The Bush administration deserves a lot of kicking for the Harriet Miers nomination, but there’s one thing it’s doing right at present: Taking a firm line against internationalist yahoos who want to seize control of the Internet and give it to the most hypocritical, corrupt, ineffectual political body on the planet . . . the United Nations.
EXCERPTS:
Three lawmakers in the U.S. House of Representatives called on Friday for the Internet’s core infrastructure to remain under U.S. control, echoing similar language introduced in the Senate earlier this week.
The resolution, introduced by two Republicans and one Democrat, aims to line up Congress firmly behind the Bush administration as it heads for a showdown with much of the rest of the world over control of the global computer network.
"Turning the Internet over to countries with problematic human-rights records, muted free-speech laws, and questionable taxation practices will prevent the Internet from remaining the thriving medium it has become today," said California Republican Rep. John Doolittle in a statement.
Countries including Brazil and Iran want an international body to oversee the addressing system that guides traffic across the Internet, which is currently overseen by a California nonprofit body that answers to the U.S. Department of Commerce.
The European Union withdrew its support of the current system last month, and the issue is expected to come to a head at a U.N. summit meeting in Tunisia in November.
The Bush administration has made clear that it intends to maintain control.
What would the consequences be if we don’t hand over our Internet to the UN?
If a settlement is not reached, Internet users in different parts of the globe could potentially wind up at different Web sites when they type an address into their browsers.
And that would be unfortunate for people in other countries, but it’d be nothing compared to what would happen if control of the Internet were ceded to UN kleptocrats so that it could be turned into the same kind of sterling success as every other project the United Nations has touched in recent years.
U.S. lawmakers have backed the Bush administration’s stance, arguing that a U.N. group would stifle innovation with excessive bureaucracy and enable repressive regimes to curtail free expression online.
Amen to that!
“…the most hypocritical, corrupt, ineffectual political body on the planet.”
I thought that was the USCCB? 🙂
Unfortunately, I think many repressive regimes already block certain sites in their countries.
I’m reminded of when Europeans saw the lightning rod, an American invention, and deemed that because American’s couldn’t do anything right, the pointy part at the top of the rod should be chopped off.
I’m reminded of when Europeans saw the lightning rod, an American invention, and deemed that because Americans couldn’t do anything right, the pointy part at the top of the rod should be chopped off.
*sigh* I tried to stop the post that had the errant apostrophe. Oddly, I had to pass a spam test for the second one, but not the first…
I’m from Brazil, and I don’t want the Internet to be under control of the UN or the EU, and especially no from Brazil. It’s much safer with the US, who have an historical commitment to free speech. Brazil of late has fallen under the spell of cripto-marxists with a special talent for censorship. Until people wake up from this, tis better to leave things be.
I am French, and I don’t want the UN to control the NET either! I think the US is the only country that is able to manage the Net in a fair way. I really hope that Europe doesn’t get its way. The US invented it and should have the last word. I am afraid of what would happen if the UN controlled the Internet (think about what countries like China would do…)
Jimmy, did you coin the word “kleptocrat”?
That’s great!
No, cleptocracy has been the Brazilian ™ official form of government since 1799. (c) All rights reserved.
If you’d like more details on this, Slashdot has been running articles and links to news stories about it for the past couple of weeks. Most of their readers also support US control, largely on free speech grounds. I can’t say I support the kinds of speech they want to protect, but at least they recognize how awful UN control would be…
If you’re interested, a good search for their articles is: http://politics.slashdot.org/search.pl?tid=95&query=UN+US+internet
“UN, keep your hands off the internet,” is an excellent cry. To make it as univefrsal as they are trying to become, let’s change it to: “UN, keep your hands off (fill in the blank)!