# UN to control internet !?



## Ivan F Moala (Feb 23, 2005)

See here


http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=42982

http://edition.cnn.com/2005/TECH/internet/02/21/un.internet.reut/

Should the UN or any one control the Internet?


----------



## elgringo56 (Feb 23, 2005)

Interesting.  In thinking about it, however, I think the UN would be the best organization to control the Internet.  My reasoning is this:  The UN is the most ineffective, useless do nothing organization the world has ever produced, and with them governing the Internet, everyone would be happy and the Internet would still have, essentially, no governing, which is as it should be.


----------



## Felix Atagong (Feb 24, 2005)

[sarcastic mode]
Oh yeah, what will happen if the UN decides to keep a website and the US of A wants to invade it?
[end sarcastic mode]


----------



## Glaswegian (Feb 24, 2005)

elgringo makes an interesting point.

But I would hand over control to a select bunch of senior managers in our organisation.  They would be too busy having meetings, workshops, meetings, training sessions, meetings, junkets to other countries, meetings, creating project plans, (did I mention meetings?) that, like the UN, nothing would happen and things would continue as before.

Of course they would have to have a meeting to decide if they really wanted to take control.....


----------



## tails (Feb 24, 2005)

I mean no offense through this post, so please take none, everything i use in here is examples and i do not mean harm or anger to anyone who reads this.

The Internet isn't a thign to be controlled by any one being, wether it be the UN or the USA or Australia. Not one place can control the Internet, nor should it. If someone (an individual or a single conpany) had control of the internet it would be changed entirely. There is no point in giving someone control over the internet as it could be so easily abused. Imaging having the UN take over (no offense to anyone) but i feel as though it would be so strict, about the only thing you would be able to look up would be historical site, school pages, educational pages, things like that. There would be no in-line shopping, and most likely you would have to go through the UN (or who controls it) to allow your page to be displayed on the internet. If someone controled the internet, most pages would be discharged and removed. It would make the internet a place to learn, not a place to explore. That is what i think.


----------



## Norie (Feb 24, 2005)

Off topic maybe?

But who was it that invented the Internet?

As far as I know it was some US miitary thing that started it all.

Then it was a scientist at CERN that wanted to share his work with other scientists doing the same thing.

I think his name is Tim Berner-Lees.

But then again the idea behind HyperText (http) has been about for a long time.


----------



## elgringo56 (Feb 24, 2005)

The Internet will at some point become regulated in one fashion or another.  This is simply due to the fact that government, just as religion must control or it cannot exist.  That control will be brought about by instilling fear and utilizing brain washing techniques on the common man, who is more than willing to accept any dictated nonsense as that eliminates his need to do any thinking on his own.  Those that do possess the ability to think will be outvoted and eventually looked at as out of step with reality.  A good case in point is stem cell research, a science with the possibility of heaping huge benefits to mankind, being stifled by a few zealots that have probably never even glanced at any studies or facts, only listened to the religious nuts like George Bush or the poop, oops, pope who still think in the middle ages.  Sorry about this one, just felt like venting.  Hope it doesn't upset to many folks.


----------



## tails (Feb 24, 2005)

It's pretty silly the way everything is working now days, we have gone from the primitave cultural human, to the bllody sucking, power mungaring fiends we are today (no offense), all we are after is power, and the more power we give them the mroe they want, control over the internet is a no. it provides them with more power and sanctuary against us all. What could we do if we didnt' have a say anymore. The internet is a great spot to say what you think and not really have to worry about consiquences. its another sense of freedom for many ppl


----------



## Felix Atagong (Feb 25, 2005)

Some of the previous comments are quite to the point. Personally I am against all censorship, but then I also get mixed feelings when I see that some people use the so-called freedom of speech to propagate nazism or pedophilia.   

In Holland and Belgium we have restricted freedom of speech concerning nazism (or 'negotianists' and anti-semitists) and I have always been against these laws because they open the door to forbid other opinions as well.

And guess what I read in the newspaper today: some Dutch minister wants to restrict the freedom of speech for islamic imams. So bit by bit we will have less and less freedom of speech... 

If this goes on like that, one day Microsoft will forbid us to say that Linux is a fine system as well...


----------



## Zack Barresse (Feb 25, 2005)

Felix:  In regards to opinions, they will never be obliterated.  In a way we in the US also have some restrictions on freedom of speech.  If we shout out, "I have a bomb and will blow you up," we would be arrested.  We are all free to say what we want, in the sense that we all have a choice - a god given right.  What we _choose_ to do with this right is up to us.  Expressing one's opinion isn't necessarily a ticket for one to express to their heart's content.  So I agree with you about the opinion control.  Supressing people's opinions will only incite a defiant and angered attitude.  _Having_ the choice is different than _making_ the choice.  Preventative maintenance can sometimes be a great hinderence.
Re your first comment:  I take offense to that.

Re the UN:  I believe they were founded with the best of intentions.  They currently, imho, are far too busy getting sex for food they couldn't tell you of any great accomplishment as of late.  What they need is a complete restructuring of management starting at the top.

Regarding Internet control:
In the sense that is being discussed, no there should not be control.  This would be extremely detrimental and lead to uprising and internet scandal on a global scale.
In the sense that ICANN (or like body) would *guide* the internet, in the respect of keeping it's addressing, standards, and formats uniform and easily accessible, yes I am all for that.  Keeping the greatest tool made in this century (barring any medical or life-saving technologies) easy to use for all, and free (of charge and beaurocracy) is crucial.  It is a good idea, meaning it has good intentions (not necessarily the validity of such).  But like my father used to say, "Good intentions are just that - good intentions.  Nothing more, nothing less."  Meaning that good intentions will only get you so far and cannot constitute for, or accept responsibility for, actions performed.

So my opinion of the poll opinion: No.
Opinion of the articles: Possibly, if done right.


----------



## Glaswegian (Feb 25, 2005)

There is great debate in the UK just now about freedom of speech and censorship.  A prime example was a Birmingham theatre being forced to stop producing a play because it was considered disrespectful to a particular religious group.  Then the BBC decided to screen a production of Jerry Springer: The Opera which caused demonstrations by outraged religious groups.  They wanted to ban it because it contained (they said) blasphemy and was anti-religious.  Thankfully the BBC did not relent and screened it anyway.  Watching the controversy, I thought I should at least see what all the fuss was about - I turned it off after about 10 minutes.  Not because I was offended in any way, but because I thought it was rubbish!  I heard one religious representative on radio saying that no-one should see this production  and the BBC should not broadcast.  Did he try to end it's theatre run? No - because the theatre attracts only a fairly small audience.  However, I firmly believe that I should have the right to decide whether or not I watch a programme or show or movie.  Whether I enjoy it or not is entirley up to me but at least I have the right to make the decision.  I don't want to be told what to watch, when I can go out, what to eat, what to drink etc etc.  As an adult, I realise the choices are there - it's then up to me to make the choice that fits in with my own ethical/moral/religious views.

Any hints of regulation of the Net, or anything else are usually the thin end of the wedge.

Gosh, what a rant - I feel SO much better now!


(Heya Zack!)


----------



## tails (Feb 27, 2005)

Well there's a good point actually, topic going to religion. I dont want to get off the point but it kind of fits in with choice and freedom of speech. 
People fight over religion because of there beliefs, the biggest religion in the world being either catholics or christians (i'm not sure). But they will try and preech to people about what they should believe in, what they should do to make them go to heaven. How they should act, etc etc. But whats the point in them doing this. It's our choice to believe what we believe, I being a christian myself believe in a power in the heaven. Having my own belief, but i will not tell anyone what to believe in. war on religion is a very silly thing as if we look at it right, all the religion leads to the same sort of ending. a power in the sky, some believe in many gods, some have different names for their god. who cares, freedom to speech and choice to do what you want and when you want to is entirely up to us. If there are consiquences then we accpet that if we do this, this could happen. We are free people, why do we need to be lead by a single power in itself. Politics is a big thing in every country, but not one decision they make will benefit us all. We need to do our own thing, make our own choices, and live the way we want to live. If you dont want to work then fine, its your choice, you might have no money, but its your choice to do it and you know what will happen if you do. We only live once, make the most of it (unless re-incarnation is true).

That is a summary of what power can do to a nation and the world in itself. Over here in australia we have a law, you cut down a native tree, you must plant two in its place, or plant another one (not too sure on this someone will know) But guess what our prime minister did, cut down several hundred trees and not one was planted in its place. POWER! has lead him to believe he owns us all and does not need to plant any back because he owns our land. Maybe someone, somehow needs to show the people in politics what power has done to them. That why the internet does not need one person to rule it, too much power = no freedom.


----------

