes you got a few mixed up and caused me to see it backwards.

          You definitely saw MY example backwards, in my example, the oandlord owes the RENTER money, not the other way around.

          I’ll dig through and see if I can finger it all out.

        • #2673110

          I think I got it Jim

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to There is a fee that each nation pays

          In your post titled: UN is US Lead??? We Owe them a Billion dollars, you said;
          “The US owes the UN over a billion dollars and will not pay it. There is a move in NYC to get the UN headquarters out of the city because it pays no taxes – is behind on its utility bills… ”

          So let me see if I understand.
          1) The UN is the tenant of this building in New York City, correct?
          2) The UN owes a bunch of money to The City of New York for electricity, gas, rent, whores & cocaine and other expenses, weeee!
          3) The City of New York wants the UN to pay for said items, noo doot aboot it!
          That’s all cool, but the next part I don’t get.
          4) The US government owes the UN over a billion dollars.
          5) The City of New York is going to kick the UN out of the city for not being able to pay.
          My question is so why the hell doesn’t the USA (which New York is a part of I think) stuff it because they owe THEMSELVES the money.

          SO here was MY example that I gave in my post titled:The US owes the UN over a billion dollars and will not pay it.

          >>”Nope, still doesn’t make sense. If I lived in YOUR apartment building and YOU owed ME $10,000.00 how could you justify kicking ME out for not paying my bills???”

          Now, YOU = The City of New York,
          YOUR PIGGY BANK = USA
          I = UN (sounds like you’ve got the better of the deal already)
          Here we go:
          1) I live in YOUR apartment building
          2) You want the rent because I never paid my rent.
          3) YOUR PIGGY BANK owes ME a Billion dollars
          4) YOU are kicking me out for not paying rent

          You see? You originally meant to say that the UN owes the USA the billion dollars, not the other way around because it doesn’t make sense.
          DO I have to start another Silly Willy and Billy post?? LOL 😛 Time for a cold one, take care!

        • #2673575

          U.S. lead

          by john_wills ·

          In reply to UN is US Lead??? We Owe them a Billion dollars

          I did not mean that the U.S. was consciously leading, and at present it’s certainly not, but that the principles the U.S. claims, with some justification, to stand for, are the principles on which the UN opeates, albeit with the usual human sinfulness. The UN DID work in Korea, and did not work in VN mainly because no-one cared enough about SVN to complain, especially as that war started in the same year that the British, French and Israelis invaded the Gaza Strip and Egypt while the USSR invaded Hungary. The US could not get UN agreement to invade Iraq because that invasion was plainly wrong, by US principles. The US does not always live by its own principles. Now, instead of carping mindlessly, think of minimal changes to the constitution of the UN as a next step to efficacy.

        • #2673193

          Remember when AOL charged for Oversea’s sites

          by jimhm ·

          In reply to United Nations intentions

          Remember when AOL first started off – they charge extra for any overseas site you hit. They said it cost them more to route the traffic that way.

          This went on a couple of years before they got sued and lost…

          So now the UN wants to do it – They would attempt to control speech and sites they feel weren’t “PC” – No Neo-Nazi sites – No this sites – no that site… Look you (and I) and those sites, but everyone whether you agree with their statements or not has the right to be heard in America. So we have the Neo-Nazi sites, the KKK sites, How to make Bomb sites, How to do this sites… They are held accountable if they encourage someone to do something illegal but they have the right to say it.

          Like I said – I don’t go to those site – I don’t read those sites… but it is always better to know what your emeny is thinking than not.

          The UN – would make a mess of the freedom of speech that the US citizens and other citizens enjoy so much –

        • #2673037

          NWO – The UN ain’t it

          by road-dog ·

          In reply to United Nations intentions

          The UN cut and ran after their HQ in Baghdad got hit. (after requesting that the US NOT provide security).

          This is not the track record of an organization that is capable of creating any kind of real governance. As soon as any real opposition arises, then bail. They would have no hope of even controlling a single nation, let alone the world.

          This track record is exemplified by 12 years of failure to enforce their own sanctions on Iraq. It is nothing more than a global debating society where lots of words fly without any demonstrable commitment to taking the tough actions to create real and lasting changes.

          If on is inclined to believe in the high minded principles behind the UN, I seem to recall an incident where the cafeterias in the UN building were looted by diplomats and staffers. This organization exemplifies the worst in bureaucratic disfunction. It has had 50 years to prove itself relevant, and has failed.

          As for the billion dollars in dues, screw them. The US is on the hook for 22 percent of UN budget.

          http://www.un.org/geninfo/ir/ch5/ch5_txt.htm

          In addition to this, the US also gives billions more in direct aid to dozens of nations around the world.

          The US is paying it’s share on the world stage. The US is results oriented, we should spend our money to reward allies and to produce our desired ends.

        • #3370356
          Avatar photo

          I have to disagree here Bob

          by hal 9000 ·

          In reply to NWO – The UN ain’t it

          The UN remains the powerless puppy that it because of the Veto that is available to members of the Security Council who can act in their own self interested way when ever they like. It is the Security Council who decides where the UN sends Troops and what they have and if you take the time to look up all the Security Councils meetings it is always some self interested party who casts their Veto and stops things dead in their tracks.

          If this was removed and a simple majority was all that was required I believe things would be a whole lot different but than again no current member of the Security Council will willingly give up their right of Veto so maybe it is the Security COuncil of the UN who needs to be done away with rather than the whole organisation.

        • #3370258

          The General Assembly = no better

          by road-dog ·

          In reply to I have to disagree here Bob

          The problem with the UN is it’s inclusion of all nations. If France constituted an obstruction by veto, then imagine every petty dictator having a vote on UN issues.

          The UN is toothless because of its inclusiveness. The world is a diverse place.

          World government can only be really implemented by authoritarian as opposed to parlimentatian means. Obstructionism in one’s own sovereignity and self interest is not necessarily a bad thing.

          I don’t like the UN, but I don’t fear it either. It’s too weak to be authoritarian, too democratic to be effective.

          They should stick to handing out vaccinations and disaster relief. Governance is a different matter altogether.

        • #3370188
          Avatar photo

          But the General Assembly

          by hal 9000 ·

          In reply to The General Assembly = no better

          Relys on a straight majority vote other wise there never would have been any sactions imposed on Iraq because Iraq could have Vetoed the whole thing from the begining. Once the General Assembly passes something it is then up to the Security Council to see that it happens and this is where things are breaking down in the Security Council.

          Remember that the UN was setup after WW11 to take up where the Leage of Nations Failed if they had of been effective WW11 would never have happened. I personally don’t see the UN as a NWO of any kind exactly for the reasons you stated and without this diversity there would be problems as there would be no one to stop a power hungry madman from doing exactly what Hitler did all those years ago. The trouble here is while Saddam Hussain was a bad man he only attracted attention when he invaded his neighbour against the wishes of most other countries but if he had of been sucessful against Iran he would have been a Hero in the Westeren Eyes anyway.

          There are currently lots of people like Saddam Hussain and some worse like Mugarby as he just ignors his Courts so maybe we should invade his country as well and liberate the white farmers who are being killed willy nilly by what are little better than State Sponsered Outlaws who can only destroy and never rebuild after their destruction.

          Personally I don’t think that is a job for us or the UN but the whole world will have to pull together to oust people like him and right at the moment it just isn’t going to happen. Remember South Affrica that took decades to come to a finish but eventually things soughted themselves out Iran was only a short time in the scheme of things.

        • #3370248

          Security Council

          by john_wills ·

          In reply to I have to disagree here Bob

          The Security Council has permanent members with a veto right for what seemed a good reason: those members originally had the defacto power of veto, so it was thought best to give them a dejure power. The USSR and the US have been the principal abusers of this power. Of the original permanent members, only 2 now have defacto veto power, and others with such power have arisen. A rearrangement of the permanent membership seems in order. There is a concrete proposal anent this in my book Albatross 0-595-19418-4. No doubt TechRepublic participants will have their own ideas once they see the problem so put.

    • #2673131

      UN World Summit

      by thechas ·

      In reply to The United Nations waned to control the Internet

      A UN sponsored world summit on the regulation of the internet opened today in Geneva.

      http://www.itu.int/wsis/

      From the above site, you can download various documents.

      Chas

    • #2673670

      It’s ours, not theirs.

      by mrafrohead ·

      In reply to The United Nations waned to control the Internet

      As far as I know, we made the net, not them…

      The government didn’t have anything to do with it. I thought the schools did it, then brought it to the public. And from there it exploded. So how in the hell is any form of government going to just take it from us?

      We can’t allow this. It’s OURS!

      I think we’re doing just fine. If they have problems with a particular person doing somethig wrong, they can take it up in their own jurisdiction but they need to keep off of our stuff.

      Just my opinion.

      Now I’m going back into hibernation…

      Mrafrohead.

      • #2673662

        DARPA roots

        by road-dog ·

        In reply to It’s ours, not theirs.

        Although DOD created the initial standards and protocols, the Internet is now much more than originally conceived.

        Regardless, the success of the Internet is due in no small part to the lack of regulation by government.

        The free market makes the Internet what it is, and there is nothing about it that would be done better by the UN.

        This news story shows that the UN has no idea what they’re asking nor are they inclined to learn. It’s obvious that they’re not interested in the opinions of those who make it work presently…

        UN Takeover of Internet? Some Are ‘Not Amused’

        By Jennifer L. Schenker
        December 9, 2003

        http://www.technewsworld.com/perl/story/32340.html

        • #2673438

          Could we then assume

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to DARPA roots

          You said, “Regardless, the success of the Internet is due in no small part to the lack of regulation by government”. (I agree, by the way.)

          Using the success of the Internet as a yardstick, could we therefore assume that business (or personal) success, in general, is better served without regulation (or interference) by government?

        • #2673394
          Avatar photo

          That one is easy Maxwell

          by hal 9000 ·

          In reply to Could we then assume

          If we where to get rid of all the Governemnts and I’m not just thinking of US Governemtns here we would all be a lot better off and at least still believe that we where responsible for our own actions.

          But then again who would there be to control Big Business as they have shown time and again that they have no morals and are only after the fast buck generally at the expence of everyone else.

        • #2671853

          It was a rhetorical question, to be sure,. . .

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to That one is easy Maxwell

          ….as I am certainly one who believes in less government control and less government regulation instead of more. But, as often is the case, whenever I call for “less” the opposition (of less) cites the dangers of “none”. There’s a difference between less and none, and therein lies the debate (and the rhetoric), finding the acceptable middle-ground or an argument compelling enough to attract unanimous acceptance (which would probably never happen).

          Personally, as I see things in the United States, I’d like to have a level of government control, for the most part, that existed in the early 20th century. Throughout the 19th century, there was probably too little. Throughout the latter part of the 20th there was an ever increasing level of too much. And as we’re moving into the 21st, it’s way too much. Between 1910 and 1930, for the most part, it was just about right.

          Moreover, there are areas of government “control and regulation” that might be necessary for a time, but then are no longer needed. The civil rights issues in America may be an example. Okay, let the government reign in the problem, get it on the right track, set the stage for expectations, but then let loose and allow free markets and personal responsibility take over. Regulation of business is another. In the middle to late 19th century, unfair business practices were running amok. Reign in the problem, get it on the right track, set the stage for expectations, but then let it go and let free markets and personal responsibility take over.

          The social programs of the 1930s were never presented as permanent, long-term solutions. (Perhaps there was the hidden “intentions” of such, but that’s another story.) They were intended as fix to the current day problems. When the problems were, for the most part, erradicated, the programs should have fallen by the way-side. Social security, for example, was never intended to be a guaranteed “retirement program” for all Americans, but rather a safety net for those in the most unfortunate circumstances. Moreover, at the time of its creation, the life expectancy of a person born in 1930 was probably not much more than 50-55 years old. Social security started being paid at 65, as the elderly were, at the time, the most frail and needy. Today, a person 65 could run marathons, and have another 30 possible years to live. The social security “safety net” became a tent too large to sustain. It will eventually crumble to the ground under its own weight, and eventually fail everybody.

          I don’t think that “less government” is a difficult concept to grasp, but it certainly is a difficult one to implement. Too many people have come to “rely” on others, through the government, and have become content with more security for themselves, but at a cost of fewer freedoms for all.

        • #2671883

          Censorship is inevitable with UN control

          by road-dog ·

          In reply to Could we then assume

          The UN makes no pretense of wanting to control lives and supercede sovereignity.

          Even the universal declaration of human rights has the caveat that all rights are secondary to the intents and purposes of the UN.

        • #2671859
          Avatar photo

          I’ve just had a quick run through of that Treaty

          by hal 9000 ·

          In reply to Censorship is inevitable with UN control

          Now exactly where does it say that Bob?

          Granted I just skimmed it but I didn’t see anything like that.

        • #2670656

          Could it be this?

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to I’ve just had a quick run through of that Treaty

          Article 29, Section 3:

          These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

        • #2670657

          Could it be this?

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Censorship is inevitable with UN control

          Article 29, Section 3:

          These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

        • #2670604

          purposes and principles

          by john_wills ·

          In reply to Could it be this?

          It says “purposes and principles”, not “current policies”. Still, some judges…

    • #2673645

      Let us no forget about the US wanting to charge for email

      by jimhm ·

      In reply to The United Nations waned to control the Internet

      Let us not forget the great Clinton/Gore move to attempt to charge .05 cents american for Email sent. Why because the US Postal service was lossing money. Well that went over as good as Hillarys Universal Healthcare plans…

      You will always have someone want to control what is happening on the internet so they can charge for what is free today. Oh you have a Kiddy Porn site that will cost you $2,000 a month to be accessable on the internet, Oh Playgirl that is going to cost you $500 a month, Oh Microsoft we are going to charge you $.01 per hit unless you provide the 3rd world free MS OS and Office.

      As others have said the free market with the free and unrestricted publishing of information (right, wrong, good taste, bad taste, legal here, illegal there) has made the internet from a basic Email and file sharing environment – to a rich learning and productivity envrionment.

      Down with the UN – send them over to Beligum – or France …

    • #2673451

      NWO=GLOBAL GOVERNANCE

      by fluxit ·

      In reply to The United Nations waned to control the Internet

      The new term for New World Order, NWO, is Global Governance. NWO has become a liability since it stirs up apocalyptic visions. You’ll hear the Democrats talking about Global Governance and throwing the term NWO at the Republicans as though they are evil people wanting a NWO.

      The goal behind a one world government is to eliminate the need for sovereign nations having armed forces and manage societies (regional economic centers of influence) as a civil/police states.

      The question is how/why should government intervene in the operation of the internet assuming this global government is a representative Democracy? Chances are it will not be a true representative Democracy but more of a socialize Democracy. ie robbing the rich and giving to the poor. I would suspect that the internet would be used to facilitate this form of socialization.

      I am not for NWO or Global Governance. I see no reason for Government intervention except in cases where crime is involved or national soverneignty is threatened. People should have a choice on how they desire to be Governed. A world government does not offer options. People of the world could be oppressed and have nowhere to turn.

      • #2671910

        oppression

        by john_wills ·

        In reply to NWO=GLOBAL GOVERNANCE

        States tend to oppress, and better constitutions make it less likely that they will do so. What minimal changes will so transform our present world state as to minimize its tendency to oppress? I have given an answer in my book Albatross 0-595-19418-4, but I imagine that the Techrepublic discussants can come up with ideas on the same theme. No chauvinism, please: the Map and Laurels is no more worship-worthy than the Stars and Stripes.

Viewing 8 reply threads