Recommended Posts

A U.N.-sponsored conference next month in Dubai will propose new regulations and restrictions for the Internet, which critics say will censor free speech, levy tariffs on e-commerce, and even force companies to clean up their ?e-waste? and make gadgets that are better for the environment.

Concerns about the closed-door event have sparked a Wikileaks-style info-leaking site, and led the State Department on Wednesday to file a series of new proposals or tranches seeking to ensure ?competition and commercial agreements -- and not regulation? as the meeting's main message.

Terry Kramer, the chief U.S. envoy to the conference, says the United States is against sanctions and believes management of the Internet by one central organization goes against free speech.

?[Doing nothing] would not be a terrible outcome at all,? Kramer said recently. ?We need to avoid suffocating the Internet space through well-meaning but overly prescriptive proposals that would seek to control content.?

The conference will be run by the International Telecommunications Union (ITC), a U.N. agency that has typically provided a welcome service by making sure that the Internet works across countries. Many of its guidelines were first instituted in 1988. Most haven?t changed since then.

The World Conference on International Telecommunications (WCIT-12) is the first such meeting since those guidelines were created, and businesses are taking it seriously: U.S. delegates will include representatives from AT&T, Cisco, Facebook, GoDaddy, and dozens more.

To dispel concerns, the ITU played damage control in early October.

?There are no proposals submitted to create new international regulatory agencies, or mechanisms, and hence no proposals to put ITU in control of the Internet!? said Malcolm Johnson, ITU's telecommunication standardization bureau director, in a written statement.

more

Link to comment
https://www.neowin.net/forum/topic/1116569-un-to-regulate-the-internet/
Share on other sites

  On 01/11/2012 at 17:42, Hum said:
Terry Kramer, the chief U.S. envoy to the conference, says the United States is against sanctions and believes management of the Internet by one central organization goes against free speech.

No, the issue here is not "free speech" but that the US wants to keep control of the internet. The treatment of Wikileaks and Julian Assange perfectly demonstrates the United States' contempt for free speech when it goes against their interests. The legislation talked about here would require companies to clean up their "e-waste" and make equipment that is better for the environment, as well as setting aside investment to develop the internet backbone. Companies shouldn't be allowed to pollute and create inefficient products simply because it's more profitable - there needs to be safeguards in place.

Sadly, it's not surprising to see Fox News spin it as an attempt by the UN to take-over the internet. We know the US supposedly hates regulation - except when it comes to women's reproductive rights and preventing gay people from getting married - but it's not up to the US to dictate internet policy. It needs to be controlled internationally.

  On 01/11/2012 at 18:05, MDboyz said:

Build their own system and controll it. Enough said ....

You say that as if the US developed the entire infrastructure of the internet. Further, doing so would limit the influence of US companies in Europe. So while your "the US rules the world, suck it!" approach might make you feel better it's not actually in the interests of the US for Europe / the rest of the world to build a separate 'internet'.

  On 01/11/2012 at 18:17, Tyler R. said:

Nobody should be in charge of the internet, IMO. It should be free and available for everyone to enjoy..... :blink:....I really have to lay off on the GNU/Linux.... :p

In principal, yes, in practice there has to be someone there to enforce the rules of fairness. We don't need laws and police to protect us from law abiding citizens, but instead to protect us from those who have no respect for the rules of society.

I'm really unsure how we should govern the body to protect the interests of society when it comes to the Internet. Pulling it up to the UN would help to tame the disproportionate control the US levies onto the Internet, but it would also enhance the interests of parties who want to cripple the web even more, such as China and Iran. I would support the control of it being in the hands of the people, but we don't have any precedents for international elections by the citizenry and I'm not sure the average person understands enough about it that they would care to make an informed decision.

Either way, we need a central governing body in the middle; the trick is how to ensure it protects our interests and not those of corporations or governments. Otherwise, we're trading one master, the US with one head, for another, the "International Community" with many heads.

  • Like 2
  On 01/11/2012 at 18:17, LogicalApex said:

Ah lets just throw logic to the wind...

ah, comon, worked for GPS right?... right?... so when's the E.U.'s Galileo coming online full blown again? eh build your own always works out just great and fast when you do it for fear of someone else controlling it.... right?....

  On 01/11/2012 at 18:28, neufuse said:

ah, comon, worked for GPS right?... right?... so when's the E.U.'s Galileo coming online full blown again? eh build your own always works out just great and fast when you do it for fear of someone else controlling it.... right?....

The success of the Internet has been largely due to the standardized nature of it. If you fragment those standards you'll end up harming both sides of the chasm, not helping. To suggest they build their own when doing so would be in the best interest of no one defies logic.

  • Like 2
  On 01/11/2012 at 18:26, LogicalApex said:

In principal, yes, in practice there has to be someone there to enforce the rules of fairness. We don't need laws and police to protect us from law abiding citizens, but instead to protect us from those who have no respect for the rules of society.

I'm really unsure how we should govern the body to protect the interests of society when it comes to the Internet. Pulling it up to the UN would help to tame the disproportionate control the US levies onto the Internet, but it would also enhance the interests of parties who want to cripple the web even more, such as China and Iran. I would support the control of it being in the hands of the people, but we don't have any precidents for international elections by the citizenry and I'm not sure the average person understands enough about it that they would care to make an informed decision.

Either way, we need a central governing body in the middle the trick is how to do ensure it protects our interests and not those of corporations or governments. Otherwise, we're trading one master, the US with one head, for another, the "International Community" with many heads.

This is true. I have no problem with the UN taking down fake sites, sites with malicious intent, and sites that cause harm to children, etc and setting up standards. However, the whole PIPA/ACTA thing is a load. The UN should be very picket and choosey about what they take down and tell us exactly what it violated, or just give them time to take it down themselves.

While it would be sensible to put the UN in control of the internet - being an international organisation that can balance the needs of all countries - there needs to be safeguards in place to ensure that such power isn't abused. Net neutrality should be enshrined in law, which is something that the US isn't going to support. Even the UN seems unsure of what it intends to do and influential business organisations have made appeals to the UN to oppose net neutrality.

The issue should be how the UN should regulate the internet, not if it should.

  • Like 1
  On 01/11/2012 at 18:31, LogicalApex said:

The success of the Internet has been largely due to the standardized nature of it. If you fragment those standards you'll end up harming both sides of the chasm, not helping. To suggest they build their own when doing so would be in the best interest of no one defies logic.

that was kinda the point on my sarcasim...

  On 01/11/2012 at 18:54, neufuse said:

that was kinda the point on my sarcasim...

I have a problem getting sarcasm unfortunately. It is equally bad in person.

  On 01/11/2012 at 18:43, theyarecomingforyou said:

While it would be sensible to put the UN in control of the internet -

No it wouldn't. The UN is a useless organization full of corrupt politicians that never get anything done. Giving the UN control of anything is a bad idea.

You just like the idea because you hate America so much.

  • Like 1
  On 01/11/2012 at 20:55, Hackersoft MS MVP said:

No it wouldn't. The UN is a useless organization full of corrupt politicians that never get anything done. Giving the UN control of anything is a bad idea.

The same could be said for any government body.

  On 01/11/2012 at 20:55, Hackersoft MS MVP said:
The UN is a useless organization full of corrupt politicians that never get anything done. Giving the UN control of anything is a bad idea.

The diplomatic side of the UN is only one aspect of the organisation. Unfortunately it is the highest profile role of the UN and one which is paralysed by the use of vetoes by permanent members of the Security Council - particularly by the US, China and Russia. However, the UN does an incredible amount of very important work and UNESCO is a good example of that (unfortunately the US has dramatically undermined it since Palestine was admitted by a majority vote).

The reason that the US distrusts the UN - despite having huge influence over the organisation, including being home to the United Nations Headquarters - is that the US likes to consider itself above international law and it would rather dictate policy than work to form a consensus with other nations.

  On 01/11/2012 at 20:55, Hackersoft MS MVP said:
No it wouldn't. The UN is a useless organization full of corrupt politicians that never get anything done. Giving the UN control of anything is a bad idea.

Do you honestly believe that the UN is more corrupt than the US Congress? Because approval numbers would suggest the opposite.

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Posts

    • Microsoft: Windows Autopatch is the safest way to upgrade enterprise PCs to Windows 11 by Usama Jawad A few hours ago, Microsoft published a guide for IT admins explaining how they can use Intune to upgrade Windows 10 devices to Windows 11, while also migrating from Active Directory (AD) to a cloud-native system like Entra ID. The company has also published a similar guide, but switched the tool to Windows Autopatch, claiming that it is the fastest and safest way for enterprise PCs to update to Windows 11. For those unaware, Windows Autopatch is a way to automate updates while empowering IT admins to ensure that endpoints are healthy and compliant through ring-based, staggered deployments. IT admins also have the ability to reverse updates easily if something does go wrong. In the current scenario of upgrading enterprise PCs to Windows 11 using Autopatch, Microsoft has outlined a four-step process. The first involves assessing Windows 11-readiness across your organization, assigning Entra ID groups to devices, and then mapping these groups to rollout rings in Autopatch. Next, IT admins should segment devices into Windows Autopatch groups, while also defining staggered rollout policies controlled through rollout rings. At a base level, there should be two groups: devices that meet the criteria of Windows 11 and should upgrade to it, and Windows 10 hardware that doesn't meet the criteria and should receive Extended Security Updates (ESUs). Devices should be spread in a logical manner across various rings, with each group having a dedicated update policy. The third step involves defining the speed of staggered update rollouts. This can be managed through the Intune admin center, which gives you control over sequencing, pace, and deferrals. Finally, IT admins should monitor the rollout of the Windows 11 update through the Windows Autopatch feature update reporting module. It contains the update status across devices, trendlines within historical views, and remediation guidance for errors. Microsoft believes that this combination of Windows Autopatch groups and Intune is the best way to upgrade to Windows 11, so IT admins should get started right away as support for Windows 10 is ending on October 14, 2025.
    • TDP of this CPU is 60 watts higher than Ryzen 7600. At s usage rate of four hours per day, at a cost of twelve cents per KWh, the Intel cost $10.51 more per year to use. I don't see a real advantage to Intel here.
    • Lmao. Cries about not playing those games not installed and yet don't ever want to touch them.
    • If I want to merge folder trees that have a similar structure, Beyond Compare is always my first choice. It's not free but it's awesome. If I want to just scan a whole drive/folder and find duplicates that are taking up space, I like Czkawka.
    • Claude Code gets throttled as Anthropic rolls out fresh usage caps by David Uzondu Claude Code, the AI-in-terminal utility developed by Anthropic and launched back in February, is getting updated usage limits following weeks of user complaints about being abruptly cut off. Many developers on the "$200/month Max plan" found their access blocked after just a few requests, with no explanation from the company. In a recent thread posted to X, the AI lab explained that it has seen "unprecedented demand since launch," pointing to some of its heaviest users who were running the tool continuously in the background 24/7, with one person reportedly consuming tens of thousands of dollars in model usage on a single $200 subscription. Anthropic also claimed that some users were violating its usage policy by sharing and reselling accounts, which impacts system capacity for everyone. These factors all led the company to announce new weekly limits that will be added on top of the existing five-hour caps, effective August 28. Max plan subscribers will have the option to buy additional usage at standard API rates if they hit their cap. Here's what the new weekly limits look like: Pro Plan ($20/month): An estimated 40 to 80 hours of usage with the Sonnet 4 model. Max Plan ($100/month): An estimated 140 to 280 hours with Sonnet 4 and 15 to 35 hours with the top-tier Opus 4 model. Max Plan ($200/month): An estimated 240 to 480 hours with Sonnet 4 and 24 to 40 hours with Opus 4. Per TechCrunch, the company provided these hour-based estimates, noting that the actual numbers may vary based on the size of a project's codebase. What's interesting is how this new structure compares to the old marketing. Anthropic previously advertised its $200 Max plan as offering 20 times more usage than the Pro plan. Based on these new hourly estimates, that multiple is now closer to six. It is possible the 20x figure still applies when measured in tokens or raw compute, but, according to TechCrunch, the company has not clarified that point.
  • Recent Achievements

    • First Post
      Gladiattore earned a badge
      First Post
    • Reacting Well
      Gladiattore earned a badge
      Reacting Well
    • Week One Done
      NeoWeen earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • One Month Later
      BA the Curmudgeon earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • First Post
      Doreen768 earned a badge
      First Post
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      649
    2. 2
      ATLien_0
      261
    3. 3
      Xenon
      165
    4. 4
      neufuse
      142
    5. 5
      +FloatingFatMan
      107
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!