What is Digg?Sponsored by Dragon Age: Origins
Join the Dragon Age: Origins development team on Facebook view!
facebook.com/DragonAgeOrigins - EA presents BioWare's new dark fantasy epic Dragon Age: Origins. '9/10' from Game Informer.
43 Comments
- ViperDaimao, on 10/12/2007, -0/+21When was the last time the UN actually enforced anything? Forget the UN and worry about your country. The UN cannot take away the soverignty of your country so for anything to happen, your country would have to pass this law.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+21There's no way there could be any enforcement to such nonsense. What are they going to do? Say that I can't publish a blog that links to mp3's and has a convenient RSS feed?
- pinto32, on 10/12/2007, -1/+19If you keep making confessions like that, you are going to end up in the Hague.
- iTorrey, on 10/12/2007, -0/+15I think it's more about selective enforcement. When governments go tyrannical they make so many laws that everyone ends up breaking at least one. Then when they want to quiet someone they selectively enforce the law.
They could do something similar with this. Don't like what you're talking about.. enforce the treaty.
Sure, it sounds hard to believe that in America or any other 'free' nation that this would happen but then again, a lot of times, the enslaved people believed they were free.
It's kind of like when you hear neo-cons on the radio saying "Just give me one instance where the patriot act was used on an innocent person". Even if there weren't any (and there have been) it wouldn't matter. Being able to speak doesn't mean you are free. Being free from persecution from the government when you speak does. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+15The UN can't even make sure that members of it are following the rules that it makes, and in some cases, it doesn't even want to enforce its own rules. This is nothing to worry about. The UN is a joke.
- mcflynnthm, on 10/12/2007, -0/+12Why does it always seem like laws/policies are being written by people who couldn't turn on a computer without their grandkid's help?
- Dradis, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9Agreed. The UN is a joke in many ways (unfortunately) however, I would say this is sets a potentially very negative precident. The last thing we want is for the RIAA to start using this as media-fodder.. cue the "87 Year old great-grandmother violates an international UN treaty" lawsuits. Ugh.
- canadianguy33, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9I don't know if I'd dismiss this so quickly. It's hard to say what impact something such as this could have.
- ianweir, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9...And there goes all my respect for the UN.
It's United Nations, their priority should be the well-being of the people living in all member states, not the well being of mega-corporations. - retral, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9Yay for communism.
Seriously though, I think some sort of internet prohibition is going to happen some day, and geeks are going to uproar, Al Capone style. They do say history repeats itself. - AeonTorpor, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9Hey, I have a great idea, instead of Tyrannical laws being broken, why don't we stop our Tyrannical leader from breaking our laws?
- gab00n, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7The NWO is getting closer, a global dictatorship will soon be upon us.
- deeblite, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Because they are, more often than not?
- tommythetomcat, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Pro wrestling is more frightening that the United Nations... honestly.
- kingygk, on 10/12/2007, -6/+10The UN sucks!! Just like the RIAA and MPAA all three are against the people !!!
- yuriko, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6This is absolutely ridiculous! The UN (set up in 1945 to prevent anything like the dictatorship of Nazi Germany happening again) is ruled (by veto rights) by the US and UK. This US Gov't once again tries to bully it's way and enforce it's sovereignty over the web. The only platform which is the closest thing to a democracy ever seen - which is border-less (or becoming so) and is one of the only platforms for free speech (in some countries, and if not by anonymity). How hubristic and obnoxious of such a broadcast policy. Giving the US what it wants alright. Fear of lost revenues driving large corporations (who support the US govt who in turn rule the UN votes and policies through a very undemocratic Constitution) to try to protect big business (countries) again at the expense of emerging countries. History repeats itself again. The IMF / World Bank and UN collectively protecting the interests of the US have crippled the economies of South American countires (e.g. Argentina), countless African nations and caused the Asian Tiger crisis. Not satisfied with all these continents (ain't much to get from Antarctica 'cause any oil reserves are protected) now to the virtual continent of the web they go! Unbelievable!
- nox327, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3UN, what a joke. They couldn't even agree to stop the war in Bosnia from 92-95, where it killed hundreds of thousands of people. How hard is it to decide on something that is killing people. Now they are talking about this, it is not like they don't have other more important things to deal with, like another genocide that is happening right now in Sudan. How about working on that, and stop screwing with the internet.
- smithco, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3You mean we're going to have to start running files illegally through underground tunnels in Moosejaw? That's actually kinda cool.
- jabbar, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6that's why the UN has a peace keeping corps, attempts to feed the impoverished, and works to develop vaccines against the mutating pathogens that plague much of the developing nations and soon to plague the developed world. the UN may not be the best agency in the world, but its negligent to say that the UN is against people. think before you speak.
- GuyHitByTruck, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2If the UN enforces this treaty the way they enforced the security resolutions against Iraq, we have nothing to worry about!
- aviazn, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Before we condemn the UN, take a look at what nation is behind the push:
The Chairman of this treaty committee has colluded with the US to expand this treaty to cover the Web, and to be sure that it contains a clause that will give DRM even more mandatory protection than it enjoys today. As the committee reconvened today, the Chairman revealed that he'd gone even further in giving the US what it wants, at the expense of the will of the rest of the world, particularly developing nations like Brazil. - TheNino85, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1If this article was entitled "US Cooking Podcast-Killing Bill", we'd have 500 people screaming about how evil Bush is. Funny how few people are commenting on this article, when the UN is made out to the enemy of the Internet. I guess I shouldn't have expected anything less from Digg.
- banter, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1This may be part of their plan to implement this wacky idea for a WIPO broadcasting system . . .
http://www.wipo.int/edocs/mdocs/scit/en/scit_wg_1/scit_wg_1_www_31812.pdf (PDF alert!!)
http://www.wipo.int/documents/en/meetings/1999/sccr_99/sccr2_6.htm
lame. - monsieurgrand02, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2What the hell is the UN going to do?? Send its peace troops as enforcement?
This would definitely have to top the charts as rediculous and hilarious. But the UN has to make it seem like the stuff they do is important. So I suppose this would count. - pvaculin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Everyone here is pointing out that the UN can't enforce anything. This is true! However, the ramifications of this treaty are purely economic. So, if I am trading goods with a UN member country the US government or any other government could require treaty compliance by the other country being traded with. If there is no compliance the companies trading goods will not be able to complete the transactions. Therefore, governments will enforce the treaties by economic coercion. This is how the treaties are enforced. If the US wants stronger DRM and enforces the treaty, all of our trading partners will have to comply if they want goods from the US and vice versa.
- lancebaldwin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Except the US and UK militaries. And three or four people from Australia.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Are you really that dumb or are you just kidding? International treaties are being enforced by your local government in the U.S. of A. or elsewhere - no blue helmets, dude. That's why these treaties are called "international". That WIPO stuff isn't "soft law" or sorts, unfortunately, so every government undersigned must make sure that the treaty is going to be implemented into national laws.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -5/+6A bit like 'American Democracy' then?
- The42, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Would someone please explain to me precisely what it is this treaty would DO? The article and EFF sort of gave me the impression that the UN was trying to make it illegal to record your own (audio/video) and put it on the web, but I figure I must have missed something here...
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -4/+4No, the UN is just anti-america!
So long as you're not american the UN likes you. - CarzorStelatis, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Nobody except the US will sign up to this crap, so it's not a threat. Treaties with one signatory are not real treaties.
- rjnagle, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1I suspect this is an important issue, but the BoingBoing article really didn't provide any details or context other than use inflammatory language (" has colluded with the US," "the most deadly enemies the Internet has,"). Even the previous Doctorow articles linked to within the article don't really give a straightforward account of what's going on. I'm just as much a zealot on copyright reform as Doctorow, and yet I don't think the issues are as black and white as Doctorow portrays them. (perhaps some other commenter can link to a better analysis than this one). Undigg.
- Attu012, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1What they are going to do is force the providers (google, yahoo, my space....) to comply if they want to do business in the countries that have signed the treaty.
- xtremdav45, on 10/12/2007, -5/+4Ugh, the UN is a joke.
First they put Iran on the UN Disarmament Council, then this? - beoswulf, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2If the UN wants the bill to pass, they'll attach it to a resolution against Israel or USA.
If they want the bill to fail they'll attach it to any bill that is leads to action being taken to stop genocide in the Sudan.
It makes me nervous that the UN, controlled by largely devoloping nations that don't even have free speech get to set this policy. - drinequality, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0Do something or shut up! Write to them and complain.
Find an email address on the web site (yeah, I know it's hard). - canadianguy33, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2Excellent point. Anything that helps the RIAA evil.
- rebrad, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2***** the UN! Who would sign any treaty that these bunch of back door money skimming pedophiles would create?
- jpfinch, on 10/12/2007, -7/+3Cory Doctorow posted it on BoingBoing = it must be imminent
(end sarcasm) - hashkaran, on 10/12/2007, -8/+3what?
- hashkaran, on 10/12/2007, -8/+2what's happening to digg?
Haven't seen so many lame stories on front page at once. - final_sound, on 10/12/2007, -10/+3hi melissa, have fun at work!
- BloodJunkie, on 10/12/2007, -13/+1dupe: http://digg.com/technology/United_Nations_Cooking_Podcast-Killing_Treaty
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is