JoNova

A science presenter, writer, speaker & former TV host; author of The Skeptic's Handbook (over 200,000 copies distributed & available in 15 languages).


The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper


Advertising

micropace


GoldNerds

The nerds have the numbers on precious metals investments on the ASX



The UN threat to internet freedom

Oh Joy and Goody. Imagine if decisions about the global internet were made by the same institution that thought the rights of the downtrodden would be best protected by Col. Muammar Gaddafi? Hands up who wants another group of people you have no control over, making decisions for you and behind closed doors?

Of course, they will tell us the new regulations are there to help us, to stop spam, keep the internet fair and open. Then sooner or later, as with all human institutions, politics and ambition will mean the power is misused.

The people who will suffer the most are those in third world dictatorships. But free speech is the thing that stops the first world from turning into the third world. It’s hard to see how we get more than one shot at this. Once the net stops being open, imagine the fun trying to get that freedom back. Think of how fast protest groups can be arranged online through Facebook and email. Then think about how hard that gets if you have no e-help? The protests favored by the establishment get the free pass. What does everyone else do? Make thousands of cold phone calls? Use direct mail?

That’s why we have to protest while we still can, at the merest hint that anyone would dare change the way the Internet works. Ten minutes of effort now could help save our children from being forced to spend years fighting the system, just to get back what we have right now.

Thank God for the internet; skeptics would not  have won many “climate” battles without it.

Via Tallbloke:

From https://www.whatistheitu.org/ The era of pamphleteering in the late 1700s was the same. The governments used repressive legislation and printing press breaking gangs to prevent the populace from using the written word as a means of dissemination and organisation. Do not be complacent, the failure of the AGW Paradigm is a blow to the centralising tendency, and the UN is planning a backlash against the medium which exposed its hidden agenda.

I wrote about the pamphleteers here as I toiled to get back online after a lack of funds had left this site prey to hacks and attacks. (Thanks to donors who help us cover the increased security costs). Bloggers today are the pamphleteers of 250 years ago. Except we are luckier. Back then, people were jailed. Others died protesting for them in the street.

The ITU wants to control the internet, and this week they get another chance.

“If some proposals at WCIT are approved, decisions about the internet would be made by a top-down, old-school government-centric agency behind closed doors. Some proposals allow for access to be cut off more easily, threaten privacy, legitimize monitoring and blocking online traffic. Others seek to impose new fees for accessing content, not to mention slowing down connection speeds. If the delicate balance of the internet is upset, it could have grave consequences for businesses and human rights.”

The diplomatic process began in Feb 2012, and Robert McDowell wrote about The U.N. Threat to Internet Freedom in the Wall Street Journal.

The countries that most want ITU controlled include Russia, China, and Iran, and we all know why.

“Russia backed by China and India is pushing through a takeover of the internet by a UN supranational agency to make the web truly universal. The aim of the plan is to standardize the behavior of countries concerning information and cyberspace.”

The ITU is not all bad, but we need the net to stay open source.

The net belongs to the people, not a committee, and never to the U.N.

—————————————–

H/t to Truthseeker, Tallbloke and Andrew McRae

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.1/10 (93 votes cast)
The UN threat to internet freedom, 9.1 out of 10 based on 93 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/bpnomum

109 comments to The UN threat to internet freedom

  • #
    PJB

    Innate rights are those most easily lost, as they come without charge and are often taken for granted.
    The freedom to express oneself is fundamental to human nature. The restriction of that expression is a subjugation of our humanity.
    Domination is a vestige of our animal origins. If we are ever to aspire to our higher natures, we must cherish, protect and promote all aspects of self and society that make proper use of our ability to freely communicate and negotiate.
    Eternal vigilance is the price we must willingly pay for our freedom.


    Report this

    320

  • #
    Otter

    The power will be misused Sooner or later? How about, IMMEDIATELY.

    Peo…. errr, indivi- errrr, the likes of brooksie and filly will cheer.


    Report this

    200

  • #
    Andrew McRae

    Nine days between Tallbloke’s post and it being noticed here. You must have your Internet packets being sent by carrier pigeon. :)

    If only a hypothetical someone had posted 2 days ago under a pseudonym to alert you to this event … hypothetically…. and had their comment moderated as off-topic… hypothetically… only for the topic of that comment to then reappear as a new article today. Hypothetically that hypothetical account name would have hypothetical hats tipped in their direction.
    Ah well, credit goes to those who trumpet the boldest and loudest, publish or perish and all that. And these things DO need to be checked out before rumours get out of hand. Hypothetically.

    Not quite so hypothetical is the lesson from history, and what previous generations of the oppressed had devised to get around the suppression of expression.

    Under Soviet Russia and East Germany, the possession of a printing press without state authorization could land you in a lot of trouble. These printing presses were illegal, as were any documents and music imported or reproduced from the free West, beyond the Iron Curtain. All this prohibited material had a Russian name for it: samizdat.
    Learn that word and its history, you never know when you might need it. Like maybe when the Internet gets “harmonised” China-style.

    (P.S. There is also a blog in the UK set up around the theme of samizdat for the Internet era, and the blog is very appropriately titled Samizdata. Before clicking that link our more sensitive left-leaning readers are forewarned that the blog is about as anti-collectivist as one can be. I found it last year and considered some of the opinions there to be rather interesting and in one case informative. Cannot have been interesting enough compared to JN as I have never been back to Samizdata to read it again. Just doesn’t have that homely feel to it. )

    -
    Andrew, I’ve sent you an email an hour ago. I’ll send another… OK. Sorry, yes hat tip to you! – Jo


    Report this

    70

    • #
      Jaymez

      Give them a break Andrew. It would have been off topic (hypothetically), and if anyone could just post a comment on any topic on any thread then this would just become a message board. :)

      [Quite] Fly


      Report this

      51

    • #
      Andrew McRae

      Crikey, Jo, I just received your email 10 20 30 55 minutes ago. My normally immortal email reader was not running earlier. I actually wonder whether you sent that before or after my comment, with these different time zones I can’t tell. Anyhow…

      Some other links where this has been talked about are…

      This article says the UN is trying to take over the Internet, but this is not necessarily true, it just depends on whose story you believe: http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/un-seek-control-internet_664018.html

      The contrary view, that it is actually Google & Co that are trying to take over the net and that the ITU is at least publically accountable, is espoused in veiled sarcasm here: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/11/27/itu_vs_en/

      An early (and correct, but irrelevant) criticism of this “U.N. takeover” meme was that the ITU has no control over Internet services and content anyway. A suggestion that the ITU should gain more powers than they have is the only conceivable prospect that could provoke an objection from the EU (which itself is ironic in the extreme).

      Here is part of the EU resolution B7-0498/2012 objecting to some of the proposals, where the EU says:

      5. Believes that, as a consequence of some of the proposals presented, the ITU itself could become the ruling power over aspects of the internet, which could end the present bottom-up, multi-stakeholder model; expresses concern that, if adopted, these proposals may seriously affect the development of, and access to, online services for end users, as well as the digital economy as a whole; believes that internet governance and related regulatory issues should continue to be defined at a comprehensive and multi-stakeholder level;

      6. Is concerned that the ITU reform proposals include the establishment of new profit mechanisms that could seriously threaten the open and competitive nature of the internet, driving up prices, hampering innovation and limiting access; recalls that the internet should remain free and open;

      That is straight from the EU. Either you believe the EU is objecting to proposals that were never seriously proposed and that Google is lying when they say these were serious proposals, or else there were proposals to expand regulation by the ITU.

      Do you see it doesn’t actually matter? It does not matter whether the ITU really is hoping to “take over the Internet”. Point is … *someone* is planning on getting more power over the Internet, it might even be Google & USA & Co hoping to take advantage of any bad press reaction against the ITU.
      Either way the status quo that has been so nice to us would not remain for long.

      The only other sources I have seen write about this are more towards the kooky side of things and they most likely got the info from the same mainstream sources as ourselves. That is quite a remarkable thing in itself; That this news of a “suggested” UN Internet takeover is not a secret or hidden in any way, and yet for such potentially far reaching consequences why have you not seen it reported anywhere else? Perhaps the MSM would love to see the death of blogging, the suffocation of citizen journalism, and the stifling of the Internet generally. I mean, you don’t sabotage the bear traps that kill the fox that would have killed the goose that lays the golden eggs, do you?

      More generally there are always attempts in Australia to sell us on regulation of Internet content and put in place censorship by exploiting hot-button issues. The Christian lobby seems to have been completely co-opted by this push for regulation, perhaps believing they are doing the right thing.
      http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/11/09/conroys_reasons_for_filter_decision/
      It took five years to kill that filter idea, so I have a suspicion it is a zombie idea that isn’t really dead yet. The problem with allowing the technical and legal mechanism to censor stuff is that it can be ramped up beyond the original purpose. That’s a slippery slope argument but when you slide down the slope slowly enough you won’t even know it is happening.

      The so-called “Liberal” Tony Abbot has no problems with internet censorship, which of course will only be used for protecting children online. The Liberal-in-name-only has no problem with creating yet another government department headed by an “e-Safety Commissioner”, which sounds about as Big Nanny as you can get.
      http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/11/16/australia_social_media_regulation_plan/
      Don’t worry … “The discussion paper rules out similar approaches for material pertaining to adults, saying that to regulate more widely would restrict freedom of speech.” I’d prefer it if such lofty statements of principle were actually the signed law of the land rather than an innocuous discussion paper.

      All this filtering and regulation could go ahead and everything might be better and wonderful because of it, assuming our governments and departments were staffed by perfect beings. It really all boils down to how easy it is for anyone in government to monitor or block the communications of anyone else without judicial permission and alignment with individual rights. The founders of the USA decided that drawing a very definite line in the sand that no subsequent government could cross was the only way in law to guard against tyranny.
      A decent Bill of Rights is conspicuous by its absence in Australian law.


      Report this

      20

    • #

      Andrew, I emailed you as soon as I released the post, and after your comment.

      I owe a hat tip to Truthseeker too! I see now he was the first to put the tallbloke link up. Thanks truthseeker :-) Sorry I took so long.


      Report this

      20

      • #
        Truthseeker

        Well thank you Jo.

        I was not going to say anything because I know you have a lot on your plate, such as managing the hypothetical millions from big Oil …

        Subsequent to my original comment, there has been an informed comment on the same Tallbloke thread that suggests that maybe we do not need to panic … yet.


        Report this

        30

        • #
          Joe V.

          Well thankyou Truthseeker. I see you’ve probably rumbled my WordPress moniker, inspired as it was by the interminable attemps to setup a user name to post a simple comment on one of the many WordPress blogs around.
          I have to say that is just one way in which this JoNova’s Blogg is so much more useable than many others out their, despite their excellent content of the likes of Watts. Tallboke, and Reference Frame, etc they can be just so desperately frustrating to use at times.

          As for the ITU, the expertise of some of its contributors is legendary within the industry. It’s not however the Engineers, but the politicians and legalists you have to watch.

          DeRegulation was a driving force that powered the telecoms industry through the Nineties.
          That was perhaps more down to free trade sentiments within the EU and Australia of those times though. Today it is more about Global Harmonisation of technical standards.

          I don’t know what political animals might inhabit the ITU of today, though I rememember it as a technical. body that got rather weighed down by the weight of its own processes, and 4 yearly not being nearly often enough to get together to agree new standards in the fast changing world of communications.


          Report this

          00

      • #
        Bulldust

        The ABC now has a blog on the story, but no comments yet:

        http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/4409960.html


        Report this

        00

  • #
    Jaymez

    Hopefully the UN will have to back down just as Conroy had to back down on his internet censorship proposals in Australia. This sort of thing is a worry though when we also have other restrictions on our rights being attempted to be placed on us through the United Nations!


    Report this

    80

    • #
      Bite Back

      Hopefully the UN will have to back down

      Do not bet on it. There are enough willing to go along with it that it might just succeed. And if it doesn’t it will not go silently away. Nothing succeeds like persistence, as our present governments prove very well.


      Report this

      60

  • #
    Kevin Lohse

    “….keep the internet fair and open…..” Never forget that the UN is controlled by despots and totalitarian regimes. The UN definition of “fair” =controlled by us. Open=when we want it to be.


    Report this

    191

    • #
      Kevin Lohse

      PS. Any organisation which will admit a terrorist group whose prime policy is the extermination of a Nation-State and all it’s inhabitants should be viewed with the utmost suspicion.


      Report this

      423

      • #
        Crakar24

        Kevin,

        Are you refering to the UN giving Palestine “observer” status recently?


        Report this

        20

        • #
          Kevin Lohse

          I’m referring to the UN giving recognition to Hamas, an Iran-backed terrorist organisation whose declared aim is the destruction of Israel and the killing of every Jew in the world. Hamas control the Palestinian Authority, effectively making Palestine a failed state.


          Report this

          33

          • #
            Crakar24

            Kevin,

            Thanks for the clarification however i must respectfully disagree.

            The link below shows a map of the country of Palestine in 1947 and then shows 3 more maps showing how the Israelis have stolen the land from the Palestinians. So regardless of your belief in a mistranslation from the Iranian president it is clear by tehse maps that Israel is trying to wipe Palestine off the map.

            http://nabisalehsolidarity.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/four-panel-map.jpg

            The UN did not give recognition to Hamas they gave recognition to the country of Palestine do not be confused by these two things also only 9 countries voted against the recognition of observer status so you are clearly in the minority on this issue.

            I suggest you learn more about this issue before you make statements like this again.

            Regards

            Crakar


            Report this

            31

          • #
            Crakar24

            Ah good to see facts trump opinions once again


            Report this

            00

          • #
            Kevin Lohse

            Crakar 24.

            “Only 9 countries voted against the recognition to the country of Palestine.’ This is the wrong site to preach the “consensus” false argument.

            I was not basing my statement on a claimed mistranslation by the Iranian president, I was basing my statement on the oft-declared aims of Hamas, which have been reiterated too many times to list by senior political figures in the ME. It is a fact that Hamas is controlled by Iran, an Islamic fundamentalist state that has publicly called for the destruction of Israel.

            At no time did I mention the legitimacy or otherwise of Israeli claims on Arab-held territory or Arab claims on Israeli-held territory. Such claims are political bargaining chips in Israel’s fight for survival and the Arab fight to obliterate Israel and every Jewish man,woman and child.

            Your “facts” merely demonstrate that you have either clearly swallowed whole anti-jewish propaganda pumped out by the enemies of Israel or that you are yourself anti-semetic. I doubt you even recognise the right of Israel to exist.


            Report this

            11

          • #
            Crakar24

            Ah yes when all else fails play the anti-semite card, you are no better than a warmbot. Try having a rational debate without casting aspersions next time.

            Look at maps i gave you, attempt to justify the Israeli land grab that has been going on since 1947 and is going on today, even Carr has condemned the latest Israeli land grab. The once was a country called Palestine now they are herded like cattle in out door prison camps, thousands murdered for land.

            Oh but i am a filthy anti-semite piss off you idiot.


            Report this

            32

          • #
            Kevin Lohse

            You ignore the stated aim of Hamas to destroy the Jewish nation. You refuse to recognise the right of Israel to exist and you insist on making the consequences of the intransigence of the Arab nation and Iran a cause in itself. If Israel’s borders had been recognised in 1947, the results would have been very different. When you recognise the right of Israel to exist then a sensible discussion could be possible. Until then you are, I hope, merely a useful idiot in the service of Genocides.


            Report this

            11

          • #
            Crakar24

            Kevin,

            You make quite a few unsubstantiated accusations about me but thats OK i expect nothing less from you.

            I would like to recap this brief exchange as i find your thoughts on this fascinating.

            You first make the claim that we cannot now trust the UN as they have admitted a terrorist into their organisation

            PS. Any organisation which will admit a terrorist group whose prime policy is the extermination of a Nation-State and all it’s inhabitants should be viewed with the utmost suspicion.

            This statement is factually incorrect and i responded by highlighting them

            1, The country of Palestine was given observer status in an overwhelming 138 to 9 vote with 41 abstentions, that is the country of Palestine has been given observer status. The ruling political party of Palestine is called Fatah, Hamas is a political party but they are not the ruling party. Once again just for clarirty, the UN did not grant Hamas entry to the UN, Hamas is a political party and Palestine is a country.

            As part of your education did you know that the Israeli/US government ceased all peace talks with Fatah as they were not an elected government by the people? They stated they would reinitiate peace talks once free and fair elections were held. Palestine held this election and the people voted for Hamas. The Israeli/US government did not like this so they refused to deal with them and decided to recognise Fatah as the elected leaders instead even though they were not elected by the Palestinian people, confused Kevin?

            2, You also made the claim that their prime policy is the extermination of a Nation-State and all it’s inhabitants, however by viewing the maps that i supplied it is very easy to see that this is in fact the Israeli prime policy.

            However the two facts that i presented was met with smears, you did not/could not debate me on the facts that i presented so you reverted to the lowest of lows by calling me an anti semite. Have you any idea how offensive this is Kevin, do you understand what it is that you are accusing me of?

            Your latest diatribe is merely an extention of the smear, once again you comment is baseless, once again you are confusing a political party with UN observer status granted to a country.

            You claim i do not recognise Israels right to exist however this topic has not been discussed, another smear.

            You claim if Israels borders had been recognised in 1947 then the result would be different????? What borders?

            Do you think that maybe just maybe if Palestines borders had been recognised in 1947 then the result would have been different?

            Before i go i wish to respond specifically to this statement

            Until then you are, I hope, merely a useful idiot in the service of Genocides.

            Another unsubstantiated smear by you, once again Kevin your worst is on display but lets let history be the judge

            1, Israel hold the world record in the number of towns & villages it ethnically cleansed…500+
            2, Israel holds the world record in the number of refugees it deported…4 million +
            3, Israel holds the world record in the number of homes it demolished…60 thousand +
            4, Israel is the country with the highest record of UN condemnation…500+ times
            5, Israel is the country with the highest number of protective US Security council vetoes…100+ times
            6, Israel has killed more innocent civilians per capita than any other country…50 thousand+

            This is just the tip of the iceberg and the above 6 facts are verifiably through UN records, do a bit of investigation kevin, enough with your unsubstantiated smears and your complete lack of historical knowledge.


            Report this

            20

    • #
      Dennis

      We, The UN, must control the world.


      Report this

      00

  • #

    It sounds silly to say the UN really is on offense against the West to take down Individualism, rational thought, and through those assaults, economic freedom and capitalism itself. Only Business Cronies who grease palms and swap favors with the political class are to be allowed.

    http://www.invisibleserfscollar.com/hobbling-minds-and-misrepresenting-reality-mounting-a-political-coup-from-within/ is based on using false facts about Sustainability and a cultivated belief that Systems guide all of our actions to get students and then future voters into a collectivist mindset that they are largely unaware of. Peter Senge’s systems thinking and the supposedly discredited Limits to Growth from the Club of Rome in the 70s remain all the rage with the UN planners. Because they reenforce Statist Interventionism.

    Internet access to disprove all the factual errors that contradict the Official Ideologies are really an impediment. But it is the West, Canada, Australia, Europe, and the US, under organized assault. Can’t change the noetic system of prevailing values, attitudes, and beliefs if an Internet search and the ability to read phonetically makes the falsities immediately apparent. So you restrict the Internet and redefine what constitutes Literacy. Recognizing a few desired words in context will do. Only approved words and concepts even get taught. Welcome to Guided reading.

    As Senge said “how do diverse groups of people come to shared understanding of complex subjects so they can effectively coordinate their actions?” By governments and the UN using their monopolies over education to create common erroneous beliefs and then restricting access to the Internet for the ones who got through.

    When you want to control Hearts and Minds in the 21st Century, you do have to be careful about what gets through.


    Report this

    90

    • #
      Bite Back

      It sounds silly to say the UN really is on offense against the West to take down Individualism, rational thought, and through those assaults, economic freedom and capitalism itself.

      Maybe once it did. But no more.

      It’s been going on for a long time. We quit educating our children for their benefit and started educating them for society’s benefit a long time ago, even before discernable UN influence.

      We were asleep for far too long.


      Report this

      170

  • #

    [...] Jo Nova: The UN threat to internet [...]


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bruce

    Colleges have free speech on the run
    By George F. Will, Published: December 1

    In 2007, Keith John Sampson, a middle-aged student working his way through Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis as a janitor, was declared guilty of racial harassment. Without granting Sampson a hearing, the university administration — acting as prosecutor, judge and jury — convicted him of “openly reading [a] book related to a historically and racially abhorrent subject.”

    “Openly.” “Related to.” Good grief.

    The book, “Notre Dame vs. the Klan,” celebrated the 1924 defeat of the Ku Klux Klan in a fight with Notre Dame students. But some of Sampson’s co-workers disliked the book’s cover, which featured a black-and-white photograph of a Klan rally. Someone was offended, therefore someone else must be guilty of harassment.

    This non sequitur reflects the right never to be annoyed, a new campus entitlement. Legions of administrators, who now outnumber full-time faculty, are kept busy making students mind their manners, with good manners understood as conformity to liberal politics.

    Liberals are most concentrated and untrammeled on campuses, so look there for evidence of what, given the opportunity, they would do to America. Ample evidence is in “Unlearning Liberty: Campus Censorship and the End of American Debate” by Greg Lukianoff, 38, a graduate of Stanford Law School who describes himself as a liberal, pro-choice, pro-gay rights, lifelong Democrat who belongs to “the notoriously politically correct Park Slope Food Co-Op in Brooklyn” and has never voted for a Republican “nor do I plan to.” But as president of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), he knows that the most common justifications for liberal censorship are “sensitivity” about “diversity” and “multiculturalism,” as academic liberals understand those things.

    In recent years, a University of Oklahoma vice president has declared that no university resources, including e-mail, could be used for “the forwarding of political humor/commentary.” The College at Brockport in New York banned using the Internet to “annoy or otherwise inconvenience” anyone. Rhode Island College prohibited, among many other things, certain “attitudes.” Texas Southern University’s comprehensive proscriptions included “verbal harm” from damaging “assumptions” or “implications.” Texas A&M promised “freedom from indignity of any type.” Davidson banned “patronizing remarks.” Drexel University forbade “inappropriately directed laughter.” Western Michigan University banned “sexism,” including “the perception” of a person “not as an individual, but as a member of a category based on sex.” Banning “perceptions” must provide full employment for the burgeoning ranks of academic administrators.

    Many campuses congratulate themselves on their broad-mindedness when they establish small “free-speech zones” where political advocacy can be scheduled. At one point Texas Tech’s 28,000 students had a “free-speech gazebo” that was 20 feet wide. And you thought the First Amendment made America a free-speech zone.

    At Tufts, a conservative newspaper committed “harassment” by printing accurate quotations from the Koran and a verified fact about the status of women in Saudi Arabia. Lukianoff says that Tufts may have been the first American institution “to find someone guilty of harassment for stating verifiable facts directed at no one in particular.”

    He documents how “orientation” programs for freshmen become propaganda to (in the words of one orthodoxy enforcer) “leave a mental footprint on their consciousness.” Faculty, too, can face mandatory consciousness-raising.

    In 2007, Donald Hindley, a politics professor at Brandeis, was found guilty of harassment because when teaching Latin American politics he explained the origin of the word “wetbacks,” which refers to immigrants crossing the Rio Grande. Without a hearing, the university provost sent Hindley a letter stating that the university “will not tolerate inappropriate, racial and discriminatory conduct.” The assistant provost was assigned to monitor Hindley’s classes “to ensure that you do not engage in further violations of the nondiscrimination and harassment policy.” Hindley was required to attend “anti-discrimination training.”

    Such coercion is a natural augmentation of censorship. Next comes mob rule. Last year, at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, the vice provost for diversity and climate — really; you can’t make this stuff up — encouraged students to disrupt a news conference by a speaker opposed to racial preferences. They did, which the vice provost called “awesome.” This is the climate on an especially liberal campus that celebrates “diversity” in everything but thought.

    “What happens on campus,” Lukianoff says, “doesn’t stay on campus” because censorship has “downstream effects.” He quotes a sociologist whose data he says demonstrate that “those with the highest levels of education have the lowest exposure to people with conflicting points of view.” This encourages “the human tendency to live within our own echo chambers.” Parents’ tuition dollars and student indebtedness pay for this. Good grief.

    georgewill@washpost.com

    Read more from Opinions: Jonathan Turley: How the Western world is limiting free speech The Post’s View: Mr. Obama’s refreshing defense of free speech Katrina vanden Heuvel: Free college? We can afford it.


    Report this

    140

    • #
      Bite Back

      Free college? We can afford it.

      I hear that free is always worth what you pay for it.

      Tragically that is absolutely right.


      Report this

      30

      • #

        Something “free” from a government(any government) usually has the price of the rest of your life attached to it. Unfortunately, that seems not to be the end of it. Today, the price extends to your children and on to at least seven more generations.


        Report this

        80

        • #
          Bite Back

          Today, the price extends to your children and on to at least seven more generations.

          Reads mighty like, “The sins of the fathers are visited on the children, even unto seven generations.”

          Isn’t it amazing how the bible can be so accurate even when you place no stock in it at all?

          It points out that wisdom is where you find it. And you don’t find that wisdom taught in schools these days.

          Well, I’m not your critic, Lionell. But I thought it odd that you who have several times proclaimed that no god exists would pick up a line from an Old Testament prophet.

          And yes, I’ve been reading this blog for quite a while.


          Report this

          10

        • #
          John Brookes

          Yeah, I got a free uni education, and I’ve regretted it ever since…


          Report this

          03

          • #
            Bite Back

            Yeah, I got a free uni education, and I’ve regretted it ever since…

            From what you say here along with what you’ve made known about yourself and your job I would bet that the people who paid for your free uni education also regret it.


            Report this

            30

    • #
      Anthony

      re:
      “University of Wisconsin-Madison, the vice provost for diversity and climate”
      I couldn’t believe it either, but a quick Google shows that the meaning of climate is not the “weather” version, rather the climate on campus encouraging diversity.


      Report this

      00

  • #
    Bite Back

    As one whose tax dollars subsidized the development — yes, the real invention — of the Internet as a private network for communicating among scientists in the US military Defense Advance Research Projects Agency (DARPA), contributed to by absolutely no one except the US. taxpayer and Yankee ingenuity, I have been outraged by even the talk of this takeover by the UN (and it is the UN).

    We built this communication marvel from scratch. We did it in a time when it was pushing the envelope as far as it could be pushed, when some thought it couldn’t be done. No one else was working on anything like it. The work was done over a long time to get it to where it was when Congress decided to make it public so Al Gore could claim his credit for “inventing” it.

    Once it was public we graciously made it available to the whole world. We have never censored it. Not once, ever! Every worthless cause and a lot more than a handful of dishonest ones have taken root in it and still we will not shut it off for anyone, not even Nigeria that has become a major haven for virtual world con artists.

    Our administration of it has been even handed all the way. And that is why it’s not so popular to leave it in our hands, don’t you think?

    We did not have to do any of this. To me the world owes us a debt of gratitude. Instead we get the finger.

    If anyone thinks I am not thoroughly pissed off by this power grab you’re completely insane. There is no one angrier than I am. But here’s our question. How do we stop it? Does anyone believe that email and letter writing to the people now controlling government in the US or anywhere else will have any effect? We need leverage like we’ve never needed it before. And I don’t see that leverage.

    I hope I’m wrong because once censorship is begun there will be no way to regain our freedom to communicate.


    Report this

    50

  • #
    Bite Back

    The ITU is not all bad, but we need the net to stay open source.

    I disagree, Joanne. It is now an agency of the UN, without a doubt and that makes it ultimately a threat to all forms of communication, not just the Internet. It will not stay international. Once the first foot is in the door the power will reach easily into every nation foolish enough to go along with this. That is what’s so pernicious about this problem. It’s not about agreement on international communication management anymore. It’s about controlling all communication.


    Report this

    90

  • #
    MadJak

    Just wait for the Conroy attack

    it will be something along the lines of “It’s kiddie porn or a controlled network” or some weasel words to that effect.

    If the net isn’ kept free, then it will be necessary for people to create their own local networks and link them together.

    Now that will just be a PITA, but entirely doable.


    Report this

    80

    • #

      Just wait for the Conroy attack
      it will be something along the lines of “It’s kiddie porn or a controlled network” or some weasel words to that effect.

      Not sure which pollie was involved, state/federal, but I recall the opening of some High School network censorship thing. Took one kid all of 10 seconds to break through it. News cameras switched off real quick, but not quick enough :-)

      If the net isn’ kept free, then it will be necessary for people to create their own local networks and link them together. Now that will just be a PITA, but entirely doable.

      If the UN are as good at this as they are with “solving” other “issues” then there may not be too much to worry about. On the other hand, maybe wise not to be too complacent?
      TCP/IP is extraordinarily difficult to “control”. It was built to be bomb-proof. Censorship is damage, and the system is capable of going round damage.
      HTTP is mostly what these control-freaks are on about. They don’t know about FTP, NNTP, Telnet, the numerous email protocols.
      For all its faults and follies (or perhaps because of them?), Google is going to be difficult to manipulate. World-wide, email messages projected to reach 507 billion per day by 2013 [Google 'world's email traffic'].
      Can’t see how any ECHELON variant or descendant, global or forced at service-provider level, will be able to cope with this.


      Report this

      30

  • #
    Eddie Sharp

    The Internet would never have developed had it been left to the ITU. There bulky and top heavy standardisation process is just far too cumbersome for making progress. ITU standardisation effort for Internet communications (h.323 et al.) was left standing by the Internet Engineering Task Force, an ad hoc group that proposes standards which most internet kit now works to.

    For the ITU to try and step in to take over what has managed to develop despite it seems wholey wrong.


    Report this

    30

    • #
      Roy Hogue

      I went looking at the internetsociety.org web site. Here’s some interesting stuff from a survey of Internet users they recently did.

      The Internet and Human Rights:

      1. Eighty-three percent of respondents agreed or agreed strongly that access to the Internet should be considered a basic human right.

      2. Eighty-nine percent agreed or agreed strongly that Internet access allows freedom of expression on all subjects, and 86 percent agreed or agreed strongly that freedom of expression should be guaranteed.

      3. Sixty percent of respondents agreed or agreed strongly that Internet access has contributed significantly to civil action and political awareness in their country.

      I’m in no way opposed to the work of the Internet Society or anything of the like. It’s this kind of cooperative activity that makes it work for everyone.

      But here’s my take on these things:

      1. How many human rights are there going to be? I object! You can get my agreement to a guarantee of free speech. But I’m not going to bend to guarantee of a forum in which to do it. That is something you need to earn just like everything else is earned by everyone else. If every bit of new technology becomes a human right we’ll sink under the weight of it. Take a good look at the UN’s current list of human rights if you don’t believe me.

      2. Freedom of expression is not the same thing as freedom of speech. And in spite of the U.S. Supreme Court, burning a flag — anyone’s flag — or a mob blocking entry to the Statehouse in Madison Wisconsin is not free speech. Speech has had a very well understood definition for a very long time and it means spoken or written communication. Believe me; no one knew that any better than the colonists who tossed his majesty’s tea in Boston Harbor. If caught they would have been punished. Their own colonial courts would punish them with no need for King George (or should have, but that’s another matter). And that should never have changed. This begins to be dangerous territory.

      3. I wonder what “civil action and political awareness” even means. I wonder if anyone even cares what it means. It’s another catch phrase of our times. But I think we all should care a lot. Ill defined terms are the death of the best of intentions.

      We should tread a lot more lightly than we do.


      Report this

      40

  • #

    I post a lot on Andrew Laming’s (Fed Member for Bowman) Facebook. Been saying a few things about Climate Change. He received a notice yesterday that I had been threatening the Prime Minister, and rang me because he was away from his desk but needed to check. Now why would he be told such a thing? I really don’t like the tactics these people employ. They have no interest in the Truth.


    Report this

    50

  • #
  • #
    Eddie Sharp

    The ITU emerged in the days when Telegraph networks needed to interwork between countries. Since then communications has undergone a transformation.
    Not least was the De-Regulation of Telecommunications globally that proceeded through the Nineties, taking communication off the expensive and uncompetitive state run networks that were used to earn hard currency by eg. East European States.
    State Monopolies were replaced by Corporate Monopolies such as AT&T Global, to provide international communications, but the way in which consumers could use their networks became largely uncontrolled when technology allowed speech to be packetised and carried across data networks. The old model of State and then Corporate control had been broken and the ITU sat by bemused by such developments.


    Report this

    20

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      The old model of State and then Corporate control had been broken and the ITU sat by bemused by such developments.

      I am not sure I agree with you Eddie.

      From its inception, the ITU has been concerned with the engineering standards required for connectivity between different carriers and across country borders. It has historically been about defining (or rubber-stamping) the technical protocols to encourage standardisation. If you think, for a moment, about electricity distribution; you have different voltages, different frequencies, and different outlet pin configurations in various countries (I think some parts of the U.S. still supply 110V DC, but I may be wrong). That has not happened with communications.

      They are in the business of agreeing “the best” telecommunication standards from a range of options, and that is mostly what the spend their time doing.

      Right now, as I type this, the World Conference on International Telecommunications (WCIT-12) is currently being held in Dubai. To quote from their literature:

      “This landmark conference will review the current International Telecommunication Regulations (ITRs), which serve as the binding global treaty designed to facilitate international interconnection and interoperability of information and communication services, as well as ensuring their efficiency and widespread public usefulness and availability.”

      Note, this statement is about information and communication services, and not about content.

      The content is being looked at by another body entirely!

      “The Tunis Agenda for the Information Society [circa 2005] invited the Secretary-General of United Nations to convene a new forum for multi-stakeholder policy dialogue called the Internet Governance Forum (IGF)”. [My emphasis]

      The IGF held their seventh meeting, from 6-9 November, 2012 in Baku, Azerbaijan, on the subject of, “Internet Governance for Sustainable Human, Economic and Social Development”.

      It produced the Baku Declaration, “Addressing the Challenges of a Hyperconnected World” (PDF).

      The wording of this declaration are not what I would call threatening — they are more idealistic than sinister. But when you look at the logos at the top of the page, and at the list of participants, it is misguided to single out the ITU for any concerns we might have.

      Tilting at windmills is fine, but neither the ITU, nor the IGF is the right windmill.

      Any threat to the freedom of the internet (which I think is a clear and present danger) will come from an entirely different quarter, and will probably arrive while we are being (deliberately?) distracted by these false leads.


      Report this

      60

      • #
        Mark F

        Yes, and the ITU were blindsided by the Internet. I saw the ITU as a body comprising the world’s dominant telecomm carriers, under sponsorship of their respective governments, working to create and enshrine standards which would protect the monopolies while establishing quite high non-tariff barriers to trade. The dreaded IP packet router and protocols overwhelmed the inefficient “circuit switched” (real or virtual) architecture, and the rest is history.

        I doubt that the ITU are much different today. Eurocentric trade barriers enshrined in global laws.


        Report this

        20

      • #
        Rereke Whakaaro

        Hmm, My link to the list of participants seems to be broken.

        [Now fixed for you] Fly


        Report this

        00

      • #
        Roy Hogue

        Rereke,

        I cetainly don’t single out the ITU. But in these days of critical thinking gone into freefall I don’t trust them any more than I trust the UN.


        Report this

        00

        • #
          Rereke Whakaaro

          Roy,

          Neither do I. But the ITU predates the UN by several decades, and it is mostly staffed by electrical engineers.

          What concerns me is diversionary tactics – get everybody looking at the old guy, running a corner store, and asking why he is still in business, while all the time, just around the corner, they are planning to build a huge hypermarket that will have sole rights to most brands of staple foods.


          Report this

          00

          • #
            Roy Hogue

            What concerns me is diversionary tactics…

            Good point, Rereke. I owe you one. I hadn’t thought about it those terms at all.

            There are several organizations involved in the Internet. I haven’t seen ICANN (Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers) mentioned here yet. They’re the bottom line authority on assigning domain names (.com, .org, etc.) , URLs, IP addresses and dedicated port numbers, all of which are necessary to have a presence on the Internet.

            There’s lots of room for havoc there too.

            ICANN is already “working” with the UN here and the political interference with it is underway here and other places. Good old Slate! Count on them to be giveaway artists.

            There is also apparently an agreement between ICANN and VeriSign but the link I found is broken. VeriSign is a private corporation in the business of selling reliable digital signatures used to verify, among other things, that a web site is the one it says it is and not someone diverting the URL to malicious purpose. They are owned by Symantec, a provider of antivirus and firewall software. The two in bed together bothers me a lot. I’ll see if I can find more on it.

            None of this is good news in the long run.


            Report this

            00

          • #
            Roy Hogue

            The VeriSign deal is apparently a dispute over how much VeriSign can charge per year for registration of a .com URL (they manage the .com Domain Name Servers, DNS).

            So nothing there that isn’t legit. A lot of money in that every year though, $800 million + from more than 100,000 registered names. That’s a tidy profit even after infrastructure and salaries.


            Report this

            00

  • #
    alex

    The price of freedom is eternal vigilance. Thonas Jefferson


    Report this

    50

  • #
    John from CA

    Perhaps more to the point, where in the UN charter does it state that the UN has any responsibility or right to propose restrictions on the communications industry/internet?

    Why our respective leaders allow the UN to enter into these areas is beyond me.


    Report this

    30

    • #
      Louis Hissink

      It’s summarised here. It’s why the Socialist Forum merged with the Australian Fabian Society – kindred spirits and all that. The EU is effectively a socialist system, as is the US fast becoming. Australia is further down the red brick road than many imagine, though it has not yet reached the state of fiscal bankruptcy the others have found themselves.

      If you want to fight the enemy, at last make some effort to identify it – it’s the UN? Yes but what motivates the people who run the UN. DO you know the history of the creation of the UN? On what political philosophy is it based? What is the significance of Rhodes Scholars? If any here want to continue having the trappings of the welfare state, then stop complaining – it’s the price you have to pay for welfare. There is no half-way state of existence – you are either free, or not.

      But if you welfare, then stop rocking the boat, as they say. If you don’t, then at least identify what you are opposing and the philosophy it’s based on.

      The goal of this political movement is egalitarianism and the source of inequality is, in their eyes, wealth. Their goal is to replace the market determined item of intermediary exchange with a carbon credit system that is allocated to each and every individual on a periodic basis. You won’t be able to accumulate your carbon credits either, I suspect.

      Research the political movement Technocracy. Research the Fabians. Stick your nose into Revisionist History – (I wish I had a masterful command of the Russian language and writing, for there are literally thousands of texts yet to be translated into English).


      Report this

      71

      • #
        Tel

        There is no half-way state of existence – you are either free, or not.

        I disagree, it is perfectly feasible to have (for example) one city that operates on Socialist principles, and people go there to live if that’s how they want to live, so it is a matter of their own choice and they are free to make that choice. People who don’t want to live that way can go elsewhere (again, by their own choice).

        So if welfare is high in Socialist city, and taxes are also high then those people should be happy with what they have chosen.

        The problem we have today is that an Internationalism is creeping through attempting to force all people to live the same way, and force all countries to “harmonize” where by this they mean, fewer and fewer people get to decide the rules for everyone else. That’s where it comes unstuck. Not the process of Socialism as such, but the process of ramming Socialism down the throats of people who plainly don’t want it.


        Report this

        10

        • #
          Crakar24

          I disagree, it is perfectly feasible to have (for example) one city that operates on Socialist principles, and people go there to live if that’s how they want to live, so it is a matter of their own choice and they are free to make that choice. People who don’t want to live that way can go elsewhere (again, by their own choice).

          Sounds a bit like the way Pakistan was created and that worked out well hey.

          You are only truly free when you have the power to say NO.


          Report this

          40

        • #
          Louis Hissink

          Tel,

          Half free is like being half pregnant? Impossible.

          Socialism is the system of social cooperation in the absence of private property – it is an autarchic system – and is the system that works for humans living as small tribes as nomadic hunter gatherers at the subsistence level.

          Once the population increases so that the division of labour becomes necessary, private property rights have to be invented to make that system work. In is also self evident that markets are the activities of people exchanging goods and services that they produced themselves – ie the exchange of private property. If goods and services are not based on private property, then there also cannot exist “prices”, the ratios of one good in terms of another. Hence economic calculation is not possible in a socialist economy and the principal reason why such systems grind to a halt as a totalitarian collective.

          Study the economics of the US founding fathers who arrived there in the Mayflower – they based their settlement on socialism but as they rapidly discovered socialism as a system does not work except as the example above, so the reason humans become civlised was because living as nomadic hunter gatherers became unsustainable.

          Socialist nirvana is really no different to a religious heaven – both are abstractions and unachievable in the physical here and now. Our physical existence depends entirely on exchanging physically produced things to keep us alive – but the ideological constructs, be it some sort of social credit system or some other imaginal, cannot sustain us physically, despite the fact that some can be sustained by these things intellectually.


          Report this

          30

          • #
            Tel

            I don’t think you spent much time reading and thinking about what I wrote.

            If you want people to be free, you have to accept people who think differently to yourself.


            Report this

            00

          • #
            cohenite

            The issue is summarised this way: is a person who intervenes to stop another person oppressing a 3rd person the same as the person oppressing the 3rd person?


            Report this

            00

          • #
            Tel

            Who gets to decide the definition of oppression?

            If you bother to read what I wrote, I already said that people want to live under a Socialist system should have the opportunity to do so. Who are you to tell them they aren’t allowed?


            Report this

            10

        • #
          Roy Hogue

          Tel,

          If real socialism has to compete side by side with real personal freedom its devotees start to leave. Then socialism, which is always unwilling to see that happen, tries to force itself down other’s throats.

          I really thought that you, with your good grip on history would never make a remark like above.


          Report this

          31

        • #
          John from CA

          Interesting point but a free society does allow for business and contractual alternatives. In the USA, communes and 501c3 corporate alternatives are examples.

          In a Republic, its the Rule of Law that ensures the integrity of individual freedoms and related alternatives.


          Report this

          00

  • #
    inedible hyperbowl

    The ITU is a nasty piece of work. I know this from a long history of personal interaction with the organization.
    The protocols that drive the net are freely available from a multitude of web sites.
    The protocols that drive the phone/fax system can be purchased from the ITU (once they know who you are) (last time I checked). At one stage in their history they would only release fax specs. to telcos.
    There are people in the organization who have always and still refer to the internet as “unauthorized transmissions”.


    Report this

    70

  • #
    JK

    This attempted take-over by an archaic and what should be an obsolete organization should drive us all to emit a loud and ongoing . . . – - – . . .


    Report this

    20

  • #
    Crakar24

    Already OT after 23 comments well kind of, but i needed to vent.

    3 interesting bits of news over the weekend.

    1, Was listening to 972 ABC trying to get a soccer score (tragic West Ham supporter) but they the insiders on so i reached for the dial but before i change channels i heard this from the compare.

    “Is the failure of the world ending after July 1 and now the accusation that the PM is a criminal are two examples of a problem Abbott has with exaggeration?”

    Panelist “Abbott never called the PM a criminal”

    Compare “Well he might as well have”

    2, Gillard wants to reduce our electricity prices, OK great but how? Well first of all we deregulate (oh yeah that’ll work well) and secondly get rid of this silly idea of “gold plated”. So in other words her way of reducing prices is to give us second world distribution networks, the fact that she has applied a TAX to electricity that serves no purpose but to drive up prices is irrelevant…………………but Abbott exaggerates.

    3, Some prat from the CSIRO warned that we need a gold plated electricity system as the temps will rise by 6 degrees come 2100 due to a massive rise in pollution (GHG’s for the scientifically literate) and 80% of this rise comes from CHINA. Never fear though as the drop dead date has been revised and pushed out until 2020. This is the beauty of this scam, if he said the drop dead date was yesterday then he would have to supply evidence to support his beliefs however a drop dead date of 2020 means this is just his belief no need to supply evidence for something that has not happened yet you just need to believe like him.

    …………….but Abbott exaggerates.


    Report this

    40

    • #
      Tel

      It’s nothing to do with gold plating.

      The distribution network remains government owned but they want to be able to shop around and buy from a competitive market of electricity generators. In order to be able to shop around they must now carry the electricity longer distances (the cheapest generator is often not the closest to where the supply is required). In order to carry the electricity longer distances they need a lot more capacity in the network to handle that.

      Since the distributor is the “man in the middle” and thus a monopoly who cannot be bypassed, they are always in the best position to capture the profits. Basic economics 101.


      Report this

      20

    • #
      Mattb

      I hope the result cheered you up. 3-1 vs Chelski would be worth a lot of otherwise bad news.


      Report this

      22

      • #
        Crakar24

        MattB,

        I assume you meant Chelsea and some obscure Russian team?

        Yes it was a good win we pushed ManU (1-0) the other day so things are looking up a bit but there is still 23 games to go.

        Cheers


        Report this

        20

  • #
    Fred

    New Zealand’s minister of comm’s reply to email asking what NZ;s input will be.

    On behalf of Hon Amy Adams, Minister for Communications and Information Technology, thank you for your recent email regarding proposals to update the International Telecommunications Regulations (ITRs) at the upcoming World Conference on International Telecommunications (WCIT) in Dubai.

    The ITRs were established in 1988, prior to widespread use of the Internet. In their current form, the ITRs establish a set of obligations of Member States to facilitate global interconnection and interoperability of telecommunications traffic across borders. It is a technical treaty which deals with telecommunications networks, but it does not include provisions relating to the Internet. However, the high-level nature of the ITRs has meant that the regulations have been broadly effective in the face of the growth of the Internet and wider telecommunications industry changes over the past 20 years.

    As you have noted, there are proposals from several Member States to include matters relating to the Internet in the ITRs (for example, how to charge for Internet traffic or provisions for network security). Some proposals suggest that an international body should be established to oversee Internet regulation.

    New Zealand’s telecommunications regulatory framework needs to support the industry to develop and provide faster broadband services and applications. It is important the international regulatory framework supports this too.

    An open and rapidly evolving Internet is an important driver of economic growth and innovation. The current multistakeholder approach to managing the Internet – through agencies such as ICANN, the Internet Society, and the Internet Engineering Taskforce – supports this. This approach enables stakeholders from government, academia, business, and the wider internet community to have input on how the Internet is managed, and is flexible enough to cope with changes in technology.

    For this reason, New Zealand will be supporting the continuation of existing multistakeholder processes for Internet governance, and will not be supporting proposals to include Internet services and applications within the scope of the ITRs.

    The review of the ITRs was announced in 2006 and preparations have been underway at regional and national levels since 2010. The New Zealand Government has consulted on these matters with industry and has been involved in discussions with wider stakeholders through national conferences such as NetHui. We welcome discussion and feedback on the negotiating text as we prepare for WCIT in December.

    The ITU has also made the draft negotiating text on its website publicly available, and recently ran a public submissions process where the public was invited to submit their views on the proposals or any other matter related to WCIT2012. You will note that the ITU has also indicated its intention to begin the conference with the proposal that the public be allowed to be present at the conference. Your views have been noted for consideration in the preparation for WCIT2012.

    Thank you for taking the time to write. I hope this reply addresses your concerns.

    Kind regards

    Catherine


    Report this

    20

  • #
    Trish

    Latest ABC news story Joanne http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-12-03/annual-report-shows-carbon-emissions-continue-to-grow/4403778

    Keep up the great work. I do my bit in my area of knowledge.

    Trish


    Report this

    10

    • #
      handjive

      Growing emissions; the results….

      Sept. 9 (Bloomberg) — Australia has overtaken the U.S. as the biggest emitter per person of carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas blamed for global warming, according to a British risk analysis firm.

      The average Australian contributes 20.58 tons of CO2 to the atmosphere each year to cool homes, drive cars and generate electricity with coal.

      And the result?

      Australia is OFFICIALLY drought free!

      Everyone should keep up the good work!


      Report this

      30

    • #
      Andrew McRae

      Yet another UN flunky goes in to bat for uncle Ki-Moon and the gravy train for the climatically well-connected.

      Scientists call for a war on global warming following bleak new predictions.
      http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-12-03/un-talks-warn-of-hotter-earth/4405840 [6 minute video]
      Aussies should watch it because they already paid for it.

      Well I stopped counting furphies, fallacies, and falsehoods after four, as by then I was flabbergasted. Just a persistent propaganda piece from start to stomach-churning finish.
      * The dear old lady on the “Home front” just “has to believe” that it will all be worthwhile, regardless of the fact her contribution can’t be measured. Seems the warministas aren’t satisfied with brainwashing only the very young, so now the heart strings are being pulled left left and left as the elderly are bamboozled and guilt-tripped into what can only be categorised as one-way Climikaze missions for the faithful.
      * Then we are given a Pep talk, literally, where storms ravage roofs, boats go belly-up, floodplains flood, bushfires blacken Victoria, and the weather generally does its weather dance all to the catchy tune of CARBON CARBON CARBON.
      * Our glorious leader Ivan, aka Greg Combet, sits glumly and forlorn on a chair at parliament like he’s been stood up on prom night, so besotted with the delightfully devious Doha he can’t even admit he’s been used and should just move on.
      * Our old pal Matt England then goes in to bat for England, playing some stunning shots right to the boundary. He sports a sheepish gravy grin that only grows with every dire warning he dishes out. He also appears to be the sole source of the headline that a “war” scale effort is “needed” to stop… you know… that thing that hasn’t happened for 10 years.

      The war on drugs, the war on terror, and now the war on warming??
      Yet another war that can never be won because the enemy is a phantom.
      Wartime powers granted in a wartime economy for a war that will not be permitted to end.

      People saw that report on TV and probably most of them believed it.


      Report this

      00

  • #
    Eddie Sharp

    I meant technically they were bemused, following from my comment @#11. You are absolutely correct. They are not a political body & shouldnt be allowed to become so.
    They share the propensity to bureaucratic encumbrement of other UN bodies though.


    Report this

    20

  • #
    Crakar24

    Here is a story about ACMA and their banned sites

    http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2009/03/19/1237054961100.html

    The list is not made public, wikileaks did publish a list but then ACMA banned the wikileaks site. So in the end we have a list that no one knows about nor what sites are on it. I can appreciate a government trying stop certain things being made available but to keep the secret? What are they hiding.

    PS i tried to go to the official government ACMA site but the official government blocks me from going there WTF!!!!!!!!!!


    Report this

    40

  • #
    amcoz

    Crakar24:

    G.O’s. ’1984′ was thought to be a great work of fiction 60 years ago but for those who thought that this could never happen; think again, otherwise your delusion will bury you once you realize it has become too late unless ‘we, the people’ do something about it now.


    Report this

    30

  • #
    pat

    2 Dec: Youtube: NSA Whistleblower: Everyone in US under virtual surveillance, all info stored, no matter the post
    RT talks to William Binney, whistleblower and former NSA crypto-mathematician who served in the agency for decades. Virtual privacy in US, Petraeus affair and whistleblowers’ odds in fight against the authorities are among key topics of this exclusive interview.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=TuET0kpHoyM


    Report this

    20

  • #
    Athelstan.

    And unseen, Obama and the EU guide their New York baby monster but when the lunatics are in charge as they are now….

    Someone please tell me, what is the UN for?

    Unfortunately, we will have to wait for another 4 years but surely is it not about time to get someone into the White House who will pull the economic plug on this corrupt and authoritarian claque of; Shysters, embezzlers, megalomaniacs, drug running businessmen and genocidal presidents?

    The UN, is so far beyond its original remit – its apparatchiks are taking on a collective God complex.


    Report this

    20

  • #
    handjive

    Both links via Drudge report:

    WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange says all the necessary physical infrastructure for absolute totalitarianism through the internet is ready.
    He told RT that the question now is whether the turnkey process that already started will go all the way.

    #

    Bureaucrats from around the world will gather behind closed doors in Dubai next week to plot an end to the Internet as we know it — or so Washington would have you believe.


    Report this

    20

  • #
    Left out

    It is good to be aware of the U.N.’s machinations, but it is easier and more effective to keep a close eye on what is happening in one’s own country. If you can stand firm in your own country, the U.N. won’t get too far with this. As an Australian, I do not for one minute believe that Senator Conroy is finished. His predecessor, Gareth Evans, not only attempted to regulate the internet, but even tried to give the dead the right to sue for defamation. Further efforts are bound to be made.

    As ‘alex’, above, pointed out; the price of freedom is eternal vigilance. Incidentally, Jefferson probably ‘borrowed’ (and modified) this from general liberal speech. The originator seems likely to have been John Curran. Be that as it may, I’d have to be suspicious of the sincerity of anyone who could express noble sentiments about freedom, while simultaneously keeping — and sexually exploiting — slaves. Feel free to look this up on the internet … while you can.


    Report this

    20

  • #
    bernard

    What digs with your ABC? signed up to comments and not one reply posted in their ‘reply to this comment’.
    Is this a ‘scam’ organisation?


    Report this

    10

  • #
    pat

    jo, u say:

    “The countries that most want ITU controlled include Russia, China, and Iran, and we all know why”

    sorry, but i don’t know the “why” of which u speak, but i do know this:

    2010: Youtube: Ron Paul: Iran Sanctions = Act of War
    Subsequent to HR 2194, Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability and Divestment Act, passing Congress with a 400-11vote on April 23, 2010, Ron Paul spoke on the House floor equating Sanctions on Iran to an Act of War against Iran and her allies, which include Russia and China.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vIO-4v8qpYc

    of course, since Ron Paul spoke, more and more sanctions against Iran have been passed by the EU & the US.

    Wikipedia: Sanctions against Iraq
    Albright interview
    On May 12, 1996, Madeleine Albright (then U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations) appeared on a 60 Minutes segment in which Lesley Stahl asked her “We have heard that half a million children have died. I mean, that’s more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?” and Albright replied “we think the price is worth it.” Albright wrote later that Saddam Hussein, not the sanctions, was to blame. She criticized Stahl’s segment as “amount[ing] to Iraqi propaganda”; said that her question was a loaded question; wrote “I had fallen into a trap and said something I did not mean”; and regretted coming “across as cold-blooded and cruel”. The segment won an Emmy Award. Albright’s “non-denial” was taken by sanctions opponents as confirmation of a high number of sanctions related casualties…
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanctions_against_Iraq


    Report this

    30

  • #
    pat

    George Mason University: Propaganda
    Adolph Hitler emphasized the need for repetition in propaganda…
    http://mason.gmu.edu/~amcdonal/Other%20Techniques.html

    3 Dec: News Ltd: Gemma Jones: Voters reaching out to yesterday’s men Kevin Rudd and Malcolm Turnbull
    THEY are the two men Australians most want to fight out the next federal election but their parties want nothing to do with them.
    A Galaxy poll shows absence has made voters’ hearts grow fonder for Kevin Rudd and Malcolm Turnbull who hold big leads over Julia Gillard and Tony Abbott…
    http://www.news.com.au/national/voters-reaching-out-to-yesterdays-men-kevin-rudd-and-malcolm-turnbull/story-fncynjr2-1226528450903


    Report this

    00

  • #

    [...] Oh Joy and Goody. Imagine if decisions about the global internet were made by the same institution that thought the rights of the downtrodden would be best protected by Col. Muammar Gaddafi? Hands up who wants another …  [...]


    Report this

    00

  • #
    shirl

    The internet started with 2 geeks and a phone line,smart people + mobile phones and or wifi remember “we shall overcome” a great old song.


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Catamon

      More accuratley it could be considered to have begun with ARPANET and the big $ from the US DoD…..but hey don’t let me rain on your parade in support of the little guy.


      Report this

      20

      • #
        Bite Back

        It not only, “…could be considered to have begun with ARPANET and the big $ from the US DoD,” it did in fact originate there. A lot of money was spent on it. I outlined all that here.

        It was then made available to “the little guy” by Act of Congress and you can get access to it for no more than the cost of telephone service and in many places even less than a phone.

        Now exactly what is the complaint

        …but hey don’t let me rain on your parade in support of the little guy.

        all about?


        Report this

        00

        • #
          Bite Back

          Oh! Excuse me; I haven’t had enough coffee yet this morning. But I get it now, you want it free. So I’ll tell you where I stand on that issue — I would shut down the entire Internet and burn every last domain server in the world before I would bend to that demand. If you want something in this life you work to get it. If you’re really in trouble I’ll help you but I will not carry you on my back.


          Report this

          00

    • #
      Bite Back

      Shirl,

      Considering Catamon’s demeanor I hate to say it but he’s right. The Internet was not a garage shop startup by a couple of amateurs putting transistors together like Apple’s Jobs and Wozniak. It was the result of a lot of time and money put into making a private communication medium for a US military think-tank.

      Without that jump-start you would eventually have a world of competing private network technologies from different vendors and there might never have been an Internet.


      Report this

      00

  • #
    Newchum

    It appears that DOHA is not going so well but what about the internet?
    http://pjmedia.com/claudiarosett/aw-shucks-why-not-let-the-un-control-the-internet/

    ——————————————————————————–


    Report this

    10

  • #
  • #
    pat

    no doubt Ch9 would like Turnbull in power. Apollo Global is full of former GS execs:

    3 Dec: SMH: Colin Kruger: Nine’s new owners ready to get millions
    The cash return will add to the bonanza for hedge funds, Apollo Global Management and Oaktree Capital, which acquired $1 billion of Nine’s senior debt at a significant discount to its face value and will effectively control Nine…
    Senior lenders will end up with a 95.5 per cent stake in Nine, and the Goldman Sachs-led mezzanine lenders, who faced losing the $1 billion they had invested in second-ranked debt, will receive 4.5 per cent.
    Goldman Sachs’ support was needed because the deed of company arrangement that will bring the debt-for-equity swap into effect needs the separate approval of all classes of stakeholders…
    http://www.smh.com.au/business/nines-new-owners-ready-to-get-millions-20121202-2aoz5.html

    add ex-GS veteran Mark Carney, who was recently named Gov of the Bank of England to the following:

    2011: What price the new democracy? Goldman Sachs conquers Europe
    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/analysis-and-features/what-price-the-new-democracy-goldman-sachs-conquers-europe-6264091.html


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Streetcred

    Sorry O/T

    Ben Santer’s latest model/observation comparison paper in PNAS finally admits what climate realists have been been saying for years — climate models are exaggerating warming. From the abstract:

    On average, the models analyzed … overestimate the warming of the troposphere. Although the precise causes of such differences are unclear [ … ]

    Bob Koss notes at CA,

    [ ... ] to this having been demonstrated two years ago in the paper by McKitrick, McIntyre and Herman.


    Report this

    10

  • #
    Mike Jowsey

    Oh, you skeptics have always been Conspiracy Theorists. Lewandowsky proved that!
    /sarc


    Report this

    00

  • #

    (BTW I commented about all this a few days back.. anyways..)

    The real issue here is that it is an attempt to set up ‘pay walls’ & filters within the structure of the Internet, rather than around particular sites or services provided by businesses. Closely followed by deciding whom gets the money and who does not.

    To be honest this is rather like trying to close a non existent barn door months after the imaginary horse has bolted. With so much processing power available in computers these days, you can communicate information ‘within’ other information and across time in numerous ways that are essentially impossible to either discover or comprehend; especially when combined with the GB’s of storage for a few dollars available now…

    This has a lot more to do with extracting revenue out of the Internet as gatekeepers than it has to do with national security or other more ‘noble’ causes.

    Like AGW this is more about looking to be doing something to solve a problem than actually doing something practical at the end of the day. The UN could be looking for their next ‘do nothing’ gravy train.


    Report this

    30

  • #
    Manfred

    A little off-thread (apologies)…the NZ MSM media crowed at the weekend about scientists who had been able to refine their observations that the Arctic and Antarctic melts were three times faster than expected, “enabling,” said scientists to oxymoronically, “provide more accurate estimates” of the “unprecedented” state. Councils in NZ are implementing base build heights in designated at risk areas, to respond to sea level rise over the next century…at a cost.

    I confess, I reached for the prozac and phoned AA to find out the time for the next meeting.


    Report this

    20

  • #
    Nice One

    Nova agrees with The Greens. LOL!


    Report this

    02

  • #
    Dennis

    The best way to help the UN is for nations to stop funding it.


    Report this

    00

  • #
  • #
    Andrew McRae

    Still very mixed messages on what happened at this UN gabfest.
    http://news.ninemsn.com.au/technology/2012/12/15/15/01/confusion-on-internet-future

    Sounds like deception all over the place. The ITU said there wouldn’t be a vote to adopt the draft, but they voted anyway. You can’t believe Google is entirely innocent in this, with their record of helping the Chinese government censor the Internet.
    It’s not a battle over whether the Internet is used for mass surveillance and censorship, but a fight over which bloc gets to control all the surveillance and censorship (which is already happening).
    The cover story is that Cyberspace (the Internet) will be pitched as an international commons that requires a global government, just as UNEP and UNFCCC has done with the natural world.

    When Australia became a member of the Security Council I knew immediately no good could ever come from it.
    I can see Syria and the Internet as two obvious upcoming Security Council votes in which Australia will be required to cast its vote in a prescribed direction.
    War and tyranny are always waiting in the wings.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Geoff Sherrington

    From: Geoffrey Sherrington [mailto:sherro1@optusnet.com.au]
    Sent: Friday, 8 July 2011 10:27 PM
    To: ABC Board
    Subject: For Mr Maurice Newman, AC, Chairman.

    For the Chairman, the ABC.

    A serious situation with science & the ABC.
    Better contemplated by Directors than by Managers.

    Dear Mr Newman,

    On reading your views as given in this URL – and assuming that you were reported correctly – I felt it prudent to investigate improvement. http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/abc-head-wants-fair-go-for-sceptics-20100310-pze6.html

    Accordingly, I revived and continued some correspondence on the dumbing down of science by the ABC. It was a topic I first raised with Sir Talbot Duckmanton on April 23, 1979, so my correspondence is not inflamed by current events. It is of long consideration.

    Sir Talbot’s replies were thoughtful and helpful.

    With regret, I cannot talk similarly about correspondence starting on 1st February 2009, with both the ABC Audience & Consumer Affairs group and the Independent Complaints Review Panel.

    The former group suffers from a lack of understanding of the methodology of science; from an immature method of conveying complexity; and from trendy obfuscation and avoidance of direct answers to direct questions. It’s kids’ stuff.

    The second group was undergoing change. It seemed reluctant to act on any matter of substance. It failed to give me a clear description of its functions and powers and appeared to adopt the method of long and semi-relevant replies designed, perhaps, to wear me down before real work was needed. I know of that method.

    In the exercise since 2009, I used three levels of “complaint”. They are based around the chemical, earth science and agricultural sciences, because I have graduate qualifications and a long and (modestly) rather successful related career of 35 years duration. In retirement, I have renewed my work on the philosophy of science and its progress.

    The three levels of complaint are found at http://www.geoffstuff.com/ABC%20Gardening%20Aug_10Copper.doc

    They are meant to be merely introductory and illustrative, far from the end of the narrative. This letter can be read without the URL being opened.

    The first exercise was a specific, single example of an uninformed gardening person advising on the use of a chemical in a way that was described as unsafe in the maker’s worksheet. Blindness could result. To this day, I do not know if the correction was made.

    The second was of intermediate generality, using the topic of “organic gardening and agriculture”, a small and passing fad that is being stressed somewhat persistently by the ABC. I provided figures on its relative unimportance and invoked the Australian Broadcasting Corporation Act (C’wth) 1983, including but not limited to, s.s (2) (a) (ii) of its Charter, extracted here as

    (iii) the responsibility of the Corporation as the provider of an independent national broadcasting service to provide a balance between broadcasting programs of wide appeal and specialized broadcasting programs.

    The impression that I drew from the ABC responses, hopefully wrongly, was that a type of Executive decision had been made to emphasise the 1% of organic agriculture to the detriment of much of the normal 99% of normal agriculture. The balance implied by the Charter simply does not exist. A professional scientist like me feels insulted by the silliness of this mysticism masquerading as science. I, for one, feel that the ABC is engaged in education of the people by deliberate propaganda that does not stand scrutiny. You might help me to resolve this, by providing me with ABC communications that might contain such directions, perhaps from Paul Chadwick’s office.

    The third part of the exercise deals more generally with the words “scientific method”, named long ago but being forgotten rapidly now as some form of post-modernist science seems to be taking hold. The ABC – and it is not alone – has an emphasis that induces chemophobia and cancer phobia by measures such as suggesting natural remedies for diseases when more effective remedies have been designed by skilled scientists. You might have your people look at the courses offered in fringe medicine by many universities, some of which I have reproduced with permission at http://www.geoffstuff.com/Akeptic_shock.pdf

    To whence from here?

    Your intentions in the leading attachment were excellent. They appear to have gained little traction. It is almost as if scientists seek programmes on astronomy, while the ABC provides programmes on astrology. Scientists seek books that teach, the ABC provides comics.

    You are in danger of losing the benefit of the learning that Julius Sumner-Miller commenced, through the desertion of his successors as they are pressured to follow certain lines that are not lines about the wonder of open inquiry. I know some of them.

    I would be please to participate in a trial wherein several proposed ABC science program scripts are handed to me for comment (if within my competence) before being aired. There is no fee for this type of offer. The reward is to set the course of learning on a more steady path. Presently, the yellow brick road leads off to la-la land.

    Yours faithfully,

    Geoffrey H Sherrington
    Scientist.
    11th July, 2011.
    ………………………………………………..

    From: ABC Corporate_Affairs7
    Sent: Friday, August 05, 2011 4:48 PM
    To: sherro1@optusnet.com.au
    Subject: Re: For Mr Maurice Newman, AC, Chairman.

    Dear Mr Sherrington

    Thank you for your email. The Chairman has referred your correspondence to me for response.

    I appreciate your candid feedback about your correspondence with Audience & Consumer Affairs and the Independent Complaints Review Panel (ICRP). The ICRP has been discontinued as a result of changes to the ABC’s self-regulatory framework which came into effect on 11 April 2011. However, Audience & Consumer Affairs remains a key part of this framework, and your feedback about the unit will be taken on board.

    Your comments about the ABC’s treatment of science are noted and have been conveyed to relevant areas of the ABC.

    In relation to the ‘three levels of complaint’ cited in your email and set out in the document to which you linked, I understand this complaint was not accepted for investigation by Audience & Consumer Affairs. The reasons for this decision were conveyed in previous correspondence.

    I note your suggestion of an ‘executive decision’ to emphasise organic agriculture to the detriment of non-organic agriculture. I can assure you that no such decision has been made, and the communications you refer to do not exist.

    Please be assured, your correspondence has been noted by the Chairman. Thank you for raising your concerns about these issues.

    Yours sincerely

    Kirstin McLiesh
    Head, Audience & Consumer Affairs

    ………………………………………………….
    From: Geoff [mailto:sherro1@optusnet.com.au]
    Sent: Friday, 5 August 2011 5:23 PM
    To: ABC Corporate_Affairs7
    Subject: Re: For Mr Maurice Newman, AC, Chairman.

    Dear Kirstin,

    Thank you for the response below. There is a very real problem, in Australia, right now, in dealing with emergent science and improper emphasis on poor science.
    It is becoming increasingly likely, as more evidence comes in each month from appropriate new instruments, that the general subject of global warming might now be dead in the water.
    The ABC will gain global kudos if it admits to this possibility, at an appropriate rate and with solid evidence, not hearsay.
    If Mr Newman can accept the possibility that there has been undue emphasis on the majority position to date, then the nation will have made a gain. There might be a need for a regenerated science review panel with some of the better powers that the ICRP used to exercise.
    It’s not just the science of global warming that is the bother, it’s withdrawing from the relentless connection of the Earth, the Universe and Everything to this hypothesis.
    How can I be of help? I’ve been part of these cycles before.

    Kind regards

    Geoff Sherrington
    Scientist.
    ………………………………………………………

    From: ABC Corporate_Affairs7
    Sent: Monday, August 29, 2011 10:35 AM
    To: ‘Geoff’
    Subject: Re: For Mr Maurice Newman, AC, Chairman.
    Dear Mr Sherrington

    Thank you for your further email, which has been referred to me for response.

    Your comments about global warming are noted, as is your suggestion for a science review panel with some of the ICRP’s powers. There are currently no plans to establish a panel of this nature.

    We appreciate your offer of assistance in this area. You are welcome to contribute by participating in the ABC’s science-related interactive services, such as those available on the ABC Science portal (http://abc.net.au/science); through these services you can engage with the ABC and its audiences. If you are seeking a more direct role, you may be interested in applying for appointment to the ABC Advisory Council (http://abc.net.au/corp/abcac) when vacancies are next filled.

    Yours sincerely

    Denise Musto
    ABC Audience & Consumer Affairs
    …………………………………………….
    For Maurice Newman, AC, Chairman
    ABC Corporate_Affairs7;

    Thank you, Denise,
    You comments are filed and I shall continue to be active. I’m fairly robust bloke of about 70 who’s not losing it, still reviewing international scientific papers. Some of the “science” material on ABC needs putting through a credibility filter because it almost reduces me to tears, which is not easy. Science has been getting really trashed in the last decade, but there are fewer and fewer observers able to make that call because too many educators are too young and have never known the better way.
    You might note that the outcome of my many pages of examples that went to the ABC as a complaint has been zilch, zero, zip, nothing. Nobody said I was wrong. The problem is that nobody did anything. Old graffitti “Apathy rules, but who cares?”
    That’s the next bit that the ABC has to fix, after addressing hubris*.
    Regards Geoff Sherrington
    Scientist.
    *hu•bris (hy br s) also hy•bris (h -) n.
    Overbearing pride or presumption; arrogance: “There is no safety in unlimited technological hubris” (McGeorge Bundy).
    [Greek, excessive pride, wanton violence; see ud- in Indo-European roots.]

    END

    BTW, I did apply for a position on the ABC Advisory Board. Not a single item of response was received. (I did notice in passing an existing member who was an activist for organic farming, which really put the cream on the cake because that’s what started this whole affair.)


    Report this

    00

  • #

    [...] RT @StarkRaving1: 1700s: Govt repressive legislation & printing press breaking gangs stop people using written word as a means of info http://t.co/4q5FXnB2TV  [...]


    Report this

    00