Un To Tackle Spam

[Biggles]

The UN is to lead a world standardisation into anti spam laws to make cracking down on spam easier and more effective.




I can see J2 doing the Ren and Stimpy Happy Happy Joy Joy dance already. :ph34r:

[BigBank_Hank]

I’m glad to see that with all the problems worldwide and the ongoing scandal the UN has decided to tackle the tuff issue of spam. So nice to see that they are always willing to take on the most difficult of tasks.

[Biggles]

I should really have put the link in.

Apologies!


UN spam link (http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040706/ap_on_hi_te/un_spam_summit_1)

[Rat Faced]

Originally posted by BigBank_Hank@6 July 2004 - 20:10
I’m glad to see that with all the problems worldwide and the ongoing scandal the UN has decided to tackle the tuff issue of spam. So nice to see that they are always willing to take on the most difficult of tasks.
I take it that this is the view you hold of your Government too?

Just like different departments of Government, different Agencies of the UN do different things...

You cant attack a whole Government because one small Dept/Agencie's job isnt earthshattering.... because that is the majority of the work, the mundane stuff.

[j2k4]

I shant make a joke about the U.N. being perfectly matched to the task; I look forward to a short barrage of anti-spam resolutions, followed by quick withering of effort, as the powers-that-be discover their "cow" cannot be milked.*

*Soon to released as a large-screen epic, from Oil-For-Food Productions: In Search Of Utter And Eternal Fecklessness: The Story Of The United Nations

[lynx]

No doubt the US will veto it anyway.

[j2k4]

Originally posted by lynx@7 July 2004 - 20:43
No doubt the US will veto it anyway.
I doubt it.

The U.S. at this point would, I'm sure, allow the U.N. every opportunity to enhance it's reputation as a paradigm of incompetence.

To paraphrase: "We shan't stay the U.N. from it's appointed rounds"

EDIT: BTW, lynx-your role has been cast. :)

[{SHELL%SHOCKED}]

Got to tax it first to fund this war on spam. :angry:

[Rat Faced]

I doubt the USA will ratify it, they are afterall the only country in the world that didnt ratify the Convention on the Rights of Children... (except Somalia, which had no recognised Government at the time but is the process of ratifying it now I believe)...

Even nasty Sadam and those bastions of evil in Iran and North Korea ratified that one...

:-"







(Some countries break them...but at least they acknowledge those Rights)


:ph34r:


Edit:

Actually, now i've brought it up.....

Can someone tell me which of the Rights of Children, the US Government objects to so fundamentaly that they wont Ratify the Convention?

They are, for those that dont know:


Protection from violence, abuse, hazardous employment, exploitation, abduction or sale.

Special protection in times of war and no child under 15 should ever have to fight in an army.

Protection from disease and famine.

Free compulsory primary education.

Adequate health care.

Equal treatment regardless of gender, race or cultural background.

Freedom to express opinions and be listened to.

Play.

[{SHELL%SHOCKED}]

Originally posted by Rat Faced@8 July 2004 - 17:18
I doubt the USA will ratify it, they are afterall the only country in the world that didnt ratify the Convention on the Rights of Children... (except Somalia, which had no recognised Government at the time but is the process of ratifying it now I believe)...

Even nasty Sadam and those bastions of evil in Iran and North Korea ratified that one...

:-"







(Some countries break them...but at least they acknowledge those Rights)


:ph34r:


Edit:

Actually, now i've brought it up.....

Can someone tell me which of the Rights of Children, the US Government objects to so fundamentaly that they wont Ratify the Convention?

They are, for those that dont know:


Protection from violence, abuse, hazardous employment, exploitation, abduction or sale.

Special protection in times of war and no child under 15 should ever have to fight in an army.

Protection from disease and famine.

Free compulsory primary education.

Adequate health care.

Equal treatment regardless of gender, race or cultural background.

Freedom to express opinions and be listened to.

Play.

You can thank Michael Jackson for that.

[vidcc]

The usa already has protections for children even if the occasion arises where the system fails so although it is astonishing that we haven't ratified the convention it doesn't mean that we abuse the human rights of children.




Originally posted by Rat Faced@8 July 2004 - 10:18

Protection from violence, abuse, hazardous employment, exploitation, abduction or sale.

Special protection in times of war and no child under 15 should ever have to fight in an army.

Protection from disease and famine.

Free compulsory primary education.

Adequate health care.

Equal treatment regardless of gender, race or cultural background.

Freedom to express opinions and be listened to.

Play.

source (http://www.hrw.org/press/2002/05/unchildrenqa0502.htm)



The stance of the United States towards the central issue of the rights of children is of grave concern. During these negotiations, the United States has consistently sought to eliminate or minimize references to the Convention on the Rights of the Child in the Declaration and Plan of Action, and has refused to accept language that refers to the Convention as the primary international standard for the promotion and protection of children's rights. The U.S. has also sought to remove references to the "rights" of children, in favor of language supporting the "well-being" of children.

The United States has also tried to roll back international agreements to provide adolescents with sexual and reproductive health education and services. It has opposed the inclusion of the word "services" related to sexual and reproductive health programs, arguing that the word is code for "abortion."



Q: Why hasn't the United States ratified the Convention?

A: Some critics in the United States have lobbied heavily against ratification of the convention, claiming that the convention will undermine parental authority, interfere with parents' ability to raise and discipline their children, and will elevate the rights of children above the rights of parents. In reality, the convention repeatedly refers to the importance of the parent-child relationship, and requires governments to respect the rights and duties of parents.

The most significant contradiction between the convention and U.S. law and practice is in relation to the death penalty. The Convention on the Rights of the Child prohibits the use of the death penalty for offenses committed before the age of eighteen. However, twenty-two U.S. states allow executions of juvenile offenders, and currently there are eighty-two juvenile offenders on death row in the United States. In the last five years, nine executions of juvenile offenders were carried out in the United States, and two more are scheduled in the next month. The Democratic Republic of Congo and Iran are the only other states to have carried out such executions in the last three years.

During the negotiations for the Special Session, the European Union, supported by numerous other governments, sought the inclusion of language prohibiting the use of the death penalty or life imprisonment without parole for crimes committed by children. The United States, joined only by Iran, rejected the proposal.


Q: Does the US have any other problems with the Convention?

A: Traditionally, the United States has recognized civil and political rights (such as the rights to expression, assembly and due process), but not economic, social and cultural rights (such as the right to education, health care and an adequate standard of living). The convention includes both. Also, the United States also argues that many of the issues addressed by the Convention on the Rights of the Child lie primarily within the jurisdiction of the states, rather than the federal government. For example, in the United States, individual states are responsible for education, and for setting laws related to the administration of juvenile justice.

Federalism in the U.S. should not be a bar to ratifying the Convention. Other countries with federal systems have ratified the Convention, including Brazil, Germany and Mexico. The U.S. may also adopt a reservation or understanding to address this issue, and in fact, has done so in the past in relation to other international treaties, such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).



It isn't because the US doesn't believe in human rights for children rather it is a case of "We are the USA..the greatest nation on earth... and we WILL NOT be told how to run our lives by anyone else.
I would like to point out that in general there is, certainly at state level, action to favour the well being of children even if it sometimes doesn't achieve the nirvana it would like. In my state for example the state will under certain criteria pay for one parent to stay home to raise the children instead of having to both work.


During the negotiations for the Special Session, the European Union, supported by numerous other governments, sought the inclusion of language prohibiting the use of the death penalty or life imprisonment without parole for crimes committed by children. The United States, joined only by Iran, rejected the proposal

Ok now i don't defend the US stance here however i would like to point to the case of the jamie Bulger killers and the reaction to their release in the UK as a possible guide to the USAs way of thinking.


I do think the convention is a good thing and i would like the USA to not only sign up but strictly comply as well, but this being the USA one has to take into consideration of the monetary costs involved as pointed out in the quote...shame on us :angry:

Traditionally, the United States has recognized civil and political rights (such as the rights to expression, assembly and due process), but not economic, social and cultural rights (such as the right to education, health care and an adequate standard of living). The convention includes both.

Edit: rat perhaps this should have had its own thread

[J'Pol]

More important than any of this.

What is your new Avatar RF.

[Biggles]

What ever it is, it is better than the somewhat disturbing predecessor.

[J'Pol]

Originally posted by Biggles@8 July 2004 - 21:57
What ever it is, it is better than the somewhat disturbing predecessor.
It's perhaps the predecessor I was talking about.

A young couple courting if I'm not mistaken. Can we identify the competitors in said picture.

[lynx]

Originally posted by j2k4+8 July 2004 - 01:59--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (j2k4 @ 8 July 2004 - 01:59)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-lynx@7 July 2004 - 20:43
No doubt the US will veto it anyway.
I doubt it.

The U.S. at this point would, I&#39;m sure, allow the U.N. every opportunity to enhance it&#39;s reputation as a paradigm of incompetence.

To paraphrase: "We shan&#39;t stay the U.N. from it&#39;s appointed rounds"

EDIT: BTW, lynx-your role has been cast. :) [/b][/quote]
The majority of spam reportedly originates in the U.S., and obviously makes money for the originators.

It would seem logical that the current administration would see an attempt to get rid of spam as an attack on U.S. businesses. Perhaps they would not be able to veto it, but they would probably claim that U.S. businesses were immune from prosecution.

I wonder if being bombarded by excessive amounts of spam could be classified as cruel and unusual punishment, or possibly even torture? <_<

[mogadishu]

aren&#39;t people starving in africa? I&#39;ll spend 30 seconds deleting 5 emails if it means a kid gets to live another day.

[j2k4]

Originally posted by lynx@8 July 2004 - 16:46
The majority of spam reportedly originates in the U.S., and obviously makes money for the originators.

It would seem logical that the current administration would see an attempt to get rid of spam as an attack on U.S. businesses. Perhaps they would not be able to veto it, but they would probably claim that U.S. businesses were immune from prosecution.


Now that is a truly novel brand of cynicism, lynx; even I hadn&#39;t managed to see it from that direction.

Even though you deserve kudos for your approach, I don&#39;t think the Republicans would react as you say, though, if it could be done behind closed doors,the Dems would, but only for a substantial "soft" contribution. ;)

[clocker]

Gee whiz, j2, it&#39;s great news to hear that the Republicans are above such shenanigans.
Oh, wait....there is the matter of Thomas Scully (http://www.citizen.org/congress/govt_reform/ethics/scully/index.cfm) who, it appears, intentially deceived Congress about the real costs of the White House&#39;s Medicare bill and then went to work as a lobbyist for pharmaceutical companies, but hey, we&#39;ll spot you that one okay?
I suppose that because there were no "closed doors" involved we&#39;re talking apples and oranges anyway.

[vidcc]

Originally posted by clocker@8 July 2004 - 19:33
Gee whiz, j2, it&#39;s great news to hear that the Republicans are above such shenanigans.
Oh, wait....there is the matter of Thomas Scully (http://www.citizen.org/congress/govt_reform/ethics/scully/index.cfm) who, it appears, intentially deceived Congress about the real costs of the White House&#39;s Medicare bill and then went to work as a lobbyist for pharmaceutical companies, but hey, we&#39;ll spot you that one okay?
I suppose that because there were no "closed doors" involved we&#39;re talking apples and oranges anyway.
So as not to be thought of as taking sides here i think we can take it as read that some politicians no matter what leaning or even what nation will be self serving, but i do understand it was in rebuttal of a comment that you chose to raise the person in question.
Sometimes i wonder if the wish to be voted into political life should be the criteria for exclusion <_<

[lynx]

Originally posted by vidcc@9 July 2004 - 02:47
Sometimes i wonder if the wish to be voted into political life should be the criteria for exclusion <_<
Kinda like wanting to be a mod?

On no, could it be? The mods are really politicians?

Could explain a whole lot about RF. :lol:

[Ariel_001]

I don’t like the idea of government regulating the internet like that.

I think it would be a better idea if a more secure protocol was just developed. The only problem would be to have everyone use a new protocol.

[j2k4]

Originally posted by clocker@8 July 2004 - 21:33
Gee whiz, j2, it&#39;s great news to hear that the Republicans are above such shenanigans.
Oh, wait....there is the matter of Thomas Scully (http://www.citizen.org/congress/govt_reform/ethics/scully/index.cfm) who, it appears, intentially deceived Congress about the real costs of the White House&#39;s Medicare bill and then went to work as a lobbyist for pharmaceutical companies, but hey, we&#39;ll spot you that one okay?
I suppose that because there were no "closed doors" involved we&#39;re talking apples and oranges anyway.
Well, the subject was cynicism..... :lol: