Should we give government control over the internet?

[Quantum Windbag]

Anyone really want the government, any government, control the internet?

Some governments are pushing to be more than mere stakeholders and instead to have the final say in important matters. China and Russia want the United Nations General Assembly to adopt an “International Code of Conduct for Information Security”. India, Brazil and South Africa have called for a “new global body” to control the internet. Other countries want to give a UN agency, the International Telecommunication Union (ITU), a supervisory role. The upcoming renegotiation of the treaty that defines the ITU’s competences is regarded as an opportunity to push this agenda. Even Western governments, which usually favour the multi-stakeholder system, would like to rein in the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), whose board decides which top-level domains to add (such as .com or .biz). ICANN has just started the process to introduce a lot more high-level domains (expect to see .pepsi and .lawyer), which is why governments are increasingly nervous about the body’s sometimes opaque decision-making process—and why some would like to have a veto over controversial new domains (such as .jesus, .gay and .tibet).
Governments have a role to play—such as defending their citizens’ interests—but they should not be allowed the final say over such matters, for creeping state control would suffocate the internet. Imagine if the ITU, a classic example of a sluggish international bureaucracy with antiquated diplomatic rituals, or indeed any other inter-governmental organisation, had been put in charge of the nascent global network two decades ago. Would it have produced a world-changing fount of innovation? We think not.

Internet governance: In praise of chaos | The Economist

 

[Avatar4321]

Excuse my language, but:


Hell No!

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

I'm sure there are plenty of our usual nanny staters who would think it's a fine idea.

 

[B. Kidd]

The same people who have no qualms whatsoever about trusting their Govt. to assasinate U.S. citizens without any inkling of due process, should be consistent; and trust their Govt. to control the internet.
But I ain't one of 'em.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

No

 

[bitterlyclingin]

Its coming November 20th, whether you like it or not under the guise of "Net Neutrality". Obama will have his thumb on anything you say. From what we've seen of this administration so far, though, its going to be more like his bootheel.

 

[syrenn]

Excuse my language, but:


Hell No!

 

[Photonic]

Yea...how about....


Fuck no.

 

[waltky]

Now dey won't be able to lissen in on Uncle Ferd luv-talkin' his sweet thangs...

European Court: Internet providers can't be forced to monitor users
November 29, 2011 - The European Court of Justice overturned a Belgian court's injunction in what experts say is a victory for Internet providers and users over proponents of tighter copyright controls online.

The European Court of Justice (ECJ) on Thursday overturned a Belgian court's ruling requiring Internet service providers (ISPs) to snoop on users' private data, in a major victory for the ISPs and digital rights advocates over content owners worried about online copyright infringement. The ECJ, the European Union's highest court, struck down an injunction by the Belgian national courts that required Benelux telecom provider Scarlet to monitor copyright infringement among its users. SABAM, the Belgian association of authors, composers, and publishers, sought the injunction to protect the royalties of its members.

The high court ruled that the injunction failed to comply with an EU ban on "imposing a general monitoring obligation" on ISPs and with the requirement to strike a fair balance between the right to intellectual property, freedom to conduct business and, in a key decision, "the right to protection of personal data and the freedom to receive or impart information." The ruling will boost legal protections for both ISPs and individual users across Europe, since as an EU court, the ECJ's ruling has consequences for laws across all 27 EU member states.

"In general terms with ECJ judgments, the way they are interpreted by national courts is always a question," says Richard Dissman, an expert in contentious intellectual property issues at Munich law firm Bird and Bird. Mr. Dissman says the ECJ ruling is not the end of the matter, but that it does form a cornerstone for future dealings. "My experience with other ECJ judgments is the rights owners will find a way to live with it. They will certainly lobby for new legislation, arguing it's a pirates' charter, but they will also find ways to work with this regime."

Victor Vazquez-Lopez, senior legal counsel with the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), says the ECJ ruling underscores current legal procedure. "There is a very basic principle which derives from our 1996 internet treaties […] that Internet intermediaries [such as ISPs and websites that host user-uploaded content] are not directly liable, but that does not mean they do not have an indirect liability and several countries have legislated on that basis, such as the United States' Digital Millennium Copyright Act in 1998 and the EU's [2000] Electronic Commerce Directive."

'A confirmation of longstanding principles'

 

[Ava]

Anyone really want the government, any government, control the internet?

Some governments are pushing to be more than mere stakeholders and instead to have the final say in important matters. China and Russia want the United Nations General Assembly to adopt an “International Code of Conduct for Information Security”. India, Brazil and South Africa have called for a “new global body” to control the internet. Other countries want to give a UN agency, the International Telecommunication Union (ITU), a supervisory role. The upcoming renegotiation of the treaty that defines the ITU’s competences is regarded as an opportunity to push this agenda. Even Western governments, which usually favour the multi-stakeholder system, would like to rein in the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), whose board decides which top-level domains to add (such as .com or .biz). ICANN has just started the process to introduce a lot more high-level domains (expect to see .pepsi and .lawyer), which is why governments are increasingly nervous about the body’s sometimes opaque decision-making process—and why some would like to have a veto over controversial new domains (such as .jesus, .gay and .tibet).
Governments have a role to play—such as defending their citizens’ interests—but they should not be allowed the final say over such matters, for creeping state control would suffocate the internet. Imagine if the ITU, a classic example of a sluggish international bureaucracy with antiquated diplomatic rituals, or indeed any other inter-governmental organisation, had been put in charge of the nascent global network two decades ago. Would it have produced a world-changing fount of innovation? We think not.

Internet governance: In praise of chaos | The Economist

NOOOO! Let's not give them another weapon by handing them over more of our freedoms. We'll take what the Internet brings us. We are warriors and will find a solution to any potential Internet threats or illegal actions against us.

 

[Jebril]

Yea they're trying to get something passed to regulate the internet and give the govt. regulation over it, whether it be net neutrality or SOPA (stop online piracy act), it's all a load of bull to control one of the last places to find freedom.

We keep saying Ron Paul, but he's too 'crazy' for you guys, AMIRITE!? Oh well!

 

[paulitician]

Well they already do control the Internet but lets stop them from implementing all-out censorship and Taxation. That's all we have left at this point. They have so much control now but we can still try to fight for the little bit of Freedom we have left. The Tax Man doth cometh. I just read where they are getting set to pass new Tax Legislation on Internet purchases. So people better get ready and start fighting. Because Big Government will not rest until they control everything.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Not just NO, but FUCK NO. The internet should be free for all to express our beliefs! Fuck the government.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Just a few years ago you were cheerleading warrantless wiretapping.

 

[dilloduck]

As if we really have a say so.

 

[snjmom]

How does the net neutrality bill give the gov control over the internet?

 

[LoneLaugher]

I commend all of you for your very passionate outrage.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Anyone really want the government, any government, control the internet?

This is just the next step in the Koch's taking over the GObP/Repub/baggers. Its what we get when we let them ignore the Constitution with the (not)Patriot Act.

Only Repubs want this to happen but they have control so yes, it will happen.

The United States of Koch.

 

[Dragon]

It's interesting that this thread started in response to net neutrality regulations, which would NOT represent "government control of the internet," but now that we have this bill up for a vote -- Internet Censorship Bill Authored by Bob Goodlatte: FYI That's the Incumbent Karen Kwiatkowski Is Running Against! | Ron Paul 2012 | Sound Money, Peace and Liberty -- which WOULD represent government control and censorship --

-- and we wait for the outrage from the right --

-- you could hear a pin drop.

 

[LoneLaugher]

What? No outrage?