ARTICLES - HOT OFF THE FAGGOT

U.N. takeover of the Internet must be stopped, U.S. warns


A U.N. summit later this year in Dubai could lead to a new international regime of censorship, taxes, and surveillance, warn Democrats, Republicans, the Internet Society, and father of the Internet Vint Cerf.
 
FCC commissioner Robert McDowell, seated in the middle of the witness table, warns that Google, iTunes, Facebook and Netflix could face new international taxes.
FCC Commissioner Robert McDowell warns a House committee that Google, iTunes, Facebook, and Netflix could face new international taxes.
(Credit: U.S. House of Representatives)
 
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."
What prompted today's hearing -- and a related congressional resolution (PDF) supporting a free and open Internet -- is a Dubai summit that will be convened by the 193 members of the U.N.'s International Telecommunications Union, which was chartered in 1865 to oversee international telegraph regulations.
Called the World Conference on International Telecommunications, or WCIT, the summit will review a set of telecommunications regulations established in 1988, when home computers used dial-up modems, the Internet was primarily a university network, and Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg was a mere 4 years old.
That review has created an opening for countries with a weak appreciation of free speech and civil liberties -- with Russia and China in the lead -- to propose the U.N. establish an new "information security" regime or create an alternative to ICANN, the nonprofit organization that has acted as the Internet's de facto governance body since the late 1990s.
This is hardly the first time that the U.N. or its agencies wanted to expand their influence over the Internet. At a 2004 summit at the U.N.'s headquarters in New York, U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan criticized the current system through which Internet standards are set and domain names are handled, and delegates from Cuba, Ghana, Bolivia and Venezula objected to what they said was too much control of the process by the U.S. government and its allies.
Two years later, at another U.N. summit in Athens, ITU Secretary General Yoshio Utsumi criticized the current ICANN-dominated process, stressing that poorer nations are dissatisfied and are hoping to erode U.S. influence. "No matter what technical experts argue is the best system, no matter what self-serving justifications are made that this is the only possible way to do things, there are no systems or technologies that can eternally claim they are the best," Utsumi said.
In 2008, CNET was the first to report that the ITU was quietly drafting technical standards, proposed by the Chinese government, to define methods of tracing the original source of Internet communications and potentially curbing the ability of users to remain anonymous. A leaked document showed the trace-back mechanism was designed to be used by a government that "tries to identify the source of the negative articles" published by an anonymous author.
December's meeting has alarmed even the Internet's technologists. The Internet Society, which is the umbrella organization for the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) and the Internet Architecture Board (IAB), sent a representative to today's hearing.
ISOC's Sally Wentworth, senior manager of public policy for the group, warned that the proposals to be considered are not "compatible" with the current open manner in which the Internet is managed.
Vint Cerf, Google's chief Internet evangelist, co-creator of the TCP/IP protocol, and former chairman of ICANN, said the ITU meeting could lead to "top-down control dictated by governments" that could impact free expression, security, and other important issues..
"The open Internet has never been at a higher risk than it is now," Cerf said.


U.N. could tax U.S.-based Web sites, leaked docs show

Global Internet tax suggested by European network operators, who want Apple, Google, and other Web companies to pay to deliver content, is proposed for debate at a U.N. agency in December.
 
 
The United Nations is considering a new Internet tax targeting the largest Web content providers, including Google, Facebook, Apple, and Netflix, that could cripple their ability to reach users in developing nations.
The European proposal, offered for debate at a December meeting of a U.N. agency called the International Telecommunication Union, would amend an existing telecommunications treaty by imposing heavy costs on popular Web sites and their network providers for the privilege of serving non-U.S. users, according to newly leaked documents.
The documents (No. 1 No. 2) punctuate warnings that the Obama administration and Republican members of Congress raised last week about how secret negotiations at the ITU over an international communications treaty could result in a radical re-engineering of the Internet ecosystem and allow governments to monitor or restrict their citizens' online activities.
"It's extremely worrisome," Sally Shipman Wentworth, senior manager for public policy at the Internet Society, says about the proposed Internet taxes. "It could create an enormous amount of legal uncertainty and commercial uncertainty."
The leaked proposal was drafted by the European Telecommunications Network Operators Association, or ETNO, a Brussels-based lobby group representing companies in 35 nations that wants the ITU to mandate these fees.
The Internet Society's Sally Shipman Wentworth calls the proposal "extremely worrisome."
The Internet Society's Sally Shipman Wentworth calls the proposal "extremely worrisome."
(Credit: Declan McCullagh/CNET)
While this is the first time this proposal been advanced, European network providers and phone companies have been bitterly complaining about U.S. content-providing companies for some time. France Telecom, Telecom Italia, and Vodafone Group, want to "require content providers like Apple and Google to pay fees linked to usage," Bloomberg reported last December.
ETNO refers to it as the "principle of sending party network pays" -- an idea borrowed from the system set up to handle payments for international phone calls, where the recipient's network set the per minute price. If its proposal is adopted, it would spell an end to the Internet's long-standing, successful design based on unmetered "peered" traffic, and effectively tax content providers to reach non-U.S. Internet users.
In a statement (PDF) sent to CNET on Friday morning, ETNO defended its proposal as "innovative" and said it had been adopted unanimously by its executive board. It would amend the treaties by saying, "to ensure an adequate return on investment in high bandwidth infrastructures, operating agencies shall negotiate commercial agreements to achieve a sustainable system of fair compensation for telecommunications services," ETNO said.
Such sender-pays frameworks, including the one from ETNO, could prompt U.S.-based Internet services to reject connections from users in developing countries, who would become unaffordably expensive to communicate with, predicts Robert Pepper, Cisco's vice president for global technology policy.
Developing countries "could effectively be cut off from the Internet," says Pepper, a former policy chief at the U.S. Federal Communications Commission. It "could have a host of very negative unintended consequences."
It's not clear how much the taxes levied by the ETNO's plan would total per year, but observers expect them to be in the billions of dollars. Government data show that in 1996, U.S. phone companies paid their overseas counterparts a total of $5.4 billion just for international long distance calls.
If the new taxes were levied, larger U.S. companies might be able to reduce the amount of money they pay by moving data closer to overseas customers, something that Netflix, for instance, already does through Akamai and other content delivery networks. But smaller U.S. companies unable to afford servers in other nations would still have to pay.
The leaked documents were posted by the Web site WCITLeaks, which was created by two policy analysts at the free-market Mercatus Center at George Mason University in Arlington, Va, who stress their Wikileaks-esque project is being done in their spare time. The name, WCITLeaks, is a reference to the ITU's December summit in Dubai, the World Conference on International Telecommunications, or WCIT.
Eli Dourado, a research fellow who founded WCITLeaks along with Jerry Brito, told CNET this afternoon that the documents show that Internet taxes represent "an attractive revenue stream for many governments, but it probably is not in the interest of their people, since it would increase global isolation."
Dourado hopes to continue posting internal ITU documents, and is asking for more submissions. "We hope that shedding some light on them will help people understand what's at stake," he says.
One vote per country
ETNO's proposal arrives against the backdrop of negotiations now beginning in earnest to rewrite the International Telecommunications Regulations (PDF), a multilateral treaty that governs international communications traffic. The ITRs, which dates back to the days of the telegraph, were last revised in 1988, long before the rise of the commercial Internet and the on-going migration of voice, video and data traffic to the Internet's packet-switched network.
The U.S. delegation to the Dubai summit, which will be headed by Terry Kramer, currently an entrepreneur-in-residence at the Harvard Business School, is certain to fight proposals for new Internet taxes and others that could curb free speech or privacy online.
But the ITU has 193 member countries, and all have one vote each.
If proposals harmful to global Internet users eventually appear in a revision to the ITRs, it's possible that the U.S. would refuse to ratify the new treaty. But that would create additional problems: U.S. network operators and their customers would still be held to new rules when dealing with foreign partners and governments. The unintended result could be a Balkanization of the Internet.
In response to the recent criticism from from Washington, ITU Secretary-General Hamadoun Toure convened a meeting yesterday with ITU staff to deny charges that the WCIT summit in Dubai "is all about ITU, or the United Nations, trying to take over the Internet." (The ITU also has been criticized, as CNET recently reported, for using the appearance of the Flame malware to argue it should have more cybersecurity authority over the Internet.)
"The real issue on the table here is not at all about who 'runs' the Internet -- and there are in fact no proposals on the table concerning this," Toure said, according to a copy of his remarks posted by the ITU. "The issue instead is on how best to cooperate to ensure the free flow of information, the continued development of broadband, continued investment, and continuing innovation."
Robert McDowell, a Republican member of the Federal Communications Commission who wrote an article (PDF) in the Wall Street Journal in February titled "The U.N. Threat to Internet Freedom," appeared to reference the ETNO's proposal for Internet taxes during last week's congressional hearing.
Proposals that 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," McDowell said. "Google, Tunes, Facebook, and Netflix are mentioned most often as prime sources of funding."
They could also 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.
ITU spokesman Paul Conneally told CNET this week that:

There are proposals that could change the charging system, but nothing about pay-per-click as such. There isn't anything we can comment about this interpretation because, as stated before, member states are free to interpret proposals as they like, so if McDowell chooses to interpret as pay-per-click, that is his right and similarly it is he who should provide pointers for you.
From the beginning, the Internet's architecture has been based on traffic exchange between backbone providers for mutual benefit, without metering and per-byte "settlement" charges for incoming and outgoing traffic. ETNO's proposal would require network operators and others to instead negotiate agreements "where appropriate" aimed at achieving "a sustainable system of fair compensation for telecommunications services" based on "the principle of sending party network pays."
"Not all those countries like open, transparent process"
This isn't the first time that a U.N. agency will consider the idea of Internet taxes.
In 1999, a report from the United Nations Development Program proposed Internet e-mail taxes to help developing nations, suggesting that an appropriate amount would be the equivalent of one penny on every 100 e-mails that an individual might send. But the agency backed away from the idea a few days later.
And in 2010, the U.N.'s World Health Organization contemplated, but did not agree on, a "bit tax" on Internet traffic.
Under the ITU system for international long distance, government-owned telecommunications companies used to make billions from incoming calls, effectively taxing the citizens of countries that placed the calls. That meant that immigrants to developed nations paid princely sums to call their relatives back home, as high as $1 a minute.
But technological advances have eroded the ability of the receiving countries to collect the fees, and the historic shift to voice over Internet Protocol services such as Skype has all but erased the transfer payments. Some countries see the WCIT process as a long-shot opportunity to reclaim those riches.
The ITU's process has been controversial because so much of it is conducted in secret. That's drawn unflattering comparisons with the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement, or ACTA, an international intellectual property agreement that has generated protests from Internet users across the world. (The Obama administration approved ACTA in 2011, before anyone outside the negotiations had a chance to review it.)
By comparison, the Internet Society, with 55,000 members and 90 worldwide chapters, hosts the engineering task forces responsible for the development and enhancement of Internet protocols, which operate through virtual public meetings and mailing lists.
"Not all those countries like open, transparent process," says Cisco's Pepper, referring to the ITU's participants. "This is a problem."
Last updated at 9:30 a.m. PT on June 8

The Conservative Byte

Today's Featured Article:
Obama Member of Socialist Party?

Today's Politically Incorrect Laugh:
Shinking Union Hat

Today's Politically Incorrect Headlines:

Rand Paul before endorsing Romney on Bilderberg and Goldman Sachs

Secrets of Body Language

Mammograms Cause Cancer!

Will Your Church Be Subject to a Conscience Tax?

There’s been quite a bit of talk recently about ObamaCare and the federal regulation requiring employer health care plans to pay for abortion inducing drugs, as well as contraception and sterilization. The good news is churches are exempt from this requirement. The bad news is church ministries and para-church organizations will be required to provide things like abortion-inducing drugs to their employees – even if it conflicts with the religious beliefs and teachings of the ministry. Any non-church ministry that provides services to people of other faiths (instead of just those who agree with their religious beliefs) will be subject to this requirement. Those who offer insurance that does not comply with ObamaCare will be fined $100 per employee per day.  And those who drop insurance coverage altogether will be subjected to fines of approximately $2,000 per employee, per year. This is effectively a Conscience Tax.
Obviously, many faith-based schools, food pantries, hospitals, and other community service organizations are threatened by this disregard for religious freedom because they minister to everyone. Some commentators have opined that this isn’t a very big deal, and is just about making sure women have access to contraception. But if the federal government can force these ministries to act in a way that is completely contrary to their religious beliefs, they can tax all of us when we act according to our religious convictions by doing such things as refusing to participate in abortions, objecting to sexual immorality, or raising our children according to our faith.
Pastors need to be very aware of how this new mandate will affect all aspects of their ministry, as well as the lives and businesses of their parishioners. You can learn more about it here. And if you have any questions at all, please feel free to contact us here at ADF by logging on to SpeakUpMovement.org/church, or calling us at 1-800-TellADF.
ObamaCare Mandate Is Worse Than You Think: Watch the Video

Get the Facts

The Obama Administration doesn’t want you to know the truth about the ObamaCare mandate. Get the facts – and share them with others today!

Rand Paul endorses Romney after rumored death threats against Ron Paul

By Mindy Allan

Alex Jones in an interview with Jim Tucker at the Bilderberg Group meeting in Washington believes there has been a direct threat to the life of Ron Paul. Conspiracy theorists are questioning the sudden announcement of Rand Paul to endorse Romney as a shake down by opposing forces on the Paul campaign. In Feb of 2012 it was rumored that Rand was supporting Romney, and he spoke about it then. In March of 2012 Rand Paul spoke out again against the union of himself and Romney. Now Rand Paul has made a statement that contradicts what he said in Feb & March. Was he threatened? The Ron Paul campaign has taken the political system and its control in to a chaotic spin, and now action needs to be taken so that it will stop! The speech Rand Paul gave in Austin a few weeks ago does not sound like someone who is giving up. So what, or who made him change his mind. Conspiracy theorists believe that there was a threat on the Paul family by the Federal Reserve, that made him change his mind. When it comes to family, many of us would choose family over anything. The Ron Paul campaign threatens the existence of NWO. Was a deal made? Did Rand Paul really have any options if it was a choice to go with the flow or die? Will Rand Paul be the vice president? Are the powers that be trying to rein in the Paul family. Control is everything! The Paul's may have been swayed for some reason, will the Ron Paul campaign sway the people to follow? If Ron Paul announces on national television that he is quitting, then most of the questions will be answered. The reason for needing Rand Paul as vice president would be to have the votes of the Ron Paul supporters. Time will tell if the conspiracy theorists are right.

Reality Check: Louisiana State Convention Implodes When Cops Attack Chairman

By Ben Swann - bio

Even though there is little question that Mitt Romney will be the Republican Presidential nominee in August, state Republican conventions continue to come unraveled. The latest example, the Louisiana State Convention where the chairman was tackled by cops and his artificial hip dislocated. What is going on here? Ben has the Reality Check you won't see anywhere else.

Has Barack Obama's ego endangered lives?


Barack Obama has been trying too hard to paint himself as a tough guy
Barack Obama has been trying too hard to paint himself as a tough guy

By  

Back in 2008, in the aftermath of defeat, Republicans probably banked on the fact that come 2012 they’d be able to attack the effete Harvard law don and community organiser Barack Obama for being weak on national security issues.
As it turns out, Big Bad Bo is a self-appointed, one-man hit squad, raining down righteous retaliation on America’s Islamist enemies from the drone-infested skies above Pakistan, Afghanistan and Somalia.
This week, therefore, senior Republicans have tried a different tack – hammering Mr Obama not for his record on national security, but for the endless leaks trumpeting top-secret successes, most of which seemed designed to paint Mr Obama as the steely tough guy.
First three Republican senators, including Marco Rubio in Florida (a Romney Veep possibility), published a joint Washington Post editorial accusing Mr Obama of authorising leaks that jeopardise informants' lives (or get them sent to jail for 33 years, like the Bin Laden informant Shakil Afridi), and make it harder to build ties with other intelligence agencies who don’t want to be splashed all over The New York Times.
Then today, Sen John McCain blasted the White House for the latest leak – a detailed account of how computer worms had been sent in to cripple the Iranian nuclear programme. The Senate Armed Services Committee will now hold an inquiry into the leaks.
“It makes the president look very decisive,” McCain said, accusing Obama of cynically using national security for political ends, “and it gives very little credit to the other men and women who make these things happen. This puts American lives in danger, revealing our most highly classified operations both in cyberwar and in drones.”
There is, of course, more than drop of electoral humbug in all this, but it is also absolutely true that some of the "leaking" has been eye-poppingly gratuitous – though the White House has the gall to deny this.
In fact, "leaking" is really the wrong word, since it implies that the information has come out in an unauthorised fashion, whereas much of the material appearing the New York Times and other sanctioned organs really amounts to a fly-on-the-wall documentary.
"President Obama, overseeing the regular Tuesday counterterrorism meeting of two dozen security officials in the White House Situation Room, took a moment to study the faces…” we read in a New York Times piece, as if it was the opening of a Tom Clancy novel.
The piece – sourced by “three dozen” current and former advisers, no less – recounts how Mr Obama, brow furrowed and with carefully annotated texts of Aquinas and Augustine in hand, personally reviews every one of his extra-judicial killings.
This is meant to make Mr Obama look admirable – just like all those documentaries about Mr Obama’s lone wolf decision go after Osama bin Laden – but increasingly he sounds, and looks, utterly egomaniacal.
The torrent of leaks is upsetting some people in the US military. In the last month I’ve had two separate conversations with serving US officers who were scathing about the fact that every time Mr Obama finds himself needing to bury bad news domestically, he lays down another national security smokescreen.
If it hasn’t already, this, I suspect, will soon become a turn-off for the public, who love a hero but can’t stand a braggart, particularly when they are trading on the bravery of other people.
Everyone knows that Obama has been surprisingly tough on national security. He should shut up about it already.