|
The Coming Internet Power Grab
Over
the past ten years the Internet and the World Wide Web have
transformed much of the world. New technology has ushered in a truly
global economy. Whereas communications overseas used to take weeks
by mail, or was very expensive by telephone, an email can travel
halfway around the world in a matter of minutes or less. The Web has
revolutionized commerce, moreover. Anyone with the know-how can put
up a website and sell items online. It is possible for a person in
Italy to buy from someone in Bangkok. A few weeks ago I purchased a
CD from a music store in Sweden – off the store’s website. There are
people earning substantial incomes hawking their wares on eBay.
Important for our purposes is that the Internet has become
the last highly visible free speech zone in our increasingly
politically correct society. Although many companies monitor their
employees’ email and activities online, and Internet Service
Providers often keep an eye on the sites they host to ensure that no
one on their servers advocates violence, these are local controls.
By and large the Internet as a whole is unregulated. Thus with rare
exceptions, free speech is indeed free. There are sites advocating
paleoconservatism, neoconservatism, liberalism (both the classical
and doctrinaire sorts), anarchism, libertarianism, or socialism or
communism or anti-Semitism. These sites may each have their
respective critics, but critics cannot force them out of cyberspace.
Since Matt Drudge set up the first independent cyber-commentary
site, the Drudge Report, and exposed Bill Clinton’s trysts with
Monica Lewinsky, Internet commentators have been at the head of the
pack. They sometimes scoop mainstream media sources or report events
and points of view that the mainstream media steadfastly avoid.
Only
on the Web can you read detailed criticisms of the legality of the
income tax, for example, or of the Federal Reserve banking cartel or
unlimited immigration. Only on the web you can find out that NAFTA
and the proposed Free Trade Area of the Americas are pseudo-free
trade agreements. Now that the Republican Party has fallen
completely into the hands of big-government centralists, only on the
Web can you read criticisms of the U.S. Department of Education
(once on the Republican chopping block, but not since the neocons
took over). Criticisms of government schools are around, but you’re
most likely to come into contact with these through something you’ve
encountered on the Web. They’re certainly not going to come to you
through the mainstream media which has been in bed with
state-sponsored schooling for decades.
Many
of us owe substantial portions of our writing careers to the
cyber-community. We most likely would not be published in most
mainstream outlets; our views are too (shall we say) adventurous.
Moreover, as a struggling academic philosopher (c.1987–1995), I had
few readers. (No one reads academic journals, after all.) Now, as an
independent scholar and Internet commentary writer, I have more
readers than all but a handful of academic philosophers. For
whatever such numbers are worth.
The
Internet and World Wide Web have brought all of us closer together.
Some would say it has helped erase national borders, although what
it has done has encouraged genuine free trade along with the free
and open communication of ideas. I’ve received emails from readers
as far away as Saudi Arabia and Taiwan. The Web has grown and
developed spontaneously, as millions of people have put up websites
on every subject imaginable. More and more people are logging on
every day. As a highly decentralized medium for the exchange of
goods, services and ideas, the World Wide Web stands as absolute
proof that you do not need centralization to have order.
It
is true that the Web is not a toy. There is much on the Web that is
not for children. The onus is on parents to monitor what their
children and teenagers do online. Just type the word sex into
the search engine of your choice, and you’ll see what I mean. There
is nasty stuff on the Web, and it generates billions of dollars a
year. I would expect no less when a fallen people gets its hands on
such a powerful technology. No one, however, is forced to visit
pornographic sites on the Web. I for one am acutely uncomfortable
with the argument that the government ought to outlaw such sites.
Having tasted power, what will the censors want to eliminate next?
There’s also the email nuisance called spam. I admit I don’t
share the extreme antipathy to spam that some people do. Some of it
is actually interesting, some of the time. When I find it annoying,
I hit delete. I don’t go running to the government to pass
laws against it.
The
point is, at present we don’t have a committee of bureaucratic
overseers dictating what anyone does on the Internet. Today’s
question: is this about to change? Are we about to see a gradual
erosion of the freedom and spontaneity that characterizes Internet
activity, commercial or otherwise?
This
past week (December 10–12) in Geneva, Switzerland, a globalist
organization within the United Nations called the International
Telecommunication Union (ITU) hosted the first of two World Summits on the Information
Society (WSIS). The planning that went into these Summits dates
back to the late 1990s. In 2001, the UN General Assembly endorsed
the ITU’s framework for this first Summit. Here is the
challenge as the ITU defines it: "The modern world is undergoing a
fundamental transformation as the industrial society that marked the
20th century rapidly gives way to the information society
of the 21st century. The dynamic process promises a
fundamental change in all aspects of our lives, including knowledge
dissemination, social interaction, economic and business practices,
political engagement, media, education, health, leisure and
entertainment." So far, so good; all this should be obvious. But the
passage concludes, "To benefit the world community, the successful
and continued growth of this new dynamic requires global
discussion" (emphasis mine).
That, my friends, should cause the hairs at the nape of your
neck to rise just a little. Given the spontaneity and immense
complexity of this "new dynamic," what kind of "global discussion,"
and to what purpose?
What
follows looks like an effort to take over and micromanage the
Internet, bending it to the service of the globalists’ social goals.
What it says, piling euphemism on top of euphemism, is that "The
roles of the various partners (Member States, UN specialized
agencies, private sector and civil society) in ensuring smooth
coordination of the practical establishment of the information
society around the globe will also be at the heart of the Summit
and its preparation" (emphasis mine).
The
purpose of WSIS: "to develop and foster a clear statement of
political will and a concrete plan of action for achieving
the goals of the Information Society, while fully reflecting all
the different interests at stake. The scope and nature of this
ambitious project will require partnerships with public and private
entities, and such partnerships will be actively sought in the
coming months."
Goals of the Information Society? I didn’t know such a
diffuse and spread-out entity could have goals. Silly me, I thought
that only the individuals participating in the Information Society –
buying, selling, educating, communicating, etc. – could have goals.
But then, I am not a collectivist. The very language in which the
WSIS agenda is presented betrays the collectivism driving its
sponsors and participants. And it betrays the worst economic mistake
of our time, that economic activity must be regulated by
governmental entities, whether to promote "equality" or prevent
chaos or for whatever other purpose. It will follow from this
premise that if we have a global economy we need a world government
to regulate it.
WSIS
participants plan to adopt a Declaration
of Principles and a Plan
of Action, existing in draft form. The main purpose is to steer
the Information Society alone lines compatible with the UN’s
longstanding sustainable
development agenda based on Agenda
21, as well as with the Universal Declaration
of Human Rights. From the Declaration of Principles: "We
reaffirm the universality, indivisibility, interdependence and
interrelation of all human rights and fundamental freedoms," states
the Declaration of Principles, which also reaffirms "the principles
of a democratic society, good governance (at all levels) and
the rule of law (in international as well as national
affairs), and sustainable development." This should tell us what the
powers that be in the UN and the ITU see as wrong with the
Information Society as it has developed without their oversight: it
isn’t egalitarian enough. It isn’t inclusive enough. It isn’t
nurturing and "enabling" enough. It doesn’t bridge the "digital
divide" between those nations and peoples that have built the
Information Society and those that have not. Thus Information and
Communication Technologies (ICTs) must be controlled to correct all
this.
As
always, much of the language sounds laudable, and that is the device
employed to get as many "stakeholders" on board as possible: "We are
resolute in our quest to ensure that everyone can benefit from the
opportunities that ICTs can offer…. [A]ll stakeholders should work
together to improve access to information and communication
infrastructure and technologies as well as to information and
knowledge; …" These goals include a kind of global affirmative
action: to "foster and respect cultural diversity; …" And, a few
paragraphs earlier: "women … should be an integral part of, and key
actors, in the Information Society…. To this end, we should
mainstream a gender equality perspective and use ICTs as a tool to
that end." This embodies the radical feminist idea that men and
women are completely interchangeable.
There are countless references to the need to create an
"enabling environment." UN bureaucrats have become the globe’s
ultimate would-be "enablers." This is crucial in fostering a world
in which we are all interdependent, i.e., all individuals are
dependent on, and answer to, unelected committees of globalist
bureaucrats.
The
Plan of Action picks up where the Declaration of Principles leaves
off. We are all to work together in a spirit of globalism and
interdependence: "All stakeholders have an important role to play in
the Information Society, especially through partnerships.
Governments have a leading role in developing and implementing
comprehensive, forward looking and sustainable national
e-strategies. The private sector and civil society, in dialogue with
governments, have an important consultative role to play in devising
national e-strategies…. The private sector is not only a market
player but also plays a role in a wider sustainable development
context." In other words, the sustainable development agenda trumps
standard business practices. "The commitment and involvement of
civil society is equally important in creating an equitable
Information Society, and in implementing ICT-related initiatives for
development."
Here
is a sampling of what the bureaucrats command (along with whatever
commentary seems appropriate):
"Initiate at the national level a structured dialogue
involving all relevant stakeholders, including through public /
private partnerships, in devising e-strategies for the Information
Society and for the exchange of best practices." Frankly, I’m not
sure what this says, but at one time when government and big
business worked together to make policy it was called
fascism; today, in UN-bureaucratese, it’s called the
public/private partnership. Further on:
"Development of national e-strategies, including the
necessary human capacity building, should be encouraged by all
countries by 2005, taking into account different national
circumstances." The forty-dollar question here, of course, is: what
is meant by human capacity building? The document devotes a
section to the subject. Among its recommendations that are more than
recommendations:
"Everyone should have the necessary skills to benefit fully
from the Information Society. Therefore capacity building and ICT
literacy are essential. ICTs can contribute to achieving universal
education worldwide, through delivery of education and training of
teachers, and offering improved conditions for lifelong learning,
encompassing people that are outside the formal education process,
and improving professional skills."
As
with much in these two documents, this sounds good on a first
reading. But cutting through the bureaucratese, what is it really
telling us? The second sentence reads to me like a proposal to
extend government schools worldwide under a kind of globalist
School-To-Work agenda. And "encompassing people that are outside the
formal education process" sounds very much like a version of No
Child Left Behind that proposes to pull everyone in the world
into the system – whether they want to be in it or not.
Reading on down, there is much about "e-literacy skills for
all, for example by designing and offering courses for public
administration"; there are proposals to "ensure that young people
are equipped with knowledge and skills to use ICTs, including the
capacity to analyze and treat information in creative and innovating
ways, share their expertise and participate fully in the Information
Society"; there are calls to "develop pilot projects to demonstrate
the impact of ICT-based alternative educational delivery systems,
notably for achieving Education for All targets." There are more
affirmative action-like calls for "removing the gender barriers to
ICT education and training and promoting equal training
opportunities in ICT-related fields for women and girls."
I
could continue elaborating what is said about developing "human
capacity building," but you get the idea. One sees nothing in this
globalized update on the School-To-Work model of schooling that
involves education in history, economics, Constitutional literacy or
philosophy or theology – the subjects that enable a person to gain
perspective on his society and whether or not it is going in the
right direction. Rather than the graduation of educated,
independent-minded human beings, schooling along the lines proposed
in this model will result in collectivized drones ready to take
their places in a the high-tech equivalent of a beehive or anthill.
If you do not have a worker-bee’s mindset, then so much the worse
for you.
Very
little is really said about the ruling elites themselves in this
model, but there are subtle hints among some of the suggestions,
such as:
"Promote and establish an international legal framework on
information and communication security under the auspices of UN
system to prevent illegal use of ICTs." Sounds very much like
UN-sponsored world government to me – in the absence of a clear and
different definition of the sort of entity that could create and
enforce an "international legal framework" that would "prevent
illegal use of ICTs."
"In
the Information Society, Intellectual Property Protection should be
construed in a way not to deepen the Digital Divide, taking into
account the need to universalize access for all. Intellectual
Property Protection can and should be interpreted in a manner
supportive to State’s rights to protect public policies, in
particular, to promote access to the Information Society." In other
words, under this system there will be no exclusive and unqualified
private property rights, which of course is the point of pulling the
private sector into all these partnerships with governmental and
globalist entities.
"Ensure the systematic dissemination of information using
ICTs on agriculture, animal husbandry, fisheries, forestry and food,
in order to provide ready access to comprehensive, up-to-date and
detailed knowledge and information, particularly in rural areas."
Even, I suppose, if the people directly involved in these activities
are not using ICTs and doing just fine without them. Throughout both
documents is the wild and unsupported assumption that information
technology is for everybody, and can be incorporated willy-nilly
into every human activity. This is the view that human beings are
blank slates at birth, to be molded, shaped and have their life
stories laid out for them by social engineers who somehow know what
is best for everyone.
It
is not that these social goals are all bad. Of course, it would be
very nice to see third world peoples lifted – or lift themselves –
out of poverty. But the collectivist and micro-managerial approach
taken here cannot succeed. It can only drain the resources of those
countries (especially the United States) that have embraced
information technology. Eventually, the maze of rules and
regulations, along with the global tax that would doubtless be
instituted to fund the globalist system, will stifle new
developments. We will then see the progress achieved through the
Information Revolution halt and then begin to reverse!
The
UN is proposing to hijack the Information Revolution to service a
collectivist model of world order. They have no way to achieve their
goals without massive bureaucratic controls on information and
communication technology – controls put in place at the top and
encircling the lives of every user. This means more, not less,
centralization, and at a level that would further erode national
sovereignty, not to mention privacy and private property. It cannot
be done without instituting global government – long the dream of
promoters of a New World
Order:
"The
Internet has evolved into a global facility available to the public,
and its governance should constitute a core issue of the Information
Society agenda," the Declaration of Principles reads. "The
international management of the Internet should be multilateral,
transparent and democratic, with the full involvement of
governments, the private sector, civil society and international
organizations. It should ensure an equitable distribution of
resources, facilitate access for all and ensure a stable and secure
functioning of the Internet, taking into account multilingualism."
Again, the Plan of Action picks up where the Declaration of
Principles leaves off. In fact, the Plan of Action drops the verbal
equivalent of a nuke on the idea of a free and unregulated Internet:
"We
ask the Secretary General of the United Nations to set up a working
group in Internet governance, in an open and inclusive process that
ensures a mechanism for the full and active participation of
governments, the private sector and civil society from both
developing and developed countries, involving relevant
intergovernmental and international organizations and forums, to
investigate and make proposals for action, as appropriate, on the
governance of Internet by 2005. The group should, inter alia,
(i) develop a working definition of Internet governance; (ii)
identify the public policy issues that are relevant to Internet
governance; (iii) develop a common understanding of the respective
roles and responsibilities of governments, existing
intergovernmental and international organizations and other forums
as well as the private sector and civil society from both developing
and developed countries; (iv) prepare a report on the results of
this activity to be presented for consideration and appropriate
action for the second phase of WSIS in Tunis in 2005" (emphasis
mine). Following is a proposal for the internationalization of the
management and supervision of country code top-level domain names, a
process currently in the hands of an American organization given
that most of the computer power that drives the Internet and World
Wide Web is based in the United States.
If
this is not a recipe for a power grab of major proportions, after
which there would be no exclusive rights for any Internet or Web
user, I don’t know what would be. It all depends on the language.
What, after all, do phrases like "ensure a stable and secure
functioning of the Internet" boil down to? Suppose a bureaucrat
decides that cantankerous news and commentary sites like
LewRockwell.com, by virtue of their incessant annoying
criticisms of centralized government in all its manifestations, fail
to "ensure a stable and secure functioning of the Internet."
Suppose, thinking of the reference to "multilingualism," the
criticism is of our failure to write and publish articles in, say,
Spanish. Or Arabic, for that matter. What then? We could find
ourselves mired in such a quagmire of regulations that normal
functioning becomes impossible – as opposed to a direct attack.
Or,
on the other hand, we could all be charged by globalist bureaucrats
with "hate speech," that amorphous and mostly undefined stepchild of
political correctness that is already a crime punishable by
imprisonment in some countries – with full UN approval.
These documents are permeated with references to the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Again, much of the language
there looks good on a superficial reading. It includes such
things as "Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of
person" (Article 3), "Everyone has the right to own property alone
as well as in association with others" (Article 17); "Everyone has
the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion …" (Article
18); "Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression;
this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference
and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any
media and regardless of frontiers" (Article 19).
However, the third clause in Article 29 states: "These rights
and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes
and principles of the United Nations." Such escape clauses are the
stuff of potential tyranny. What, precisely, are these "purposes and
principles." If they are the eventual establishing of world
government, then all the above rights are essentially voided if used
to block the efforts and progress toward world government. Which
could eventually make free speech on the Internet – including
articles like this one! – criminal offenses in the global village.
Everything turns on how the bureaucratese is interpreted.
With an educational system producing only technicians and more
bureaucrats, there will be no one with the critical thinking skills
necessary to challenge the interpretations of the bureaucratic
overseers.
Of
one thing we can be sure: the latter will work steadily to increase
their power. They have discovered a new set of tools, one that has
immeasurably enriched all its participants: information and
communications technology. This technology has developed without a
center and without officially-approved social goals, which is why
freedom-oriented sites can co-exist on it with communist sites (or
with the UN’s site). It has been identified as something to be used.
The imposition of the new social goals to be laid on top of the
information revolution is to done piecemeal, but should be well on
its way by the second WSIS Summit, scheduled for November 16–18,
2005, in Tunis, Tunisia.
To
centralize this technology and control all its players will not
erase the so-called digital divide. It will only bog down the
efforts at innovation that alone will improve the technology and
make it more user-friendly. It will not lift those on the wrong side
of the digital divide out of poverty but make their overall
situations worse – while turning the Information Revolution dynamic
in this country into something with about as much efficiency as the
U.S. Postal Service and roughly the same capacity for education as
your average government school.
December 15, 2003
 Steven Yates [send him mail] has a Ph.D. in
philosophy and is the author of Civil
Wrongs: What Went Wrong With Affirmative
Action (1994). He is currently
at work on three books: In Defense of
Logic, a
philosophical treatise; Skywatcher’s
World, a
science fiction novel, and This Is Not the Country
I Grew Up In, a collection of past articles from LewRockwell.com
and other sources. He is an adjunct scholar with the Ludwig von
Mises Institute, and next January will be joining the adjunct
faculty of Limestone College. He lives in Columbia, South
Carolina.
Copyright © 2003 LewRockwell.com
Steven Yates Archives
 
|
