some national regulators that want to exert more control domestically could be empowered under domestic law or politics if their regulatory aims find support in the ITRs. As a matter of sovereignty, neither amendment nor non-amendment of ITRs would prevent nations from regulating within their borders to promote their vision of the Internet. But given the domestic and legal situation in some nations, the ITRs might enhance domestic regulatory power in those nations by providing political or legal cover or support for such regulation. And any such domestic regulations could impact other nations to the extent that they enhanced (or weakened) the nation’s power to regulate content, pricing, surveillance, and security on the Internet. To take a simple example, if amendments to ITRs empower a regulator in Mongolia to charge Google or Facebook for transmission of its services in Mongolia (which currently does not happen), the ITRs could indirectly harm U.S. economic and political interests.
And you should be really pissed off and freaked out about it.
ioerror: "international bodies should be working to improve the global state of the world and not standardizing a bunch of often illegal spying activity."
« Older The Bloop is a mysterious recurring sound in the w... | Yesterday, the New York Post p... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
Buy a Shirt