UN seeking to regulate the internet

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Cheesecat**

sebster wrote:
Cheesecat wrote:
I hope you're being sarcastic.

No it isn't, recognition of the good work achieved by multiple UN bodies, like WHO, while at the same time recognising these groups achieve their good work away from the General Assembly is a really good summary of the UN. At the same recognising the generally ineffectual and often just plain incoherent nature of politics in the General Assembly is a pretty sensible summation.

I know Kalashnikov Marine called out all politicians, and while I would disagree with him there, given we are talking about the UN, and therefore UN politician in particular, and that I agree with him on UN politicians, challenging that would have been nitpicking.

OK, that makes sense although his hyperbole about politicians was a bit eye-roll inducing.

**VermGho5t**

LordofHats wrote:
One thing the internet may give us if better regulated: Far fewer viruses, spyware, and tracking cookies

There's something already in place for this: Common sense.

**Tibbsy**

VermGho5t wrote:
LordofHats wrote:
One thing the internet may give us if better regulated: Far fewer viruses, spyware, and tracking cookies

There's something already in place for this: Common sense.

The problem there, is that common sense is not, in fact, all that common

Besides that not everyone is particularly skilled with technology or understanding it.

**LordofHats**

VermGho5t wrote:
There's something already in place for this: Common sense.

Keep telling yourself that next time you go to google, Amazon, Microsoft, or any corporate website. They load browsers with tracking cookies and spyware. It's not really that harmful, but it will suck up your internet and processor and slow things down over time. It's extremely annoying getting rid of them too because the OS and most scanners are designed to ignore them.

**htj**

Maddermax wrote:
“Some of the proposals that could clearly have consequences address the high cost of mobile roaming, taxation of calls, issues associated with the routing of calls, cybersecurity and combating spam,” Handley told FoxNews.com. “A major concern is with any attempt to make the International Telecommunication Regulations prescriptive and force regulation.”

Soooo... the proposals are mainly about trying to limit spam, improve handling of routing and improving roaming internet prices?

As long as they don't try to restrict internet content or make it easier for governments to censor their people, I'm fine with it. Talking about basic infrastructure and handling problem issues like spam and ridiculous roaming internet pricing, which need to be discussed and solutions worked on internationally, is not a major concern. If I see them trying to implement content censorship, or even try to restrict internet trade, then there's a major problem, but for the moment, I'm not going to panic.

I just wanted to re-post this little bit of level headed logic in tacit agreement.

**whembly**

Frazzled wrote:
whembly wrote:
ENOZONE wrote:
And the sheer stupidity of them even attempting it....

Oh... they'll try...

And we'll say "NO".

Why do you think we'll say no?

There's waaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too much money for business to want international organization to have that kind of control. Bet your bottom dollars that major online business will let their US representative to know not to pursue this.

Just watch... we'll say "No".

**Frazzled**

whembly wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
whembly wrote:
ENOZONE wrote:
And the sheer stupidity of them even attempting it....

Oh... they'll try...

And we'll say "NO".

Why do you think we'll say no?

There's waaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too much money for business to want international organization to have that kind of control. Bet your bottom dollars that major online business will let their US representative to know not to pursue this.

Just watch... we'll say "No".

Thats what the coal companies thought.

**whembly**

Frazzled wrote:
whembly wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
whembly wrote:
ENOZONE wrote:
And the sheer stupidity of them even attempting it....

Oh... they'll try...

And we'll say "NO".

Why do you think we'll say no?

There's waaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too much money for business to want international organization to have that kind of control. Bet your bottom dollars that major online business will let their US representative to know not to pursue this.

Just watch... we'll say "No".

Thats what the coal companies thought.

Er... that's kinda different.

What internationl orgranization wanting to stop the coal industry? It's our own govmint that's doing that (DoE).

Sheet... I'm seeing billboard ads in Missouri about Obama's coal problem... and we ain't that big of a Coal industy as Virginia/Ohio region.

**Frazzled**

whembly wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
whembly wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
whembly wrote:
ENOZONE wrote:
And the sheer stupidity of them even attempting it....

Oh... they'll try...

And we'll say "NO".

Why do you think we'll say no?

There's waaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too much money for business to want international organization to have that kind of control. Bet your bottom dollars that major online business will let their US representative to know not to pursue this.

Just watch... we'll say "No".

Thats what the coal companies thought.

Er... that's kinda different.

What internationl orgranization wanting to stop the coal industry? It's our own govmint that's doing that (DoE).

Sheet... I'm seeing billboard ads in Missouri about Obama's coal problem... and we ain't that big of a Coal industy as Virginia/Ohio region.

You're arguing that our government would stop the regulation because some well mjoneied companies might be hampered. I'm saying don't hold your breath on that.

**whembly**

Frazzled wrote:
whembly wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
whembly wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
whembly wrote:
ENOZONE wrote:
And the sheer stupidity of them even attempting it....

Oh... they'll try...

And we'll say "NO".

Why do you think we'll say no?

There's waaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too much money for business to want international organization to have that kind of control. Bet your bottom dollars that major online business will let their US representative to know not to pursue this.

Just watch... we'll say "No".

Thats what the coal companies thought.

Er... that's kinda different.

What internationl orgranization wanting to stop the coal industry? It's our own govmint that's doing that (DoE).

Sheet... I'm seeing billboard ads in Missouri about Obama's coal problem... and we ain't that big of a Coal industy as Virginia/Ohio region.

You're arguing that our government would stop the regulation because some well mjoneied companies might be hampered. I'm saying don't hold your breath on that.

Oh... I see your argument.

Still don't see this happening.

**Frazzled**

Hey just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get you.

**whembly**

Frazzled wrote:
Hey just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get you.

I'm a ninja... they can't get me!

There's also the part of "who owns" the internet... it's not a simple answer. (and no, the airwave spectrum is different).