Thu Dec 13, 2012, 07:34 PM
DonViejo (23,892 posts)
US blocks UN telecom treaty
Countries like China and Iran sought increased controls of cyberspace
DUBAI, United Arab Emirates (AP) — A disappointed American delegation led a Western snub of a U.N. telecommunications treaty Thursday after rivals, including Iran and China, won support for provisions interpreted as endorsing greater government control of the Internet.
The unraveling of the conference displayed the deep ideological divide at the 193-nation gathering in Dubai, where envoys grappled with the first revisions of global telecom codes since 1988 — years before the dawn of the Internet age.
A Western bloc led by a powerhouse U.S. delegation sought to stop any U.N. rules on cyberspace, fearing they could squeeze Web commerce and open the door for more restrictions and monitoring by authoritarian regimes that already impose wide-ranging clampdowns. The head of one tech industry group said it could “forever alter” the Web.
A rival group — including China, Russia, Gulf Arab states, African nations and others — favored U.N. backing for stronger government sway over Internet affairs and claimed the Western dominance of the Internet needed to be addressed.
Read more: http://www.salon.com/2012/12/13/us_blocks_un_telecom_treaty/
15 replies, 2639 views
US blocks UN telecom treaty (Original post)
|Uncle Joe||Dec 2012||#13|
Response to hack89 (Reply #2)
Fri Dec 14, 2012, 03:35 PM
freshwest (53,661 posts)
10. I can't tell if it stopped anything. The majority ruled for it, no?
And were some of the other countries (not meaning Iran, UAE, China, etc.) trying to protect their business from the western model? We're not all that free with all the copyright restrictions they have in place. Is this a battle of political or economic fatctors? Which one is more suppressive to freedom of speech? I'm not sure why these guys all have to meet in Dubai, either..
Response to freshwest (Reply #10)
Fri Dec 14, 2012, 03:43 PM
hack89 (35,926 posts)
11. Nothing to do with economics.
it is about authoritarian governments wanting the ability to restrict what information their people can access.
The line was pretty stark - there were no democracies advocating for these changes.
Response to hack89 (Reply #11)
Fri Dec 14, 2012, 05:02 PM
freshwest (53,661 posts)
12. It's disturbing that the vote went the way it did. Do you know anything about the ITU?
It's not a union as we understand it, is it, more of an association?
Sorry, I'm not up to speed on this. Some regard the USA to be the eternal bad guys on freedom of speech, ala Wikileaks, Assange, Manning, etc. I don't agree with that.
I agree that we should not go along with this. But in a world that is connected, how do we bypass what the true authoritarian regimes are doing?
And if we inadvertently connect to something that is on their grid, can they get our information to sell? There have already been instances where Chinese or Russian websites pop up in searches and if you don't have your security set to block them, they get into your computer.
Response to DonViejo (Original post)
Thu Dec 13, 2012, 08:16 PM
Amonester (11,541 posts)
3. I just signed the AVAAZ.ORG petition (link provided)
This is a good thing and the UN is wrong in pushing for this sham.
Response to forward4freedom (Reply #6)
Fri Dec 14, 2012, 03:19 AM
ZM90 (678 posts)
7. I seriously doubt it. I hope this means we're seeing PBO move to the left on internet freedom...
and that soon he drops such threats to the net like TPP for example.
Response to ZM90 (Reply #7)
Fri Dec 14, 2012, 07:31 AM
OnlinePoker (2,789 posts)
8. Is it a move to the left or just a support of your constitution?
Canada's Conservative government were also against it and they are pretty far right-wing.