Topic: The United Nations has a radical, dangerous vision for the future of the Web (Read 1187 times)

UN group calls for more Internet rules


A recent United Nations report calls for more international rules for the Internet, especially with respect to how nations treat each other.

"Making cyberspace stable and secure can be achieved only through international cooperation," said the report, published last week, "and the foundation of this cooperation must be international law and the principles of the Charter of the United Nations."

Among its findings, the report said state actors "should not conduct or knowingly support" cyber crime "that intentionally damages critical infrastructure or otherwise impairs the use and operation of critical infrastructure to provide services to the public." To that end, it said, there should be "effective cooperation among States to reduce risks to international peace and security."

It additionally suggests that nations should respect human rights, suggesting that they "comply with their obligations under international law to respect and protect human rights and fundamental freedoms."

The group recommended that the UN play "a leading role in promoting dialogue" on "the application of international law and norms, rules and principles for responsible State behavior" in the field of cybersecurity, and asked that the UN General Assembly schedule the group to reconvene in 2016.

The statements in the report echo those made by Secretary of State John Kerry in a speech in South Korea this year. Kerry suggested that countries not be permitted to damage or impede critical infrastructure, or prevent emergency teams from responding to cybersecurity incidents; refrain from cyber-enabled theft of intellectual property; take accountability for cyberthreats emanating from their soil; and do what they can to assist other countries that have been victimized in cyberattacks.

"I guarantee you if those five principles were genuinely and fully adopted and implemented by countries, we would be living in a far safer and far more confident cyberworld," Kerry said.

The report, which took more than a year to compile, was the product of a 20-nation working group founded in 2004 titled the "Governmental Group of Experts," or GGE. It's an unwieldy assemblage, and includes nations that stand in varying degrees of compliance with the principles of its non-binding documents.

China, for instance, has reportedly charged 197 people for spreading "online rumors" in recent years, and engaged in cyberespionage against the U.S. for both commercial and political purposes. Spying conducted by the U.S. on citizens around the world, meanwhile, may violate what the documents call "the right to privacy in the digital age" and "full respect for human rights."

In addition to China, members of the working group included Belarus, Colombia, Egypt, Estonia, France, Germany, Ghana, Israel, Japan, Kenya, Malaysia, Mexico, Pakistan, South Korea, Russia, Spain, the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland. Brazil sat as chair.

Though the report was finished in July, it was not made public until late August. Russia's ambassador to the UK was quick to issue praise, saying that any agreement was valuable as "information and communication technologies" were "being increasingly used for unlawful and hostile purposes" that were "inconsistent with the basic principles of international law." He also voiced support for the creation of actionable treaties, adding, "Russia would prefer to launch a discussion on a legally binding international convention … though we understand that our partners are not ready for this yet."

He went on to liken cyberwarfare to the Cold War, stating, "As in the nuclear weapons story, some still hope to maintain a permanent edge over others."

Creating a multilateral regime to govern cyber policy is an old refrain for Russia. The country and its economic allies — Brazil, India, China, and South Africa — called on the UN to develop a "universal regulatory instrument" for combating cybercrime at their summit this year. China and Russia have been particularly enthusiastic about the prospect of creating multilateral bodies over the years. The U.S. has avoided binding documents and sought to impose multistakeholder governance where applicable, involving participation from the private sector rather than restricting it to state actors.

The GGE report was written after two meetings in 2014 and two more in 2015 at the UN's headquarters in New York. It was predicated on previous reports the group published in 2010 and 2013. The largest breakthrough for the group made may have been in 2013, when it finally determined that international laws on sovereignty should apply to the online space.


http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/un-group-calls-for-more-internet-rules/article/2571169


-------------------------------------
"For the children..."

He's been working for the UN for a long time. He doesn't work for the USofA. I figured it out when he brought the Iran deal to the UN first and was going to Veto if it didn't go his (the UN's) way.

And now...


Lawmakers: U.S. plan for Internet may be unconstitutional


President Obama's plan to "internationalize" the Internet may be unconstitutional, key members of Congress are claiming.

The group of lawmakers sent a letter to the Government Accountability Office last week, saying the plan to relinquish oversight of Internet domain name functions to a global, multi-stakeholder body raised questions about the administration's "authority to transfer possession and control of critical components of the Internet's infrastructure to a third party."

The letter was signed by the chairmen of both congressional judiciary committees, Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, and Rep. Bob Goodlatte, R-Va; presidential candidate Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, and Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif. Issa is also a former chairman of the House Oversight Committee.

The lawmakers point out that the Constitution says "Congress has the exclusive power 'to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States.'"

The Internet's root zone file was developed by a grant from the United States, and since 1997, it has been operated by the National Telecommunications and Information Administration under contract with the Department of Commerce. The department had planned to transfer its management rights to the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, an international agency, by this Wednesday, but announced this summer that the date would be postponed until roughly June 30 next year.

In their letter, the lawmakers asked the GAO whether transferring ownership of the Internet domain name functions would cause government property to be transferred to ICANN, whether the root zone file constituted U.S. property, and whether it was constitutional for that property to be transferred to any non-federal entity.

The lawmakers did not provide a deadline for answers, saying that the GAO would need to "conduct both significant audit work and complex legal analysis" in order to respond.


http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/lawmakers-u.s.-plan-for-internet-may-be-unconstitutional/article/2572941

--------------------------------------------------
No such things as coincidence... He wants the UN to be in charge. Then that group of harpies to be in charge of the whole internet. This is so transparent.

endurance you have...

At this rate, the only "free" countries will be the small islands in the Caribbean and the Pacific. The situation in the United States is even worse than that in China. And the less talked about the European Union, that better. Even the TOR browser is banned in some of the EU nations. Ordinary people are getting used to this sort of government surveillance and spying.

Now the UN wants to relive in the good old soviet days... And a loaf of bread for 6...

Hmmm... at this rate in a decade China and Russia will be the two most free and democratic places on this world where you can still practice a bit of freedom of speech . BTW back in the "happy" commie days we had some similar "rubber bills". The government used those laws for locking up the more hard liner opposition with some plausible and harmless looking excuses.

Making law doesn't stop people. People always find a way. HOWEVER, getting rid of taxation will get rid of big government which will get rid of a lot of laws that are making it harder for the people to find a way.

So they want to censor the internet just in case a woman has her feelings hurt? Stupid people should just turn off the computer.

you are such a muppet !


https://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/parent-guide

It matters as soon as they decide to use this information to block you from seeing certain results or block you from going to certain sites.

cat and mouse, that's not a problem, it's their job... however restricting, banning, censoring, regulating, managing that's another game completely. the type of game that EVERY MEMBERS OF THE UNGA will want but the USA...

you know that all first Catholic Saints were faced with renouncing their Faiths, and were CRUCIFIED for the reason of not... (poor wording, great meaning ).

Video: UN Total Takeover Of The Internet NWO Style

China's role highlighted at global Internet governance meeting
NSA Mass Surveillance: Biggest Big Data Story
FBI Collecting Fingerprints, Photos, and Other Data on Millions
Facial Recognition Software Moves From Overseas Wars to Local Police
OPM Hack Attack Saw Breach of 5.6 Million Fingerprints
Barack Obama announces 'understanding' with China's Xi Jinping on cyber theft but remains wary


‘Karma Police’: Illegal GCHQ operation to track ‘every visible user on the internet’

" New documents shared by whistleblower Edward Snowden reveal GCHQ mass-surveyed “every visible user on the internet,” codenaming the operation Karma Police after a popular song by Radiohead.

The mission was started in 2009, without the agency obtaining legal permission to carry out the operation. Also there was no Parliamentary consultation or public scrutiny, documents published by the Intercept website show.

GCHQ - Government Communications Headquarters – is a UK spy agency responsible for providing intelligence by intercepting communications between people or equipment. The data is handed over to the British government and armed forces.

The recently revealed operation was developed by GCHQ in 2007-08. It aimed to link "every user visible to passive SIGINT with every website they visit, hence providing either (a) a web browsing profile for every visible user on the internet, or (b) a user profile for every visible website on the internet."

The numbers of surveyed users were astonishing: in 2012, GCHQ gathered some 50 billion online metadata records a day, and the agency planned to boost its capacity to 100 billion records a day by the end of this year.

The information was held for months in a vast store nicknamed the Black Hole and was carefully examined by data analysts....."

this the core of the coming destruction, there are no should be allowed, because you fight a divine gift, not a right. that's why the second amendment comes next (they were oppressed).

then what ever you say after is irrelevant (even if you are right).

and to quote : I think, therefore I am...

only non-humans beings are "allowed" to speak, crawling out of the pit of drakness... Isn't life about it?

Does the U.N. do anything overnight? Perhaps. But a lot of what they do is years in the planning. That's why we need to be doing the back-up for our plan right now. It has to do with basic freedom.

Some people think that government can do a better job of deciding the color sox you wear than you can. These people are helping government take you and your freedom down.

Now, think about this. The only government we need for us personally is, a government that does absolutely nothing until it hears your accusation against someone who has wronged you in some way. What is the government that makes decisions about guilt? The jury of your peers. That's it. That's the only government we need.

Let me say it again. The only government we need is the jury of our peers to hear accusations we make between and among ourselves.

Oh sure. We might need an organized method for getting to the bottom of crimes. We might need something like police to carry out jury decisions. We might need some kind of order process so that the jury can decide in an organized way. But we don't need any law-making body other than the jury to decide individual cases. That's all the government we need.

Well, we have such a government, if we will only pick up and use it the right way. Bill Thornton http://1215.org/, Karl Lentz http://www.broadmind.org/, Richard Cornforth http://voidjudgments.com/.

Here is the only reason you will have trouble using the info these guys share. Government courts only adjudicate paper entities. They don't try people. They use tricky methods to turn you into a piece of paper. That's it.

If you stand as a man or woman in the courts (I mean in a legal stance) you win over government any day that there is no contract with them, and most days even in the event of a contract with them.

Go back and read this again. Then let Karl Lentz and others show you how to keep government from turning you into a piece of paper, a piece of their legislation.

At the end of the day predators recognize each other for their thirst for power... Let's make decentralized WEB 2.0 happen or even this bitcointalk.org will fall. They've sent out a drone a while back already:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.11359279

As a female, this is stupid. But understandable, the NWO is happening.

Hiding one's head in the sand to not get hurt is never a solution.

And yes, they think we're all stupid and they're all smart. Does anyone really trust them to run the world?

First of all, freedom of speech should be allowed. And secondly, there is no fixed criteria to define the phrase "racist comments". Comments which can seem pretty harmless in a particular country, or a particular region can be offensive in some other region. That said, this is none of UN's business. They first need to concentrate on regions such as Syria and Ukraine, and leave small things such as this one to the regional governments. 

this exactly why I don't like the UN. 1 plant of the earth are illegal. 2 free speech is regulated.

1+2= in full total breach with the us constitution and bills of rights.

what those people behind it don't realize is that it's too late... internet is free, it's what autonomous killing machines used before going sub/over spectrum...

furthermore the un being is composed for the most part of 3rd world nations, they don't have the intellectual and or spiritual capacity to understand that freedom of speech isn't a right, it's a GOD GIVEN GIFT, defended by the us armed forces.

it's the corner stone of all market activities (I buy, I sell, I don't, I do, it sucks, it rocks).

frankly those people behind those ideas of regulating free speech must be seen as mortal enemies to the PEOPLE of the world. the only reason to regulate free speech is to oppress.

first they may say it's about racism or national security but it's always a lie... a nation that need secret for the conduct of war has already lost.

even the devil has the right to free speech, and I dare anyone to oppose... or repharzed and learned from a great wizard (>great savant):

" I came as Love, but had to become the destroyer of the world"


(most of those muppets discovered internet with facebook...)

As reports like this are making increasingly clear, however, these platforms were developed by people who never imagined the struggles that women face online. We’re using tools that weren’t designed for us; they had other people and values and priorities in mind.

Translation:  a woman is a weak creature and cannot help herself from those vile men... But the UN, with the help of Google Ideas will...

UN+Google
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.12514781

Perfect storm against free speech.

There's nothing new here. In many countries already, website owners can be prosecuted if they allow racist comments. The breach to your freedom of speech is already here, and it will only grow larger.

The news is spreading like wildfire already, there are going to be a lot of very pissed off people soon, it takes a lot to get me angry but this one was ridiculous.

For those who don't know Anita Sarkeesian and Zoe Quinn are your classic radical feminist SJWs ( the type that was stereotyped on South Park but in female form ) Anita Sarkeesian is a known con artist who regularly plays victim whenever she receives criticism for her ridiculous commentary on games ( some of it has a point, but mostly it's just like the way social conservatives have criticised games beforehand ) and Zoe Quinn is a person who made one game that wasn't very good yet she was getting positive reviews for it because of her connections within the industry.

There was a rumour spread about her that she supposedly slept with reviewers for positive reviews but that turned out to be false information spread by her ex, in general though they're a couple of dishonest, manipulative and professional victims and not the kind of people you want lobbying the fucking UN to do anything.

As far as I'm concerned now I'm not holding back out of politeness and sticking to my corner with these kinds of shitty feminists now they're trying to influence the UN, fuck them.

the nsa will crunch them, the cia will assassinate them like shitfly. fuck them.

the oath :



fire at will .

(they have no chances, a big fat 0).

p.s. even no graves for them. let them rot.

It may not have intended to*, precisely, but the United Nations just took sides in the Internet’s most brutal culture war.

On Thursday, the organization’s Broadband Commission for Digital Development released a damning “world-wide wake-up call” on what it calls “cyber VAWG,” or violence against women and girls. The report concludes that online harassment is “a problem of pandemic proportion” — which, nbd, we’ve all heard before.

But the United Nations then goes on to propose radical, proactive policy changes for both governments and social networks, effectively projecting a whole new vision for how the Internet could work.

Under U.S. law — the law that, not coincidentally, governs most of the world’s largest online platforms — intermediaries such as Twitter and Facebook generally can’t be held responsible for what people do on them. But the United Nations proposes both that social networks proactively police every profile and post, and that government agencies only “license” those who agree to do so.

“The respect for and security of girls and women must at all times be front and center,” the report reads, not only for those “producing and providing the content,” but also everyone with any role in shaping the “technical backbone and enabling environment of our digital society.”

How that would actually work, we don’t know; the report is light on concrete, actionable policy. But it repeatedly suggests both that social networks need to opt-in to stronger anti-harassment regimes and that governments need to enforce them proactively.

At one point toward the end of the paper, the U.N. panel concludes that “political and governmental bodies need to use their licensing prerogative” to better protect human and women’s rights, only granting licenses to “those Telecoms and search engines” that “supervise content and its dissemination.”

In other words, the United Nations believes that online platforms should be (a) generally responsible for the actions of their users and (b) specifically responsible for making sure those people aren’t harassers.

Regardless of whether you think those are worthwhile ends, the implications are huge: It’s an attempt to transform the Web from a libertarian free-for-all to some kind of enforced social commons.

This question, of course, mirrors other, larger debates playing out across the culture, including tiffs over academic “trigger warnings” and debates about Reddit’s foggy future. Writing at Breitbart several weeks ago, the conservative columnist Allum Bokhari described a growing social movement that he dubs “cultural libertarianism”: the rejection of any and all limitations on absolute free expression.

It’s no coincidence that the “cultural libertarians” Bokhari cites are all leading figures in Gamergate, just as it’s no coincidence that the U.N. report references Zoe Quinn, the first victim of that movement. Well over a year after Quinn’s harassment became international news, we still haven’t answered these fundamental questions about what values the Internet should protect and who is responsible for it.

This U.N. report gets us no closer, alas: all but its most modest proposals are unfeasible. We can educate people about gender violence or teach “digital citizenship” in schools, but persuading social networks to police everything their users post is next to impossible. And even if it weren’t, there are serious implications for innovation and speech: According to the Electronic Frontier Foundation, CDA 230 — the law that exempts online intermediaries from this kind of policing — is basically what allowed modern social networks (and blogs, and comments, and forums, etc.) to come into being.

As reports like this are making increasingly clear, however, these platforms were developed by people who never imagined the struggles that women face online. We’re using tools that weren’t designed for us; they had other people and values and priorities in mind.

Is a reckoning — or at least rebalancing — imminent? The United Nations suggests it has to be. But it certainly won’t look like the model dreamt up in this report. For better or worse, that’s several steps too revolutionary.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2015/09/24/the-united-nations-has-a-radical-dangerous-vision-for-the-future-of-the-web/


------------------------------
*Not a bug. The main feature: control of speech on the internet.