United Nations wants control of web kill switch

By: Paola Totaro, Claire Connelly. From: News Limited Network, November 12, 2012

AN unfettered internet, free of political control and available to everyone could be relegated to cyber-history under a contentious proposal by a little known United Nations body.

 Experts claim that Australians could see political and religious websites disappear if the Federal Government backs a plan to hand control over the internet to the UN's International Telecommunications Union (ITU). A draft of the proposal, formulated in secret and only recently posted on the ITU website for public perusal, reveal that if accepted, the changes would allow government restriction or blocking of information disseminated via the internet and create a global regime of monitoring internet communications - including the demand that those who send and receive information identify themselves. It would also allow governments to shut down the internet if there is the belief that it may interfere in the internal affairs of other states or that information of a sensitive nature might be shared.

Telecommunications ministers from 193 countries will meet behind closed doors in Dubai next month to discuss the proposal, with Australia's Senator Stephen Conroy among them. The move has sparked a ferocious, under-the-radar diplomatic war between a powerful bloc of nations, led by China and Russia, who want to exert greater controls on the net and western democracies determined to preserve the free-wheeling, open architecture of the World Wide Web. The battle for control has also seen a cartel of telco corporations join forces to support amended pricing regulations changes which critics warn will pave the way for significant increases in the cost of day-to-day internet use, including email and social media. While Senator Conroy said this morning he would not be supporting any changes to the current arrangements, the decisions made by other powers could also have a huge impact on Australian web users.

Simon Breheny, Director of independent think-tank, The Legal Rights Project, told News Ltd that Australia would end up with a "lowest-common-denominator situation" whereby what Australians could view on the internet could be controlled by dominant member countries. "If we sign it, it will mean we won't have the freedoms we have no regarding commerce and sharing of ideas," he said. "That's the greatest concern - rather than going beyond commerce, it comes into the field of sharing political and religious ideas."

In a show of unity, civil rights groups, big communications corporations including Google and international labour unions are to meet in London today to launch a global campaign and petition titled Stop the Net Grab. Led by the International Trade Union Confederation, it will appeal to the UN and ITU itself to immediately open the plan for global debate and demanding a delay of any decision until all stakeholders - not just governments are given a voice.

Two influential Australians are at the centre of the move - Dr Paul Twomey and Sharran Burrow. They will be joined to launch the campaign by Vinton Cerf, one of the fathers of the internet and now chief Google evangelist. Ms Burrow, the General Secretary of the International Trade Union Confederation, warned urgent global action is now needed as the "internet as we know it" comes under very real threat. "Unless we act now, our right to freely communicate and share information could change forever. A group of big telecommunications corporations have joined with countries including China, Egypt and Saudi Arabia that already impose heavy restriction on internet freedoms," she said. "So far, the proposal has flown under the radar but its implications are extremely serious. Governments  and big companies the world over  may end up with the right not only to restrict the internet and monitor everything you do online but to charge users for services such as email and Skype."

Dr Twomey is former CEO of the International Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, the US body that governs domain names and addresses, and the Australian Government's National Office for the Information Economy. He warned that as the internet enters its third decade in mass use, the need to defend its founding open model is more urgent than ever. "The ongoing disputes about control have also been compounded by concern in national security and political elites in the wake of recent events such as the Arab Spring and London Riots where social media were key tools," he said. "And there is the accelerating pace of cyber espionage, targeting North American and other developed countries intellectual property as well as the global rise of hacktivism.”The danger is that there is now a growing likelihood of the interests of more traditional forces for Internet control overlapping with, and even seeking further to align with, national security and law enforcement agenda."

Read more: http://www.news.com.au/technology/united-nations-wants-control-of-web-kill-switch/story-e6frfro0-1226515006898#ixzz2By1zScCg

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-11-12/internet-ownership/4366508

Leveson inquiry: bring in new law to curb press excesses, Tories urge PM'

By Patrick Wintour, political editor, The Guardian, Thursday 8 November 2012

Four former cabinet ministers among Conservatives who say newspaper industry cannot continue to be entirely self-regulated

An influential group of mainstream Tories, including four former cabinet ministers, have opened the door to a limited form of statutory press regulation, warning that proposals being put forward by the newspaper industry "risk being an unstable model destined to fail". The letter, published in the Guardian and signed by 42 MP's and two peers, signals a potential shift in the politics of media regulation because it is the first suggestion that the Conservative party is not going to respond to the Leveson inquiry with a monolithic opposition to legal regulation of the industry. Lord Justice Leveson is due to publish the inquiry's findings at the end of this month and ferocious lobbying of No 10 is under way from both sides in the argument. The signatories believe their letter may show Downing Street that a cross party consensus on media reform is possible at Westminster. 

"No one wants our media controlled by the government but, to be credible, any new regulator must be independent of the press as well as from politicians," the letter says. "We are concerned that the current proposal put forward by the newspaper industry would lack independence and risks being an unstable model destined to fail, like previous initiatives over the past 60 years ".

Labour and the Liberal Democrats are likely to support Leveson if he suggests the newspaper industry cannot continue to be entirely self-regulated. The letter suggests that David Cameron has greater room for political manoeuvre at Westminster than thought. Senior cabinet ministers, including the education secretary Michael Gove and the communities secretary Eric Pickles, oppose any form of state-backed regulation of the press. George Osborne, the chancellor, is also reluctant to see any state intervention.

Cameron has been trying to keep his options open, saying the status quo is not an option and any new formula has to be justifiable to the victims of phone hacking. But he is under pressure to support a newspaper industry proposal that would preserve self-regulation and rely on legally enforceable contracts to bind publishers to the system, including the possibility of fines. Similar pressure has been applied to the Labour leader, Ed Miliband, but it is understood he still stands by the evidence he gave to the Leveson inquiry.

Signatories to the Conservative letter include the former foreign secretary Sir Malcolm Rifkind, two former party chairmen Caroline Spelman and Lord Fowler, as well as the former chief whip Lord Ryder. It is also supported by a range of Conservative backbench opinion from right-wingers such as Gerald Howarth, Jesse Norman and Robert Buckland, a joint secretary of the 1922 backbench committee. Supporters also include Cameron's former press secretary George Eustice, Zac Goldsmith, Andrea Leadsom, Nicholas Soames, and Gavin Barwell, the parliamentary aide to Gove.

The aim of the letter, according to one of the instigators, is to break what is described as the siege of Downing Street by the newspaper industry, and forge a safe passage for the prime minister so he can engage with the Leveson inquiry recommendations. It was being emphasised that the letter was not prescriptive, but an attempt to change the tone of the debate, so it is not dominated by the press or by campaigners against Rupert Murdoch. The signatories say they "agree with the prime minister that obsessive argument about the principle of statutory regulation can cloud the debate". However, they add that forms of statutory regulation in broadcasting and sensitive professions such as the law have proved workable.

They write: "We should keep some perspective - the introduction of the Legal Services Board in statute has not compromised the independence of the legal profession. The Jimmy Savile scandal was exposed by ITV and the Winterbourne View care home scandal was exposed by the BBC, both of whom are regulated by the Broadcasting Act.

While no one is suggesting similar laws for newspapers, it is not credible to suggest that broadcasters such as Sky News, ITV or the BBC have their agendas dictated by the government of the day."

They call for greater clarity about a future public interest test for the publication of stories. The "worst excesses of the press have stemmed from the fact that the public interest test has been too elastic and too often has meant what editors wanted it to mean. To protect both robust journalism and the public, it is now essential to establish a single standard for assessing the public interest test which can be applied independently and consistently".

The instigators of the letter stressed they were not acting with the covert agreement of No 10, although officials are now aware of the move. One source said: "As Conservatives, we are reluctant regulators and we firmly believe in a free press, and want to help newspapers survive, but they have to meet us half way. Their refusal to countenance any kind of statutory change to raise standards is no longer acceptable to the Conservative party."

The source said they could incorporate some of the proposals put forward by the industry, led by Lord Hunt and Lord Black, the peers behind proposals for a beefed-up Press Complaints Commission. One source said the mood in the party had hardened in recent months claiming what he described as "the drip, drip of press stories intended to undermine Lord Leveson's inquiry have not gone down well among some MPs".

Apart from the merits of a form of statutory underpinning to independent regulation, it was also being suggested that Cameron might find himself in the uncomfortable position of defending a newspaper industry at a time when difficult revelations emerge in court cases. A legislative slot has been reserved for the next parliament, but it is also possible that Leveson will be asked to give evidence to the culture select committee once his report is published. It also emerged that Fowler is to set up an all-party media parliamentary group probably with former newspaper proprietor Lord Hollick.

the letter in support of some statutory regulation