I have the feeling they already control what matters Nom - otherwise it would be obvious to your average moron we are slaves to the banksters.
On 14 Dec 2012, 17:15, nominal9 <nomin...@yahoo.com> wrote: > Good for those nations that refused to sign... and good for Google... > Censorship is abhorrent... > This is the one time that I agree with the U.S. against the > U.N.....http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2012/12/13/us-refuses-to-sign-un-internet... > > *UPDATE: Envoys from nearly 90 nations signed the first new U.N. > telecommunications treaty since the Internet age on Friday, but the U.S. > and other Western nations refused to join after claiming it endorses > greater government control over cyberspace. **Read > more*<http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2012/12/14/us-20-countries-boycott-un-tre...> > > The United States will refuse to sign a U.N. resolution calling for > regulation of the Internet despite the measure winning the support of other > countries participating in a summit on the issue, the American ambassador > to the summit said Thursday. > > “The U.S. today has announced that it cannot sign the revised regulations > in their current form,” Ambassador Terry Kramer said in a conference call, > adding that support for the resolution from other countries “looks strong > enough that it looks unlikely that it will materially change.” > > He added that the resolution will not force the U.S. to abide by the > regulations. > > “The resolution doesn't have teeth to it. ... At the end of the day, these > (agreements) are not legally binding. ... They are much more normative and > values-oriented.” > > 'The U.S. today has announced that it cannot sign the revised regulations > in their current form.' > > - Ambassador Terry Kramer > > Online search giant Google, which started an Internet petition against the > U.N. Internet regulation that got over 3 million signatures, said the > expected vote is ominous. > > “What is clear ... is that many governments want to increase regulation and > censorship of the Internet,” a Google spokesperson told FoxNews.com. “We > stand with the countries who refuse to sign this treaty.” > > Kramer said he was hopeful that the conference outcome would not prompt > other countries to form a separate Internet that operates on different > rules. > > “We obviously hope that doesn't happen here. If a county says, 'Listen, I > want to have a different standard' ... they can proceed with that. > Candidly, they could still do that under national sovereignty (before the > conference).” > > A document said to be the current version of the U.N. resolution has been > leaked online. It states: “All governments should have an equal role and > responsibility for international Internet governance and for ensuring the > stability, security and continuity of the existing Internet.” > > Kramer said the U.S. opposed any regulation and pointed to the success of > the unregulated Internet. > > “All of the benefits and growth of the Internet have come as a result not > of government action or of inter-governmental treaty. They are an organic > expression of consumer demand and societal needs," he said. > > During the debate at the U.N. conference, countries such as Russia argued > for Internet regulation. > > “At the moment each (government) on its territory governs (Internet) > resources. ... (Regulation) already exists. We can't stick our hands in the > sand like an ostrich and say we don't know what the Internet is,” a Russian > representative said at the conference Wednesday, defending the idea that > the resolution should cover Internet regulation. > > Thursday's resolution contains several provisions that the U.S. > specifically objects to. For instance, it calls on governments to regulate > email that is viewed as spam. > > “Member States should endeavour to take necessary measures to prevent the > propagation of unsolicited bulk electronic communications,” it reads. > > Kramer says he worries that could provide an excuse for censorship: “The > U.S. position remains that 'spam' is a form of content and that regulating > it inevitably opens the door to other forms of content, including political > and cultural speech.” > > The U.N. resolution also calls for governments to ensure the security of > the Internet. > > “Member States shall individually and collectively endeavour to ensure the > security and robustness of international telecommunication networks ... as > well as the harmonious development of international telecommunication > services offered to the public,” it reads. > > Kramer criticized the security provisions. > > “The U.S. cannot accede to vague commitments that would have significant > implications but few practical improvements," he said. > > A provision that Kramer had previously called a “tax” on the Internet, > which would have charged companies like Google to display content, was > removed from the resolution after negotiation. > > “We are obviously very pleased about that,” Kramer said. > > Ultimately, the resolution isn't binding, but many worry about the > precedent that the conference sets. > > “Obviously, we don't want to have agreements globally that set a tone (in > favor of Internet regulation). So we’re going to have to continue to > advocate the importance of the global nature of the Internet,” Kramer said. > > Read > more:http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2012/12/13/us-refuses-to-sign-un-internet... -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Epistemology" group. To post to this group, send email to epistemology@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to epistemology+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en.
