US lawmakers vote against UN Internet regulation

Dec 05, 2012
The US House of Representatives voted unanimously Wednesday to oppose any efforts to give the United Nations new authority to regulate the Internet. Representative Greg Walden, pictured in 2010, said ahead of the vote that lawmakers should "send a strong bipartisan, bicameral signal about America's commitment to an unregulated Internet."

The US House of Representatives voted unanimously Wednesday to oppose any efforts to give the United Nations new authority to regulate the Internet.

The 397-0 vote, following a similar vote in the Senate, came as delegates were meeting in Dubai to revise a global telecom treaty, a gathering which some say could be used to impose new controls on the Internet.

Representative Greg Walden said ahead of the vote that lawmakers should "send a strong bipartisan, bicameral signal about America's commitment to an unregulated Internet."

He said Washington should not "stand idly by while countries like Russia and China seek to extort control over the Internet."

Representative Marsha Blackburn echoed the comments, saying that "several hostile countries are seeking to use this opportunity to impose new international regulations on the Internet."

She added: "We need to send a strong message to the world that the Internet has thrived under a decentralized, bottom-up multi-stakeholder governance model

The gathering which opened this week in Dubai of the UN's has triggered fierce objections from Washington, and from activists who fear new rules that could end the freewheeling system of the Internet.

But ITU chief Hamadoun Toure, who kicked off the World Conference on International Telecommunications (WCIT-12) on Monday, said Internet freedom of expression will not be touched during the discussions at the meeting.

Among the critics, has been vocal in warning of serious on the Internet if proposals made by member states are approved at the WCIT-12 meeting, including permitting over legitimate content.

Google and others also say some proposals would impose a "sender pay" system for the Web, which could lead to Web firms being forced to pay huge amounts to deliver their services globally.

The resolution approved by lawmakers expressed "the sense of Congress regarding actions to preserve and advance the multi-stakeholder governance model under which the Internet has thrived."

Explore further: EU case against Google shows need for new publishing models in the information age

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Google enters debate on UN Internet control

Nov 21, 2012

Google has jumped into the debate over a UN telecom gathering set to review regulations affecting the Internet, claiming it is "the wrong place" to make decisions about the future of the Web.

US in tough debate on UN Internet rules

Nov 14, 2012

The US faces a tough debate with emerging nations such as India and Brazil at an upcoming UN conference discussing global rules for the Internet, the US delegation chief said Wednesday.

US seeks to drop Internet from UN telecoms talks

Dec 04, 2012

(AP)—American envoys say they are working with other nations on a proposal to drop all discussions on possible Internet regulations from a U.N. telecommunications conference in Dubai.

Recommended for you

User comments : 19

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Jeweller
3.7 / 5 (9) Dec 05, 2012
I truly hope that the USA will be able to prevent the UN from 'controlling' the internet in any way.
From Cape Town, South Africa.
Lurker2358
1.5 / 5 (8) Dec 05, 2012
This is the right vote, but for different reasons. The U.S. should protect it's sovereignty, whatever remains of it anyway, so no submitting to China and the EU.

But the internet does need some sort of regulation for several reasons.

Murder, rape, and human trafficking are practically being promoted by many web sites either directly or indirectly.

People make public threats against other people's safety, or insult them by name publicly (i.e. defamation,) both of which would be a crime if done in person, but if done on the internet it's considered "okay".

Spam, especially related to ponzi schemes, and other schemes we've all encountered even on a dating site. Who enforces the law or protects people from this stuff? Currently nobody, actually.

Also, Amazon and other falsely so-called "non-brick and mortar" internet companies should pay taxes.

Amazon has a warehouse, and they even sale all new goods as well.

Ordinary auction houses pay taxes. Amazon should pay taxes. It's a scam.
kochevnik
3.4 / 5 (10) Dec 05, 2012
To regulate the Internet is asinine. What needs to be regulated is BEHAVIOR. Religious slush-thinking is the kind of stupidity that makes non-crimes criminalized so innocent people have no freedom. Such vague non crimes as "money laundering" which the USA enforced by treaties worldwide can mean anything and catch anyone in the state's net. Your money isn't really yours anymore. The US freely forfeits your assets to itself if say, a police dog barks at you during a traffic stop. MIAA wants ISPs to spy on users ostensibly to find naked children photos, but in reality because they want to control everything you see.

Fuck your security state
Lurker2358
1 / 5 (6) Dec 05, 2012
Kochevnik:

Why do you want child molestation to be legal?

If you are not arguing for he legality of child molestation, then why mention it, since it's irrelevant to anything else you said.

Under the 4th amendment, it's nearly impossible for the government to protect people from many types of crimes, or even prosecute them after the fact, under the current policy.
Caliban
5 / 5 (4) Dec 05, 2012
As I understand it, what's at issue with these proposed regulations is that they would allow Sovereign Governments, and possibly even corporate entities to impose controls over what content can be shared via the web.

You could make an argument that this is legitimate governance/usage within the legal jurisdiction of that particular organization, but these proposed regulations would allow for the imposition of control outside of that local legal jurisdiction, to prevent a user in that local jurisdiction from going outside of it to view content, or to "import" that content into the local jurisdiction, making, for example, a Dutch newspaper criminally liable for publishing a cartoon featuring a depiction of the Prophet, which could be subsequently viewed --or even transmitted-- by a person resident in a country subject to Sharia law(an extreme example, to be sure --but it makes the point). Obviously, and equally alarming, is the massive expansion of surveillance this implies.

kochevnik
2 / 5 (4) Dec 06, 2012
Why do you want child molestation to be legal?
Christianity began as a child molestation cult. You prefer killing the messenger rather than prosecuting the crime. Should Internet carrier employees be executed because public packets flying through their fibers depict a crime against children? Should air be banned because it carries radio waves that could depict molestation crimes? We know what you really want. You want the molestation evidence buried. You don't want the criminals involved to be prosecuted. They're probably your friends and family. Typical xtian.
ryggesogn2
3 / 5 (6) Dec 06, 2012
What needs to be regulated is BEHAVIOR.

Spoken like a good little communist.

This is great topic for exposing true socialists.
they would allow Sovereign Governments, and possibly even corporate entities to impose controls over what content can be shared via the web.


Unless it has changed, this is done in Saudi Arabia. All internet lines into the country are monitored.
Corporations already do this on their networks.
Lurker2358
1 / 5 (4) Dec 06, 2012
We know what you really want. You want the molestation evidence buried. You don't want the criminals involved to be prosecuted. They're probably your friends and family. Typical xtian.


Quite the contrary, idjit.

I want the criminals prosecuted, and not just the child molesters.

Allowing the government more power to monitor the internet would make it easier to collect evidence against these sick people.

Why do you think government regulation would make it harder to catch criminals?

Do you even understand what this issue is about?
ryggesogn2
4 / 5 (4) Dec 06, 2012
Allowing the government more power to monitor the internet would make it easier to collect evidence against these sick people.

You don't think govts monitor the internet now?

How would UN regulation improve anything? Since you are obsessed with child molestation, in the US, thanks to the US Constitution, the accused have rights and any data collected on the internet requires a court observed process to ensure govts are not fabricating evidence.
Maybe you should be more concerned about universities,that cover up child molestation to protect a football program.
trapezoid
1 / 5 (1) Dec 08, 2012
I want the criminals prosecuted, and not just the child molesters.


At four o'clock all the evil people will be TWO FEET TALL
Lurker2358
not rated yet Dec 08, 2012
Rygg:

I am in favor of amending the 4th amendment, breaking it into several different amendments which each deal with their respective issues in a more specific and malleable manner.

Under it's present interpretation based on modern legal precedent, the 4th amendment effectively makes it legal to commit a crime just as long as you don't get caught, since it makes it illegal for law enforcement to look for evidence unless they already have evidence.

This makes "crime prevention" nearly impossible, and it makes "Prosecution" after the fact almost as hard.
ryggesogn2
3 / 5 (2) Dec 08, 2012
This makes "crime prevention" nearly impossible,

That was the intent.
But today, with the thousands of regulations on the books, everyone in the US has broken some law if the govt really wanted to prosecute.
And you don't even have to have violated any law at all if the govt wants to harass you they will until admit guilt to a crime you did not commit.
It's was amusing how the 'liberals' were so opposed to surveillance laws against terrorists. Embassies were attacked in Africa and Clinton sent in the FBI to collect evidence for a trial.
The only evidence that should be collected is evidence to find and eliminate those who attacked the US.
Why wasn't Obama too worried about murdering bin Ladin but his fellow travelers attacked the Bush administration for harsh interrogation and a prison at Guantanamo Bay?
Eikka
5 / 5 (1) Dec 08, 2012
America's commitment to an unregulated Internet


That's a bit thick coming from a country that controls both IANA and ICANN which are the main regulatory authorities of the internet.

The US has the power to take down websites globally by blocking their adress resolution on the root nameservers, and it has the power to control how other countries set up their networks by controlling the allocation of IP adresses.

The UN regulations are not about controlling the internet per se, but shifting this power away from the US so they cannot unilaterally dictate the future of the internet.
Lurker2358
1 / 5 (1) Dec 09, 2012
The UN regulations are not about controlling the internet per se, but shifting this power away from the US so they cannot unilaterally dictate the future of the internet.


The U.S. invented the Internet and precursor technologies on U.S. university campuses and R&D of U.S. companies and government agencies, and the main types of personal computers were invented by U.S companies, and the the most popular operating system families as well.

We already let foreigners have entirely too much of our technology for too cheap.

If U.S. companies didn't sell our computer technology to countries over seas over the past two decades, most of them wouldn't be able to compete with us on anything, because they wouldn't have developed the infrastructures they have now.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (2) Dec 09, 2012
Every country is free to create their own internet.
The French tried this.
Eikka
5 / 5 (1) Dec 09, 2012
Every country is free to create their own internet.


And they have. The internet is a network of networks - it is not something specific to the United States, or something "made in the US". It's a set of protocols that allow all sorts of different networks to talk to each other no matter what technology is used or who made them. It's more like agreeing on the width of railway tracks so that trains can pass between countries.

You can implement internet protocols with carrier pigeons if you want, and someone has actually done so.

The protocols require some arbitation to determine the names and numbers, or who is who and connected to whom, and here the US has total control over the internet by virtue of owning the authorities that control the names and numbers. If we continue the train analogy, it's like the US deciding how many border crossings there can be between Germany and France.

So the US doesn't want UN to regulate the internet, because they are doing it themselves
ryggesogn2
2.3 / 5 (3) Dec 09, 2012
The protocols require some arbitation to determine the names and numbers, or who is who and connected to whom,


Again, any country can create their own names and numbers and create their own internet protocols.

Russian rail gauge is wider to limit the ability of either Russia invading or other countries invading Russia. I don't remember which is was.
If a standard is created, who will maintain that standard?
VendicarD
not rated yet Dec 09, 2012
Haven't Republican "lawmakers" voted against everything since they were foolishly elected to office?

Isn't that why the Republican Party is known as the Party of no and know nothing?
VendicarD
1 / 5 (1) Dec 09, 2012
Not under current ITU treaty.

But your incorrect belief is being proposed by Russia and China, and opposed by America.

"Again, any country can create their own names and numbers and create their own internet protocols." - RyggTard

"Yet another point of contention has emerged regarding the handling of Internet names and numbers, with members such as Russia backing a wording of the ITRs that puts names and numbers under national control"

"The proposed regulation says "member states shall have the right to manage all naming, numbering, addressing and identification resources used for international telecommunications", something that would erode the top-level control wielded by ICANN and IANA."

http://www.thereg...it_veto/

Von RyggTard never Mises an opportunity to be wrong.