U.N. Control of The Internet and Taxing U.S. Corporations?

I say the UN has out lived its usefullness.  Close it down, which will not happen because all the countries thatare fighting themselves need it.  So the U.S. should withdraw from it and also pull all out troops from europe.  They are not needed there anymore.  Look at the savings we'd have.  No rent and not paying wages to the locals.  Didn't we make the internet and gave it to the world? 

I think you will find the English invented the internet.

Damn, I thought it was Al Gore who invented it. 

 

The web. Tim berners-Lee. Also, the first electronic programmable computer (Colossus).

I think you will find you are wrong....no one person or group invented the internet. The ORIGIN was with DARPA which is a US thing, but different protocols and standards used today definitely came from other places including England.

Annnndddd...... cue the conspiracy theories.

Luckily Canada's Prime Minister, and his political base, are not fans of the U.N. We would withdraw from the U.N way before we allowed it to tax us. Many Canadians feel the U.N is a joke and it does not represent us or our ideals.

And how right you would be. 

I didn't realize the U.N. represented any ideals.

There has been a big push by Europe over the last few years to "democratize" the internet instead of having the US hold the leading position.

Quite a few times, they've threatened to make a "European net"  which would be seperate from the "US net" and charge acces fees to US visitors when they access it.  In the past, this was more about, "Europe should be able to administer the internet instead of the US".

Now I think it's more about money and economic control.

Sadly, China for the past few years has threatened the same thing--but for obviously different reasons (i.e., the ability to turn the net on and off selectively and control its content).

Russia has suggested a time or two it was considering the same decisions for mostly the reasons the EU was.

What it comes down to is that the more money that is to be found online, the more and more likely nations will prize it as a financial and political asset and want their own control of it.

The US gets a lot of flak but imagine if China or Russia had been administering the net what sort of "freedoms" you would have.  Even the EU with it's heavy political agendaas and strong emphasis on political correctness would no doubt have curtailed some business and site developments we have now.

The golden age of "the net for the people" is coming to an end I think because the same greedy power types that always take over have to do it again--it''s their nature.

Or try reading Shirley MacLaine's Sage-ing while Age-ing.

Or the OP and sources.

Well, considering he was talking about theories of the creation of the internet, I was just suggesting a book that might have some, well interesting ones.  It was a related topic, but not the same as the OP.

Actually I was talking about the comments in general <clarity> as the UN as a topic is just generally a fountain of them,/clarity>.

 

 

Although the creation of the internet side story does seem to edge into a few.

StevenAus... I wasn't referring to your reply specifically. Quite the opposite. You generally relate to my OP's.

I was referring to the comment about "conspiracy theories" specifically, but to more in general.

I find it discouraging that time after time I make a serious effort, and the responses make it painfully clear that at most people skimmed the OP (if even that).

I read all of the OP.  I don't like how the UN likes to stick its nose into things, either.

1. The UN doesn't have the power to tax anything, in the literal sense, let alone internet traffic as far as I know. The Security Council can pass international law in a heartbeat but I believe at least one of the big 5 would veto this type of law. Especially the US as it would be hurt by such a treaty. The General assembly can only pass resolutions that have no effect. Moreover the UN gets all its funds by donations, I do not believe it can levy taxes on anything (except actions passed by the security council which would be blocked by a big 5 member; strangely even China's diplomatic stance would be so threatened by this it wouldn't work as it would veto the UN action.) Essentially the UN practically CANNOT and WILL NOT  pass such a law.

 

2. Strange as it is to say this. Governments do have a right, waived in some cases, to control international web traffic. China can block Google if it chooses. This doesn't say such actions are always ethical but if enough countries signed a treaty to block websites that didn't pay a fee it would be doable.

 

3. The current internet is pretty much designed and controlled by the US. This is true, we control ICANN that handles domain names, designed the internet, and as the worlds largest and most technologically proficient economy are a "necessary evil". (or good.) However I will point out it is impossible to have a neutral governing body of any organization. The UN, ICANN, and the Breton Woods Organizations all give greater powers to specific states for reasons. Equality doesn't exist as a right for the state but it may for the individual.

 

4. The internet is still legally largely undefined. Originally it was just a file sharing  and remote control system. Then it evolved into the behemoth it is today. It actually is doing well considered this was not its design purpose. I would contend that there are several legal layers to the internet. On one side it is a public forum for the sharing, distributing, and mingling of ideas. On another it is an extension of private networks. Thirdly it is a commerce hub. Fourthly it is a government network in many cases. It is difficult. The internet is not an equalizer or freedom of speech by access machine. It is a tool that can be implicated in freedom of speech but is not necessary for it from a denotative standpoint.

5. I would contend that "internet territory" falls under a government. Google, Facebook, and Netflix etc. are American websites and therefore fall under American jurisdiction. Foreign access will have to happen under some treaty, which it does, and is partly allowed by the grace of the receiving state. Published materials, i.e. facebook posts, youtube videos, files on sharing websites are legally open for government surveillance to prevent crime. Private materials stored on private access only servers on public networks would require a warrant as per US legal code. Outside the US anything goes according to the country. Internet territory would be decided by server location and the company registration. The web cannot become neutral territory. (Challenge this, I am up to changing; but it can't be wishy washy egalitarianism. There is a necessary measure of pragmatism.)

 

6. The web is essentially a timebomb and a war-zone. The rest of the world can be paranoid about american encroachment, but we got here first and if they want there own web they have to make it financially and practically useful and in reality they can't. Only two countries I know of have a chance of making something like this work. North Korea and Bhutan and thats just because they really don't need to use the web right now to live.

As a further comment. While it will be beneficial for many countries to gain more control of the internet they will not support intervention as it exposes them for intervention.

1. If it didn't, the parties wouldn't bother even noticing it, never mind opposing it.

2. Agreed.

3. Also true. 

4. I don't see it as layers... rather ... a web.

5. I contend that Europe, Russia, China, etc. are trying to break the web for different reasons. Europe - for the money. Russia and the dictatorships  - to prevent free exchange of ideas. Interestingly, Putin opposed the U.N. move. Not out of any democratic ideals (I doubt he has use for any), but rather to allow his own hegemony over a Russian intranet.

After all this time, these nation states are trying to become their own portals/bubbles. That needs to be fought. The net needs to remain a free place.

Yes and no. The UN can be powerful when it provides a forum for big (powerwise) countries to win support and acceptance for actions in littler(powerwise) countries. This is what happened with Libya and Iraq, and it's what Russia fears will happen in Syria. However, in this case, as the action would be taking place in one of the biggest countries, and said country has a vested economic and political interest in preventing it, so I doubt it's likely.

 

I don't know exactly what this means. Explanation, please?

The U.S. has veto power but is absolutely not "in control" of the UN.  It is more and more serving as a proxy for the EU and a suck-up/favor trading venue for nations wanting support for their own goals.

What's at stake is pretty much the OP...a free and open universe that anyone can travel or a bunch of nationally and corporately controlled portals that charge for or require vetting for access.

The United State's behavior in managing the internet structure has been almost exclusively positive.

I'd contact your representatives but that may have little impact in the long run.  At any point, the EU or China or Russia or anyone else can simply create their own network and bridge or bar it with others in any way they want--including with fees or political control.

Your choices then will be to stay off their network or pay their toll.

This idea has been around for awhile, the UN wants to raise money. A country has to agree to give tax to the UN ... not everyone will agree to it, why would you.  

A storm in a tea cup ... it will never happen, just one of many plans that get released for discussion (this comes out every year). It gets more attention because the US loves an us vs them ..

 

When looking at anything, there tend to be 'lumpers' (those who group things) and 'splitters' (those who separate them). Both have value. I tend to see inter-connectivity of things - a lumper of sorts. 

If it doesn't happen it'll be because people/media become aware of the problem and oppose it (election years are powerful things, in some respects). I don't see it as a "U.S. vs. 'them'" thing so much as a sneaky 'end run' which was caught and is getting appropriately drubbed.

I wouldn't call it sneaky, it will be up for debate. Everything will be put on the table, other parties will put forward their recommendations. Everyone will disagree and enjoy an expensive holiday... see you next year. The International Telecommunication Union members will work on (tweak) polices and plans for next time to justify their large pay packets ... nothing gets done.

'election years are powerful things'

Yep, look what the big bad world is trying to do to us ...

But let's not get blindsided by, "The rest of the world is enlightened and their politicians are pure and only do good" syndrome either.

Politicians are as politicians do.