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

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.

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'.

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

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?....

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

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

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...

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
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.

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

    • >defenders of AI-generated artworks often claim that AI is just a tool It is not. It is the inhuman artist replacement. The human writing the prompt is the employer/manager requesting the work product of the artist -- a supervisory/descriptive job that doesn't carry with it any rights to the copyright of that work product at all. And since AI is not human itself, it can't gain copyright for anything it is asked to regurgitate or hallucinate, so it can't transfer that copyright to the employer/manager/human who asked for the output. This was all legally reaffirmed last year. So, no, while there are AI tools, AI slopware generation is NOT a "tool" in the legal definition of that word.
    • As long as i get to play GTA 6 before it ends 😂😂
    • Google is opening the world's first AI museum in Los Angeles by Ivan Jenic Image via: Google Ever since AI image generators went mainstream, the debate over whether AI-generated art is real art hasn't let up. Those who don’t consider AI to be art say that if a machine does the creating and anyone can prompt it, there’s no skill involved, and therefore no art is produced. The counter-argument is equally persistent, as defenders of AI-generated artworks often claim that AI is just a tool, and that every major technological breakthrough, like the camera or the computer, was met with the same skepticism before eventually being accepted as a legitimate creative medium. Google’s position in this debate is clear. Which is no surprise, as the company is investing billions in AI infrastructure. And now, in efforts to encourage people to use its AI even more, Google is opening Dataland on June 20, which it's calling the world's first AI arts museum. Located inside The Grand LA, a Frank Gehry-designed building in Los Angeles, the museum spans 25,000 square feet. The museum is built around a collaboration with media artist Refik Anadol, who has worked with Google since 2016. The inaugural exhibition is called Machine Dreams: Rainforest, and is powered by an AI model trained on “an extensive dataset of the natural world.” It generates 1.2 billion pixels of visuals in real time and reacts to visitors dynamically. The space also generates soundscapes, real-time emotion sensing, and algorithmically produced scents. Image via: Refik Anadol Studio / Google Google says that the museum is powered by its Gemini models, which run on Google Cloud. So, everything is generated inside one of Google’s AI data centers and is streamed to the museum. Alongside the museum opening, Google Arts & Culture is funding an AI Artist Residency, giving four artists $25,000 grants each, along with mentorship from Refik Anadol Studio and access to Google's machine learning tools. Their work will be shown at Dataland and on the Google Arts & Culture website later this year. Google’s AI museum will undoubtedly initiate a fired-up debate on social media, and we can’t wait to see the first reactions. Via: Smithsonian Magazine
    • Calling GTA 6 overhyped crap doesn’t make you edgy, it just makes you sound like someone who hasn’t enjoyed anything since the PS2 era.
    • I’m not arguing whether Rockstar likes money. Obviously, they do, they’re a business. I’m saying this isn’t new. They’ve always launched console first. This is just how Rockstar operates.
  • Recent Achievements

    • First Post
      AndreaB earned a badge
      First Post
    • Week One Done
      Huge Trailer earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Week One Done
      Classifyskilleducation earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • One Month Later
      eurospharma62 earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Week One Done
      With What earned a badge
      Week One Done
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      570
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      175
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      73
    4. 4
      Michael Scrip
      68
    5. 5
      neufuse
      64
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!