DrJBHL DrJBHL

U.N. Control of The Internet and Taxing U.S. Corporations?

▼

U.N. Control of The Internet and Taxing U.S. Corporations?

from JoeUser Forums

 

So, this was news to me. The U.N. can control and tax the Internet?

ETNO (European Telecommunications Network Operators Association) is asking the U.N. to change international telecommunications regulations to:

“…introduce a new Internet tax that appears to target Web giants like Google and Facebook.” - http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2405560,00.asp

Others could be targeted as well, according to a c|net story this past week (add Apple and Netflix to the list).

Our government has not been silent (thank G-d). Seems to generate the bi-partisanship sorely lacking, usually. From the c|net article:

“Democratic and Republican government officials warned this morning that a United Nations summit in December will lead to a virtual takeover of the Internet if proposals from China, Russia, Iran, and Saudi Arabia are adopted.

It was a rare point of bipartisan agreement during an election year: a proposal that Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin described last year as handing the U.N. "international control of the Internet" must be stopped.

"These are terrible ideas," Rep. Fred Upton, a Michigan Republican, said during a U.S. House of Representatives hearing. They could allow "governments to monitor and restrict content or impose economic costs upon international data flows," added Ambassador Philip Verveer, a deputy assistant secretary of state.

Robert McDowell, a member of the Federal Communications Commission, elaborated by saying proposals foreign governments have pitched to him personally would "use international mandates to charge certain Web destinations on a 'per-click' basis to fund the build-out of broadband infrastructure across the globe."

"Google, iTunes, Facebook, and Netflix are mentioned most often as prime sources of funding," McDowell said. Added Rep. Anna Eshoo, a California Democrat whose district includes Facebook's headquarters, many countries "don't share our view of the Internet and how it operates." - http://news.cnet.com/8301-1009_3-57444629-83/u.n-takeover-of-the-internet-must-be-stopped-u.s-warns/

The U.N. has a history of trying to exert control over the Internet (Kofi Annan in 2004 and Yoshio Utsumi in 2008).

The U.N.'s International Telecommunications Union (chartered originally in 1865 to oversee international telegraph regulations) was in 2008 quietly drafting technical standards, proposed by the Chinese (mainland) government, to define methods of tracing the original source of Internet communications and potentially curbing the ability of users to remain anonymous. I wonder why? This showed the tracing mechanism to be used by a government that "tries to identify the source of the negative articles" by an anonymous author.

The latest effort to control the Internet, according to ISOC’s Sally Wentworth (Senior Manager of Public Policy) are not “compatible” with the current open internet policy and Vint Cerf (Google's Chief Internet evangelist, co-creator of the TCP/IP protocol and former chairman if ICANN) said The ITU meeting could lead to ""top-down control dictated by governments" that might impact free expression, security and other important issues.

And that’s what this is all about as well as making a grab for American money and power for people unsuited for it (such as dictators, etc.). The only difference is that it isn’t being done with tanks, but rather taxes and new “rules”.

Mr. Cerf went on to say, "The open Internet has never been at a higher risk than it is now."

My own suggestion about what to do with the U.N. is unprintable. I can tell you that this sort of tax is insane. It will hurt the very countries it’s supposedly trying to help.

This is the old mantra about “the trucks carrying the heaviest loads and using the road the most cause the most wear and should pay for it.”

Answer one: The Internet isn’t a “road”. It doesn’t wear out by information passing over it. But say it were. Get off your lazy butts and build more infrastructure. That will create jobs and lessen the load on the “old road”, won’t it?

Answer two: That tax money won’t be used for any construction of the Internet or widening of it. It’ll be taken by do nothing international diplomats, telecommunications executives and politicians. Oh yes: It’ll probably also find its way to terrorists whose representatives do what they please at that “august” body.

Answer three: The U.N. gets a membership fee from its member states. That’s it. It is not a government which is entitled by legislation and the consent of the governed (namely and mainly us) to tax its citizens (and this will effectively be taxing us, as consumers – the price will be passed on to us, indirectly). I will not be taxed by that useless, parasitic, puppet organization. This tax will further burden our ailing economy.

I suggest you write your Senators and Representatives and let them know how you feel on this issue.

 

Sources:

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2405560,00.asp

http://news.cnet.com/8301-1009_3-57449375-83/u.n-could-tax-u.s.-based-web-sites-leaked-docs-show/

http://news.cnet.com/8301-1009_3-57444629-83/u.n-takeover-of-the-internet-must-be-stopped-u.s-warns/

106,620 views 50 replies +2 Loading…
Reply #27 from WinCustomize Forums Top

The point to distinguish is "statesman" vs. "politician".

To date, I've seen precious few statesmen, but all too many politicians.

Siege of Centauri
Reply #28 from GalCiv2 Forums Top

But the point is, the U.N. can't do this. Ever, barring some seismic shift in the world power dynamic. The US is a veto-power member of the Security Council, which means in practice that anything going against its own monetary interests never passes. That's the way it's effectively always been, and, as Taz mentioned, it has been brought up (and shot down) multiple times before.

 

I think I understand your basic point regarding the "joiner" thing, and while it's not as big of an issue as you make it out to be (mostly because this proposal will never pass), I can see why putting extra taxes on the internet could make it less accessible.

 

 

It is not a government which is entitled by legislation and the consent of the governed
End of quote
This does not make sense. The UN, however powerless, is a more-or-less democratic body wherein each country gets a vote. If something makes it through most parts of the UN, it's because the majority of countries that are members of that body wanted it to be done. On the security council, the US is even significantly overrepresented, having permanent veto power where other countries do not. Now, granted, votes aren't assigned based on population, but that's the way it works in the US Senate and- to a lesser extent- the Electoral College.

Reply #29 from Sins Forums Top

Ok in response to response to my previous large post. The only UN body that can pass this type of international law is the security council. Essentially the UN has several different congresses of sorts. The security council consists of 15 (or 18 I forget) nations with 5 permanent veto members. Its resolutions are international law and it can declare war, (UN has no army so once again the states actually fight.). The General assembly and committees have representatives from every nation. There resolutions are non binding and must be enforced by states or turned into treaties. The US, China, UK, and Russia would all veto it. France would probably support but they don't matter. As I said countries could use the UN general assembly as a forum.

 

as for the web v layer debate. Think of the web as a highway with different types of traffic. Much of the traffic is private say  family members visiting each other. That would be like a private business server network. Some places are destination, e.g. websites. etc. I am contending that each type of network and location on the web is sort of like its own network that overlaps with others to become the multipurpose web.

Reply #30 from WinCustomize Forums Top

The UN manages to do plenty of stuff w/o needing the vote of the Security Council.

As for the layer/highway/web... no matter.

Reply #31 from GalCiv2 Forums Top

Quoting DrJBHL, reply 30
The UN manages to do plenty of stuff w/o needing the vote of the Security Council.
End of DrJBHL's quote
Levying taxes is not one of them.

 

My high school has a diplomatic simulations team, and I've been doing mockup UN sessions for the last four years. I should like to think I have a pretty good idea of what that body does and doesn't do.

Reply #32 from WinCustomize Forums Top

Now ETNO is recanting... as I said, some media spotlighting discourages the folks who like to do things "quietly".

http://www.forbes.com/sites/kellyphillipserb/2012/06/08/is-the-u-n-trying-to-tax-the-internet/

So now that was successfully opposed, they're trying another trick:

"However, despite the reports, ETNO says that it is not asking the UN to tax the internet. While the ETNO does not deny that it believes that the way that content providers use the internet should be changed, it stopped short of calling for an actual tax, saying instead that it wants telecommunications network operators to consider making deals with content providers. Additionally, the ETNO has hinted that significant changes to the ITR are sure to come; the treaty has not been altered much in the nearly 25 years it has been in existence while the internet has actually changed dramatically."

Anything, any way to get their fingers in your pocket.

Besides, the U.N. doesn't tax directly. That wasn't the point (except to generate interest). It levies dues on member states. They come up with (or not) the monies however they do it. 

I don't want some European Telecommunications fat cats getting into my pocket through a sneaky move via the U.N. (or any which way). I should think you don't either... thus the recommendation re contacting your representatives.

I tried finding any "Ratification of Taxation of Member States" in the UN Charter, but couldn't find it.

Reply #33 from GalCiv2 Forums Top

Quoting DrJBHL, reply 32
I don't want some European Telecommunications fat cats getting into my pocket through a sneaky move via the U.N. (or any which way). I should think you don't either... thus the recommendation re contacting your representatives.
End of DrJBHL's quote
But you're perfectly fine with American telecommunications fatcats doing the same thing?

 

Quoting DrJBHL, reply 32
Now ETNO is recanting... as I said, some media spotlighting discourages the folks who like to do things "quietly".
End of DrJBHL's quote
They don't really seem to be "recanting"... thi was never called a "tax" to begin with, save by the anti-groups. The only places the word "tax" even appears in the leaked documents is in reference to countries taxing internally: "No double taxation", "Right to be informed of all prices, including taxes", etc.

Reply #34 from WinCustomize Forums Top

Quoting Scoutdog, reply 33
But you're perfectly fine with American telecommunications fatcats doing the same thing?
End of Scoutdog's quote

Never said that, did I? Try not attributing to me things I never said as well as non-issues not relevant to the OP.

And yes. They seem to be recanting/backtracking.

 

Reply #35 from GalCiv2 Forums Top

Quoting DrJBHL, reply 34
Never said that, did I? Try not attributing to me things I never said as well as non-issues not relevant to the OP.
End of DrJBHL's quote
Implication by omission. Glad you clarified, though.

 

No, they really aren't. They're just saying "We never called that thing we never called a tax a tax.". I will, however, admit that the furor over this has managed to get the ETNO to notice and release a statement, which is a reaction even though it doesn't do anything.

 

It kind of makes me think that this whole mess might have been jinned up just to inflame nationalistic sentiments in an election year, and create the associated "USA! USA!" dance when it inevitably didn't pass. But that would be giving either campaign far too much credit.

Reply #36 from WinCustomize Forums Top

Quoting Scoutdog, reply 35
Implication by omission.
End of Scoutdog's quote

I also didn't mention the intricacies of porphyrin metabolism. Out of all the replies you were the only one to 'perceive' such an 'implication'.

 

 

 

Reply #37 from GalCiv2 Forums Top

I've been the only one bothering to talk to you for the last seven posts. Which probably means nobody else cares any more, and is (at least temporarily) my exit cue. If something new and insightful is brought up, I might be back. If not... goodbye.

Reply #38 from Elemental Forums Top

Quoting WOM, reply 1
I say the UN has out lived its usefullness.  
End of WOM's quote

True dat, brother. The UN only confuses people by issuing documents criticizing good Israeli friends for pouring burning white phosphorus on some irrelevant civilians, and speaks of attrocities when US "secure" the few remaining sources of oil that, by some divine mistake probably, are usually located in certain heathen, god-forgotten countries. All the talk about secret torture camps does not help either, when the guests of such fine resorts as Gautanamo Bay camp spend their time there completely willingly to recover from the horrors they had to endure. 

So let's dismantle the UN together with the obsolete concept of some international consensus, and let's push the democracy forward the effective way - unilaterally, using whatever means it takes to achieve the goals of those, who can only know what's best for everyone. 

 

Reply #39 from Elemental Forums Top

Quoting Kamamura_CZ, reply 38
Quoting WOM, reply 1I say the UN has out lived its usefullness.  

True dat, brother. The UN only confuses people by issuing documents criticizing good Israeli friends for pouring burning white phosphorus on some irrelevant civilians, and speaks of attrocities when US "secure" the few remaining sources of oil that, by some divine mistake probably, are usually located in certain heathen, god-forgotten countries. All the talk about secret torture camps does not help either, when the guests of such fine resorts as Gautanamo Bay camp spend their time there completely willingly to recover from the horrors they had to endure. 

So let's dismantle the UN together with the obsolete concept of some international consensus, and let's push the democracy forward the effective way - unilaterally, using whatever means it takes to achieve the goals of those, who can only know what's best for everyone. 

 
End of Kamamura_CZ's quote

 

Agreed. And what the hell is that UNICEF thing about? For seventy years plus they have had a very unhealthy obsession with children. Something very funny going on there, we all know children need to draw on their own resources to make their way in the world. 

Reply #40 from Elemental Forums Top

Quoting Kamamura_CZ, reply 39
True dat, brother. The UN only confuses people by issuing documents criticizing good Israeli friends for pouring burning white phosphorus on some irrelevant civilians, and speaks of attrocities when US "secure" the few remaining sources of oil that, by some divine mistake probably, are usually located in certain heathen, god-forgotten countries. All the talk about secret torture camps does not help either, when the guests of such fine resorts as Gautanamo Bay camp spend their time there completely willingly to recover from the horrors they had to endure.

So let's dismantle the UN together with the obsolete concept of some international consensus, and let's push the democracy forward the effective way - unilaterally, using whatever means it takes to achieve the goals of those, who can only know what's best for everyone.
End of Kamamura_CZ's quote

This is pretty naive. Don't get me wrong you are right to criticize Isreal but you also have to be consistent in your criticisms. The reason the U.N focuses on Isreal so much is because of the large Islamic Bloc. Most those countries in turn have much worse human rights situations then Isreal. Just look at some of their anti-blasphemy laws or the persecution of minority groups such as the Sunnis. The focus on Israel is thus a perfect example of how mean spirited politics controls the U.N and every time the U.N ever brings up human rights it is a joke.

Also how exactly does the U.N spread Democracy? Can you give a single example ever? Considering all it's non democratic members, some of which have vetos, this seems like a odd thing to say...

Also the U.N failing to stop the U.S from doing everything it wants to is not a point in it's favor, it just makes it more of a joke. Does any country actually care what the U.N does? Also as a purely technical point the U.S isn't after oil, it wants to make sure countries continue to trade oil in American Dollars, it doesn't care about physically controlling the actual wells.

The U.N is fine as a platform for countries to communicate through but it fails horribly at accomplishing anything or pushing any sort of agenda. Giving the U.N any sort of power or even taking it seriously would be a horrible idea.

Reply #41 from WinCustomize Forums Top

Quoting Kamamura_CZ, reply 38
The UN only confuses people by issuing documents criticizing good Israeli friends for pouring burning white phosphorus on some irrelevant civilians,
End of Kamamura_CZ's quote

After more than 7,000 missile/mortar attack directed solely at Israeli civilians? Unless the irrelevant civilians you mentioned happened to be happen to be in your opinion, Israeli? 

They sure as hell don't like taking on the Israeli Army. They hide themselves and their munitions among te civilian populace. Cowards. They do that for the PR spin you swallow and spew back. I say, "Tough titty".  They support terrorists? They get what they deserve. No matter what kills terrorists and their supporters, they're just as dead - which is just fine by me since their basis for this terrorism is anti-Semitism. They have vowed to destroy Israel by any and every means and refuse to budge from that. So, who cares what happens to them? Examine your own motives for supporting them.

Quoting DsRaider, reply 40
Don't get me wrong you are right to criticize Isreal
End of DsRaider's quote

It's spelled "Israel", and no, he isn't.

When you have an enemy who has vowed to destroy/kill you, you don't weep when he is killed - if you're normal. You wake up earlier and dispatch him. What killed him? "Frankly my dear, I don't give a damn."

 

 

Reply #42 from Sins Forums Top

Quoting Kamamura_CZ, reply 39
...when US "secure" the few remaining sources of oil that, by some divine mistake probably, are usually located in certain heathen, god-forgotten countries...
End of Kamamura_CZ's quote

My sarcasm detector went to the red around here...


...and let's push the democracy forward the effective way - unilaterally, using whatever means it takes to achieve the goals of those, who can only know what's best for everyone. 
 
End of quote

And exploded here :rofl:

Reply #43 from Elemental Forums Top


It's spelled "Israel", and no, he isn't.
End of quote

I prefer "Isntreal" myself.   Boo hoo poor Isntreal.  Plant yourself in the middle of Arab neighbors and run them out of their homes to build high-rise apartment buildings, and then throw up your hands and say, "Woe is me!  I am surrounded by enemies!"   Idiots did it to themselves.  They get neither my envy nor my sympathy.   But oh, Isntreal was founded because of all the intense persecution at the Holocaust!   Remind me how many Arabs participated in the Holocaust again?

 

Anyway, back to the internet (if that indeed is the real subject...which I doubt):   the internet most definitely requires international standards.  The deployment of things like HTML5 and IPv6 has proven just about as difficult as getting CPU's off of the x86 instruction set.   TCP/IP has tons of relics in their packet headers which would be really nice if we could optimize.  Whether that standards organization is backed by the UN is of secondary importance to me; just so long as we have legit network engineers running the show and they are effective in rolling out improved standards.

 

Reply #44 from Sins Forums Top

Quoting WOM, reply 1
I say the UN has out lived its usefullness.  Close it down, which will not happen because all the countries thatare fighting themselves need it.  So the U.S. should withdraw from it and also pull all out troops from europe.  They are not needed there anymore.  Look at the savings we'd have.  No rent and not paying wages to the locals.  Didn't we make the internet and gave it to the world? 
End of WOM's quote

 

This pretty much.

Reply #45 from WinCustomize Forums Top

Oh, um, everybody......

#38 was what we in the trade call 'sarcasm'.....

Oh....this 'trade' about which I speak is 'English Comprehension'.

OK, so it's not a 'trade'....but you get my drift....;p

 

Hopefully.

Reply #46 from WinCustomize Forums Top

Quoting tetleytea, reply 43
I prefer "Isntreal" myself.   Boo hoo poor Isntreal.  Plant yourself in the middle of Arab neighbors and run them out of their homes to build high-rise apartment buildings, and then throw up your hands and say, "Woe is me!  I am surrounded by enemies!"   Idiots did it to themselves.  They get neither my envy nor my sympathy. 
End of tetleytea's quote

Rubbish.

Quoting tetleytea, reply 43
Remind me how many Arabs participated in the Holocaust again?
End of tetleytea's quote

Bingo! Godwin's Law.

But since you wish ...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amin_al-Husayni

http://www.faithfreedom.org/articles/op-ed/probing-the-history-of-the-muslim-nazi-alliance/

http://www.worldfuturefund.org/wffmaster/Reading/Total/hitler.mufti.htm

http://www.danielpipes.org/8257/nazi-propaganda-for-the-arab-world

That's besides the Nazi war criminals which found refuge in Arab states like (surprise) Syria. 

Perhaps a bit of historical fact?

No one took their homes. A canard promulgated to obtain illegally what the Israelis have built. The Arab leaders (chief among them Husseini - 'you know whose' friend) told them to leave their homes and after te Jews (not Israelis) were swept into the sea, they could come back and claim whatever they wanted. Too bad. Didn't happen. Seven Arab armies were defeated by the people the British took the weapons from.

A bit more historical fact:

 

Who left Gaza unilaterally? What did they get for leaving? More than 7,000 mortar and rocket attacks on the civilian population. Therefore? Operation Cast Lead. 

 

Quoting tetleytea, reply 43
Anyway, back to the internet (if that indeed is the real subject...which I doubt)
End of tetleytea's quote

If not, what was? Check the OP's title and text.

 

 

Reply #47 from Elemental Forums Top

I know what the OP says...which interestingly has no correlation with the rest of the thread.    But whatever, to each their own.  ADHD is a treatable illness. 

 

And isntreal was established in 1948 by *WHO* again?  Incredibly ironic how the same zionist shill who just loves his wonderful utopian country with religious freedom for all* is denouncing the very same organization who established isntreal in the first place.    Some anti-semitic, large Islamic voting bloc you've got there.

 

 

*  (if you're Jewish)

 

Reply #48 from WinCustomize Forums Top

The mechanism for recognizing a State is what it is. Change it if you don't like it.

In fact, Israel does insure and extend religious freedom for all. 

I hope you verify that by trying to practice your religion in, say, Saudi Arabia.

Name calling and trolling are not allowed here and have been reported.

 

Reply #49 from WinCustomize Forums Top

Not quite sure how or why anti-semitism has become the topic as it bears no relevance to the thread topic re the UN.

Just a reminder.... attacks against Race, Religion or Creed are not tolerated on these forums.

Reply #50 from JoeUser Forums Top

Quoting Jafo, reply 49
Not quite sure how or why anti-semitism has become the topic as it bears no relevance to the thread topic re the UN.

Just a reminder.... attacks against Race, Religion or Creed are not tolerated on these forums.
End of Jafo's quote

What?  Then why bother having a forum??