Greenpeace, unions attack 'secret UN plans to seize the INTERNETS'

Greenpeace and the International Trade Union Confederation are the latest to lay into the UN International Telecommunications Union for trying to grab hold of the internet, blithely unconcerned by the complete lack of any such plan on the ITU's part. In an open letter signed by the Director and Secretary respectively (pdf, …

[g e]

Ahhh Greenpeace

Don't let the facts stop you foaming at the mouth for some free publicity

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Ahhh Greenpeace

They never have and they never will

[Matt Bryant]

Re: Ahhh Greenpeace

"Don't let the facts stop you....." The tragic reality is there are far too many people out there that will happilly jump on the latest trendy bandwagon and start attacking the ITU. I'd already had one twit this week telling me the Internet was under threat of Corporate Takeover, which puzzle the fudge out of me, but I guess he was just on some Greenpeckers' activist mailing list and got the wrong info in even worse form. Greenpeace should be directed to make a public apology and admit that they spoke wrongly, as otherwise this sh*t will just gather momentum as it rolls down their supporters' sloping foreheads. I can sense the Anonyputzs loading up their Lobotomised Frontal Lobe Cannon as we speak.

[bigjokerfish]

So greenpeace has (once again) got the wrong end of the stick

So what ARE these current plans, and their potential impact? (if the scaremongers are not to be believed)

[armyknife]

It's a Conspiracy

I've a theory, but not as we know it Jim.

There I think I've managed to make a sentence that makes as such sense as the 'OMG the UN is taking over the world crowd'.

That's not to say they're not coming for your guns, in that fleet of black helicopters.

[Anonymous Coward]

Whats the problem???

"So we're left to believe that those who signed and drafted the letter really believe that the internet is some sort of cooperative paradise, beyond the reach of mammon, which needs protecting from greedy governments. It's somehow nice to know that such true believers still exist - idealists are to be respected - but they should not be allowed to write policies on international telecommunication networks."

First, the internet has existed and got along just fine without any additional regulations or infringments or censorship. If it's not broke, then it doesn't need fixed. If there are no intentions as accused, then why would there be any need for discussions or meetings or agreements, either public or private? The very fact that such forums exist, is proof enough that there is a goal by somebody to change that internet from what it is, to what others would like it to be, and that will not be accepted.

If a government becomes a tyranny, and the people do not have the same types of weapons and organization, then they have almost no chance of correcting it. But, the Internet is the one place where the people have the same, and perhaps more technical abilities than the big corporations and governments.

Holding onto that level of control is the only way to keep those governments and corporations under control...in their rightful place.

[Notas Badoff]

Re: Whats the problem???

@19:84

"The very fact that such forums exist, is proof enough that ..."

Wow. Self-reinforcing paranoia. Forums exist. *You* know everything about *them* (the projections of your paranoia that is). You are *against* them (the projections of your paranoia that is).

How can that be argued against? Please know that I am very happy to support your opposition to all that you have imagined.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Whats the problem???

"The very fact that such forums exist, is proof enough that ..."

"Wow. Self-reinforcing paranoia. Forums exist. *You* know everything about *them* (the projections of your paranoia that is). You are *against* them (the projections of your paranoia that is)."

Ah, so the poster's problem is an unreasoning fear of forums in general? Glad you pointed it out, I hadn't quite caught that on the first reading. I simplistically assumed it was about the UN people getting themselves involved in discussions about the Internet, and how that naturally leads to the suspicion that they wish to change it in some way. Silly me.

Besides, they categorically deny it, so that's that.

[JohnG]

Re: Whats the problem???

"First, the internet has existed and got along just fine without any additional regulations or infringments or censorship."

The Internet has just "existed" and didn't grow from some hippy's magic bean. The Internet is an evolution of the Advanced Research Projects Agency network (ARPANET), a project of the US military. It is interconnected by numerous telecommunications companies (many of these are state-owned monopolies, many are money grabbing capitalists) - all of them are obliged to conform to the laws of the countries in which they operate - including laws concerning censorship.

The ITU has managed to keep countries cooperating enough to maintain worldwide telephony for decades - even between countries who really don't get on. So, on balance, they seem to be quite helpful and probably the right place to consider future cooperation on telecommunications matters - hence their name and their remit. If the US decides to interfere with ICANN (as some US politicians have previously suggested), the ITU would likely be the place where some degree of cooperation might be maintained/regained.

[RICHTO]

Re: Whats the problem???

"First, the internet has existed and got along just fine without any additional regulations or infringments or censorship. If it's not broke, then it doesn't need fixed".

It is broken, it is being censored, and it does need fixing: http://www.2600.com/news/view/article/1553

http://www.itproportal.com/2011/02/02/row-looms-us-seizes-spanish-superbowl-site/

The USA imposes its views globally regardless of local laws where websites might be located. This needs fixing ASAP.

[riverstogo]

Optional

Don't let the facts stop you... They never have and they never will... The tragic reality is there are far too many people out there... So greenpeace has... what ARE these current plans... if the scaremongers are... not as we know it Jim. [O_o]

OMG the [TPP] is... the problem???

"So..., beyond the reach of [Mega (the desire for wealth personified as an evil spirit.)]... from greedy... true believers... - idealists... - [commenters] on international telecommunication networks... becomes a tyranny... where... technical abilities control... that such forums exist..."

"Wow... the poster's problem is... Silly me. Besides... so that's that.

The hippy's magic bean[s]... is an evolution... of the countries in which they operate... concerning censorship... the ITU would... place... some degree of cooperation... [?]

[Anonymous Coward]

ITU is a real threat

Greenpeace may be a bunch of swivel-eyed hippies, but the ITU threat is real. Most countries don't share the ideals of freedom of speech and communication (hell, even the UK is ambivalent).

Proposals to be debated at WCIT include a Russian one on an "internet kill switch", a Chinese one mandating security similar to the Great Firewall, proposals that will cut off developing countries from the Internet to line incumbent telco pockets, and more.

[RICHTO]

Re: ITU is a real threat

The safe way to do it is give it the the UN. Nothing happens at the UN without pretty much everyone agreeing to it. This does have the disadvantage that sometimes things don't happen - for instance terrorist states like Israel don't have the action taken against them that they should have - but then in the case of the internet no change is likely for the best unless everyone agrees to it. The first thing needed is to get the role of ICANN out of US hands...

[Anonymous Coward]

Unfortunately, a seriously misinformed article

The Russians (and others) have indeed submitted proposals for the ITRs to cover many aspects of Internet governance, including domain names and IP addresses. Putin has publicly said he wants the ITU to take over the global regulation of the Internet. All those taking part in the Dubai discussions know that the future of the Internet as we know it is at stake. It is true that the ITU Secretary General is publicly saying that the ITU have no ambitions to increase the scope of the ITU's responsibilities for the Internet but he then adds in private that that's because they already have a mandate to cover all communications traffic. I could add more but the fact is that anyone who has being following these issues over the last decade knows that this article is seriously misinformed and either ignorant of the facts or, less innocently, part of the propaganda of reassurance being promulgated by those who are worried about the growing opposition to their plans.

[Anonymous Coward]

The hippies seem to be on to something...

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57551442-38/russia-demands-broad-un-role-in-net-governance-leak-reveals/

[dwieske]

when greenpeace speaks, be extremely skeptical as their "facts" are decided on the base of what might garner most donations.....greenpeace has been completely corrupted, the original founders loathe the current incarnation, not in the least because of the fact they wilfully spread misinformation (eg about nuclear technology) and subsequently cause enormous damage (the rise of coal use is a direct result of GP campaingning to close nuclear plants and raise "renewables".....which are pretty much always mainly covered by coal and other fossil fuels)

in short: stop donating to GP, this scummy organisation needs to go the way of the dodo so a more ethically, scientifically oriented organisation can take its place

[Anonymous Coward]

How did they find out...

... about UNATCO's Daedalus Project? Wasn't FEMA supposed to make the clean up operation look like an accident?