[BadKosh]

Do you think the UN will succeed?

I guess the 3rd world dictators will use it to keep dissenters from having a voice, or providing truth vs political lies.

I wonder how long it will be until Sharia becomes the controlling document for internet censorship.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Number of posts before outrageous, over-the-top, hysterical, and hyperbolic comments are made: 1

[Spheric Harlot]

a) it's "Sharia".

b) U.N. and Sharia? Wut?

c) What the hell are you talking about?

d) The United States are PART of the UN, regardless of whether you understand what that means, or like it.

e) What the hell are you actually talking about? Link? Anything?

[BadKosh]

Link:

http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2012/12/03/us-ambassador-were-trying-to-stop-un-from-regulating-internet/


Try GOOGLE next time.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

Try GOOGLE next time.

Try COMMON COURTESY next time.

[BadKosh]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Try COMMON COURTESY next time.

I didn't know that some get all their news from Macnn. I thought people read news from many sources, and don't live in a bubble.

[subego]

My understanding is the ITU needs unanimity to pass something.

That won't happen.

[P]

No, but UN bureaucracies live on compromise. The fear is that they will eke out something that basically says that the ITU gets to control it - something they have tried for since -96 or so, right after they gave up saying that TCP/IP would never work and X.25 was the way forward - but with guarantees that they will never censor anything, before turning around to do exactly that once the attention is elsewhere.

[subego]

I'd be a little more worried if the UN had a history of doing anything successfully, ever.

[subego]

As an aside, I remember hearing an interview with one of the early Internet dudes (the one who wrote NAT, specifically). He was asked "that thing about designing the Internet to route around nuclear war, is that true?"

He made a shit-eating grin and replied "that's what we told them".


The obvious implication was it was actually this kind of ITU shit the Internet is designed to route around.

[BadKosh]

A little more balanced article:

http://www.wired.com/opinion/2012/12/internet-users-shouldnt-have-to-pay-the-price-of-an-international-treaty/

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Try COMMON COURTESY next time.

I didn't know that some get all their news from Macnn. I thought people read news from many sources, and don't live in a bubble.

Some of us have work to do occasionally and don't live on news sites.

(Though we do choose to waste our time on computer news forums. )

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

I didn't know that some get all their news from Macnn. I thought people read news from many sources, and don't live in a bubble.

So if I read news from multiple sites somehow I must know all the news that is occurring?


Put your bubble shit away, you're the one that writes off mainstream media to live in a bubble of your own design.


As far as tech news goes, my main source hasn't posted an article on this, only reinforcing my OP-based conclusion that this is much ado about nothing.
(Instead they chose to focus on this)

[The Final Dakar]

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2...-the-internet/

[subego]

Executive lazy person summary?

[pooka]

The loony conspiracy theorists were right?

[Shaddim]

The US said No, they never intended on signing it, and a bunch other countries followed suit.

[cgc]

Since the US has a majority share (22% of funding) of the UN they'd be a puppet (hopefully). I think the UN is a nutless do-nothing POS organization that needs to go away.