By Sonia Arrison TechNewsWorld Part of the ECT News Network
11/11/05 5:00 AM PT
It's clear why authoritarian governments don't like the Internet and why they seek to control it -- open dialogue poses a threat to their power. But that doesn't explain European reasons for wanting to place the information highway into the precarious hands of the UN.
eMarketer Whitepaper: Optimizing the E-Commerce Experience
From the Web to the Contact Center, are you prepared to proactively engage and keep your savvy customers? Read how e-commerce leaders are optimizing their sites with ratings, reviews, live help, Web analytics, mobile and more.
Imagine a world where China argues for guaranteed freedom of speech and Cuba and Iran push for democracy. If that sounds like an episode of "The Twilight Zone," then welcome to UN Secretary General Kofi Annan's new show set to air again next week in Tunisia.
Before anyone starts to think that Chinese and Cuban communists have suddenly become enlightened, or that Iranian theocrats have experienced a moral epiphany, readers should know that the reason these countries are spouting ideas so foreign to them has to do with their deep desire to gain control of a system that threatens their authoritarian ways: the Internet.
Safeguarding Rights
From November 16-18, 2005 governments from around the world will meet for the second phase of the United Nations World Summit on the Information Society. The goal of a coalition of foreign governments is to wrest control of the Internet from the United States, and the goal of the United States should be to gently explain to them why that's not an option.
"While freedom of speech should be guaranteed and human dignity and rights safeguarded by law and system, social responsibilities and obligations should also be advocated," said Wang Xudong, Minister of Information Industry from the People's Republic of China at the first phase of the meetings. If Chinese censorship of the Internet weren't so devastating, Xudong's comments might be comical in their juxtaposition with reality.
Iran's Mohammad Khatami also spoke. "Global management of internet should find a democratic and comprehensive mechanism to enable all players, including the developing countries, to play an effective role in this arena," he said.
There is also something vaguely humorous about a theocratic government so thoroughly supportive of the democratic process. And of course, according to Kofi Annan, the point of the meeting next week is to make sure poor countries get the "full benefits" of new information technologies so as to bring about "economic and social development."
Disturbing Turn
Under the guise of attempting to solve the "digital divide," foreign governments argue that Internet governance should be shared. Exactly how Chinese or Iranian control of the Internet is supposed to help the disadvantaged is left to the imagination. One might respond that property rights and political freedom would be a better way to help their most needy access the Internet.
This week, U.S. Senator Norm Coleman expressed his concerns that the UN is trying to politicize the Internet and he initiated a Senate resolution that essentially supports the current structure of Internet governance. Senator Coleman is right to worry that a UN-controlled Internet would "raise a variety of dangers." And this perspective is perhaps doubly valuable when one considers that he is chairman of the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations that has been investigating fraud and corruption surrounding the UN's oil-for-food scandal.
It's clear why authoritarian governments don't like the Internet and why they seek to control it -- open dialogue poses a threat to their power. But that doesn't explain European reasons for wanting to place the information highway into the precarious hands of the UN. Indeed, when the European Union endorsed UN control of the Net, Carl Bildt, former Swedish prime minister and chairman of Swedish telecom company Teleopti, said it was "a U-turn by the European Union that was as unexpected as it was disturbing." So what gives?
A Catchy Disease
The answer might be called ADS -- American Derangement Syndrome, a sister disease to BDS, Bush Derangement Syndrome. Left-leaning cities all across the United States have thousands of people afflicted with BDS, a disease in which suffers hate George Bush so much that their brains cease to function properly. The Europeans have simply contracted a variation that may lead them to endorse the erosion of a network that stands for the classical liberal European values of freedom and prosperity.
Next week, there will be a great deal of pressure for American representatives to capitulate to the bureaucratization of the Net. In order to protect one of the world's greatest inventions from humanity's worst characteristics, the Bush Administration will need to stand strong. It would also help if they could find a cure for ADS so that those who share liberal values can stand together instead of apart.
It's a Mad, Mad, IP World November 08, 2005
A post on Amazon.com says of Christopher Booker's "The Seven Basic Plots" that there is literally no story in the world which cannot be seen in a new light. "We have come to the heart of what stories are about and why we tell them," it reads.
Related Stories
Nokia Authors Linux-Based Internet Tablet November 09, 2005
"This is the first step to creating an open-source product for broadband and Internet services," said Janne Jormalainen, vice president of Convergence Products, Multimedia at Nokia. "We will be launching regular software updates."
Yahoo, TiVo Team to Connect Services Via Internet November 07, 2005
Yahoo TV also offers a growing library of downloadable and viewable content, including re-broadcasts of some popular TV shows. Analysts said the TiVo connection might help drive additional downloads as users who are seeking certain programming may find what they're looking for on the portal instead of on television.
Controversy Continues Over FCC's Internet Wiretapping Rule November 04, 2005
"I can't see how VOIP should be treated any differently than any other form of communication when it comes to wiretaps," said Patrick Corbett, an associate professor of criminal law and procedure at Cooley Law School.
Forward Future Requires Past Principles November 04, 2005
Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are core human rights that should be the foundation of all policy. Every individual should have the ability to avoid death and pursue survival. Regulations that ban life-saving procedures or tests, such as a ban against at-home AIDS tests, violate this right.
Home Use of Internet Growing, But Divide Still Exists October 28, 2005
"I don't think that Internet access is going to change people's approach to life," said Erik Thoresen, senior analyst at Mintel. "Plus, the availability of Internet access at public libraries is awesome [today] compared to even a few years ago. Is it really beneficial to consumers' lives to have Internet access everywhere?"
More by Sonia Arrison
How to Solve the Net Neutrality Issue October 28, 2009
Regulation by the U.S. government is not the way to keep the Internet neutral. A better approach would be self-regulation. Now is the time for ISPs to support an independent, private body to monitor neutrality issues and forestall the possibility of the FCC "managing competition" on the Internet.
FCC's Genachowski Not Neutral on New Net Rules September 30, 2009
The proponents of Net neutrality say it's necessary for a free and open Internet, but history doesn't support that argument. The Telecommunications Act of 1996, for example, was supposed to bolster competition. Instead, by compelling companies to share their infrastructures, it reduced incentives for improvement. In the long run, it failed.
What Has President Obama Done for Silicon Valley? August 28, 2009
President Obama's appointments of Silicon Valley outsiders were only the first indications that his administration would be less than friendly to the high-tech industry, despite campaign promises. Since then, it has shown an inclination toward tight regulatory practices and away from transparency.