ITU Boss Explains Why He Wants The UN To Start Regulating The Internet
from the not-good dept
We've written a few times about why we should be worried about the ITU (a part of the UN) and its attempts to regulate the internet, to which some have responded by arguing that the ITU/UN doesn't really want to regulate the internet. However, the Secretary-General of the ITU, Hamadoun Toure has now taken to the pages of Wired, to explicitly state why he believes the UN needs to regulate the internet. And it appears that many of the initial fears are 100% accurate. We've already covered how the ITU seems to be hiding all sorts of awful scary things by claiming they all fall under the "cybersecurity" banner, and we've noted that the ITU's mandate over cybersecurity is imaginary and its history with the subject is sketchy, at best. However, in the op-ed, Toure doubles down on why the UN should be there helping countries censor things like "porn and propaganda" on the internet as a part of its "cybersecurity" effortsGovernments are looking for more effective frameworks to combat fraud and other crimes. Some commentators have suggested such frameworks could also legitimize censorship. However, Member States already have the right, as stated in Article 34 of the Constitution of ITU, to block any private telecommunications that appear "dangerous to the security of the State or contrary to its laws, to public order or to decency." The treaty regulations cannot override the Constitution.First, it should be made clear that Toure is being somewhat disingenuous here. The ITU's mandate concerning such communications were written for a different time, when telecommunications meant limited communications systems -- initially the telegraph (yes, that's how far this goes back) and then the telephone. Toure claims that the ITU is "charged with coordinating global information and communication technology (ICT) resources," but that's only in his own mind. The "Constitution" he so proudly points to only refers to telecommunications -- which in this context has a very, very different meaning than broader "information and communications technology." The ITU's charter is for telecommunications only. That is, old telephone networks (and telegraphs before that). In such cases, there was a need for a group like the ITU to help deal with standardization and interconnection among large companies. But, with the internet, their role is basically obsolete. There are other basic standards bodies -- ones that are more open and understanding. But Toure is focused on helping out authoritarian states like Russia and China that want to claim that "pornography or extremist propaganda" should be censored.
Many authorities around the world already intervene in communications for various reasons – such as preventing the circulation of pornography or extremist propaganda. So a balance must be found between protecting people's privacy and their right to communicate; and between protecting individuals, institutions, and whole economies from criminal activities.
This is a serious problem for those who support an open and free internet that provides greater ability for free expression to occur. If people are doing things that violate local laws, go after them legally and prosecute them under those laws. To put it on telcos -- often ones with close ties to state governments -- to block and censor, all in the name of "cybersecurity," is opening up a huge can of worms. There is no need for the ITU to get involved in this situation at all.
Then, there's the second big problem -- and what this story is all about in reality. As we've noted in the past, large, slow, lumbering legacy telcos (many of them either state owned or formerly state owned) haven't innovated at all. They see big internet companies, who are building awesome and fantastic services that consumers want -- and getting rich doing so. In response, they get jealous, and say that they deserve some of that money. And that's what this plan is really about -- the ITU helping its "member" telcos try to divert money from the successful services out there to the big lumbering telcos who failed to innovate. Toure more or less says that in his op-ed, by labeling it as a more "fair" distribution of revenue:
An important and influential factor is network financing, so the conference may consider strategies around sharing revenues more fairly, stimulating investment, mainstreaming green ICTs, and expanding access as widely as possible to meet booming demand.And that's what this comes down to. It's about diverting revenues from companies who earned it in the market, to the telcos who did nothing, often getting fat and lazy on the back of government subsidies and who are now jealous. But since they make up the core of the ITU and give it its purpose, suddenly it's all about "sharing revenues more fairly."
Thankfully, it appears that most of the commenters on the Wired piece see through this and are calling Toure out on it.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: cybersecurity, free speech, hamadoun toure, internet regulation, itu, pornography, propaganda, un
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Be careful what you wish for. They may make you live with what they create on their own, and I'd be much happier living on a global computer network built by scientists and engineers than politicians and dictators.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It seems like regulation of the Internet is a governmental pipe dream that is just too impractical to implement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Encouragement of member governments to impose police state tactics.
QED.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Technically, it would be quite easy to do. The internet's Achilles's heel is the backbone. The backbone is fairly localized and concentrated, and any subnet can quite easily be disconnected from it. It's also owned almost entirely by the major telecom companies.
Even right now, the US scans most of the traffic flowing over the internet by installing equipment in a few dozen locations in North America.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Governments are looking for..."
Well, Mr. Government toady, thats all fine an good.
But as for the PEOPLE on the Internet, we couldn't care less what "governments" want. We want our Freedom of Expression!! Sorry that's too inconvenient for you.
Take your useless, worthless, outmoded extra-governmental agency and go straight to hell.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Your title got cut off.....
" and why we don't want them to IMPOSE their regulations".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Revenue sharing brings out the Randian in me
Mr. Rearden - In times of [inter]national peril, it's your duty to serve.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You can all just go to hell quite simply.Try to Regulate equals a Declaration of War you will not Win.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Motives
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mesh network everything, problem solved forever./
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
But others are motivated by concerns that the non government organizations that run critical components of the internet are only non government because US Federal law delegated the responsibility. If you visit this site only casually you will see plenty of evidence of discomfort from US citizens over what the government is doing to spy on it's own citizens, block websites, attempts to impose US law on foreign websites, etc. so it shouldn't be too surprising that the US government isn't quite trusted to maintain it's "hands off" oversight.
These concerns aren't going to go away and debate about how to address them is a good thing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Russia and the Itu
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Regulating the internet" is not what they are trying to do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "Regulating the internet" is not what they are trying to do.
All "rights" are property rights.
The core solution: Respect for property rights as an extension of self-ownership, and the "non-aggression principle" (the initation of force is immoral while self-defense is valid).
For more on these ideas I highly recommend two works by Murray N. Rothbard - "For A New Liberty" and "The Ethics of Liberty" [both of which can be downloaded for free over at mises.org]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dropping a link
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
99% of crime is....caused by...
so if the rich 1% asswipes of the world cant deal with it no laws , no filter no nothing gonna fix shit till they give back to the world what they have been stealing form all of us.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Leave the Internet Alone...
"Regulation" is just a euphemism for individuals calling themselves "government" using force/coercion to keep individuas from voluntarily interacting & exchanging with other individuals.
The more freedom and voluntary exchange that occurs, the more prosperous a society becomes.
The "solution" that the ITU boss is proposing would result in the exact opposite of his claims.
It is tantamount to a gangster coming to your place of business and claiming that you need his "help" to keep your business "safe" & accessible to all, all for a fee of say, $5,000 a month. If you choose not to pay for the gangster's "help", the gangers will destroy your business and beat you to a pulp.
The true answer is consensual relationships and voluntary exchange, with respect for property rights as a logical extension of self-ownership.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Wants The UN To Start Regulating The Internet"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]