from lifesite.net:
"The UN has no respect for the sovereignty of nations regarding its dearly held ideological positions on life and family and thus will have little concern for businesses, organizations and individuals which contravene UN orthodoxy."

Wow. That is just too fucking rich.

Not that I don't disagree that specific control mechanisms forced onto the member countries are bad, but are we really certain what exactly is being discussed here? To take one example, if anyone remember the echelon- case France filed some years ago? Very little evidence exists to prove the Echelon network's existence, of course, but it raises a few interesting questions. For instance it would be - this every programmer most likely knows - very easy to intercept information from for instance a specific country, or a specific region or adress and then make sure that it would be possible to piece the information together again, specially if there are specific nodes everything must go through in order to reach it's destination. Usually, we don't really consider this a security risk, because every ip- package does not travel through the same sets of servers every time, and so it would be much easier to intercept such info actually anywhere else than on the routers. But given that there would be a possibility to place a few strategic intercepters, I would say it would be perfectly possible to pick out info like this. In the case of the French trial, it was alleged that the network had been used for industrial espionage, and of course without actually breaking into anywhere. It's stuff like this - structural and security concerns, standards and so on, that is the main course on the banquet at the UN meeting. Just so you know.