un.org · Domains · Slashdot Mirror

Re:Even if I could write this program i wouldn't.. by Anonymous Coward · 2001-08-05 05:17 · Score: 0 · on Rules-Unknown Artificial Intelligence Competition

I think you need to read some UN resolution which directly condemn israel for taking palestinian land...

One of a hundred resolutions here

There are hundreds more. The original poster is most likely claiming what the rest of the world and the United Nations all know and believe. How was Israel created in your opinion? The land was empty and they walked in? Lets hear it so we can all point you to the historical documents you need to read so that you understand that Israel not only invaded the land but they murdered for it.

Re:Great message by shokk · 2001-07-29 00:21 · Score: 2 · on Review: Planet of the Apes

As if we needed another intelligent species on the planet for human slavery to exist on this planet. Think the message that "slavery is evil" is quaint in the 21st century? It still exists, meaning some still don't get it .

Needs to go through ISO by cperciva · 2001-06-28 11:48 · Score: 2 · on .Eu TLD to be Created?

IANA has stated a number of times that it is not in the business of deciding what is or is not a country. Instead, they use the ISO 3166 standard to decide when they create new ccTLDs.

Reading the rules for adding a name to the ISO-3166 standard you'll see that the only way that .eu would be created as a ccTLD would be if the UN added the EU to its list of "standard country codes".

Is the UN likely to recognize the EU as a nation any time soon? No. Is there likely to be a .eu ccTLD any time soon? No.

Re:Missing the point? by gerddie · 2001-06-05 18:13 · Score: 1 · on Does Defamation Know Borders?

Freedom of Speech should be blind

Freedom of speech is article 19 of the declaration of human rights. IHMO it should not be blind to the first eighteen articles, and especially not to the first one: All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.

Racists usally forget about that one while claiming freedom of speech for themselfs.

BTW: DeCSS does not violate a human right.

Re:What's the big deal? by Jimmy_B · 2001-04-17 00:38 · Score: 3 · on How Corporate Lobbyists Colonized the Net

The arguments that 7days makes come up frequently, so I will address them in general.

What crap. People seem to think that once I have created something, you have the right to do what the hell you like with it.

Be able to do "what the hell you like with it" is obviously overbroad. What is in dispute, however, is:
1)the right to make copies for fair-use purposes including backup, transportation, and consumption, but not for the purposes of sale or exchange
2)the right to fair quote passages in research and criticism
3)the right to sell an originally purchased copy, provided it is sold in whole and no duplication of it has occured prior
4)the right to act as a carrier for content which you do not regulate
5)the to the use of ideas in research and science
6)the right to possess tools which facilitate the exercising of these rights, in cases where such tools could also be used to do things that are not protected by fair use.

Of these, in particular (1), (4), and (6) have come directly under attack, and as a consequence of this, technical means are being removed to exercise the others. I will adress the concerns regarding these three directly.

Now, as far as what constitutes a "right", I am going to take the U.N. Universal Declaration of Human Rights as an authorative source. The most relevant passages are quoted below.

Article 19.
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

Article 27.
(1) Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits.
(2) Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author.

Article 28.
Everyone is entitled to a social and international order in which the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration can be fully realized.

Article 27(2) is the only thing in the U.N. Declaration which grants authors control over their work. Now, right #1 stated above is protected by Article 27(1). Right 6, established in the oft-quoted Betamax case, would seem to be protected by article 28, because without it other rights could not be realized. Right 4 is similar, and falls under the same protection.

Once I've created something, surely I am the only person who gets to decide what happens to it? You wouldn't say you have the right to do what you want with cookies I had baked, so why do you think that with my *intellectual* property?

There's a crucial difference. Your *intellectual* property is things that you have made public (since we are not talking about trade secrets here), so a better analogy would be, we have the right to do what we want with cookies *you have sold*, including figuring out the recipe (reverse-engineering), and reselling. Your other examples (locks and gaurds) are similarly flawed.
------------------
A picture is worth 500 DWORDS.

Re:Some Question to think about. by susano_otter · 2001-03-19 06:38 · Score: 2 · on Customs Forms for Moon Rocks

Dude, calm down. Isn't it much more likely that this reflects no policy, only random bureaucratic confusion? Chances are some relatively minor functionary brough up the customs question, nobody had any idea what the answer was, and some other functionary decided to have the form filled out just to cover their ass.

Besides, I'm sure the official U.S. position on "moon ownership" is already sufficiently well documented elsewhere.

Re:Sealand's History by RedWizzard · 2001-03-05 17:31 · Score: 2 · on Napster Going Offshore?

International law usually means international treaties. Specifically these days it means the sorts of things that the UN handles. See the UN's page on international law, for example. Other examples include the Warsaw Convention which you'll find mentioned on the back of most airline tickets and copyright treaties like the Berne Convention.

The thing to realise here is that Sealand doesn't need to be party to these treaties - it's what England and the U.S. are party to that counts. Which is why neither of them would be able to go in with force.

What about the Conventions on Human Rights? by Sara+Chan · 2001-02-20 07:36 · Score: 2 · on Draconian Censorship Push In South Australia

IANAL but suspect that both the SouthAustralian law and the Swedish law could be challenged as a violation of international human rights conventions. One convention that might be applicable is the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Article 19 of this Declaration reads as follows.

Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

For Sweden, there is also the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, article 10 of which reads as follows.

Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.
The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.

There are obvious escapes there for the Swedish government, but the European Court of Human Rights has been pretty strong in protecting people.

_______________________________________
Don't blame Windows--if you were a Microsoft operating system, you'd have problems too.

Re:Right.... by PyRoNeRd · 2001-02-20 05:57 · Score: 1 · on Science Fair Exhibits: Fair Game For Censorship

Freedom of expression does not apply to racist speech.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is pretty clear on that:

Article 7.

All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.

The UDHR is law in the United States as it was ratified by the US Congress and became a treaty and therefore according to the US Constitution part of the "law of the land".

Article. VI.
Clause 2:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

Criminalising hate speech is mandated by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and therefore by the United States Constitution.

This takes precedence over the Bill of Rights.

Around here you would... by KjetilK · 2001-02-17 01:18 · Score: 2 · on Legal Action Against Censorware?

IANAL, and I'm Norwegian, I figured I just post a few thoughts.

I can see that things are very different around here. For one thing, kids have formal power from the time they begin at school. From about age 12, kids elect representatives among themselves to represent them in the School Board. In some schools, these representatives may be ignored, in which case they may have a hard time being heard the way they are entitled to, but in my school, when I was in the pupils council in 7. grade, they sure listened to us.

Secondly, censorware doesn't have a good name around here. Especially in Denmark, they have a few highly clued people in high positions. Recently, the Danish Minister of Culture said she would consider a ban on censorware in public libraries! What happened is that one small public library put up censorware on their computers "to protect the children". Both the largest associations of librarians in Denmark oppose this, and the minister said she hopes the librarians will sort it out themselves, but also that she felt that the filters threatened free expression, she would interfere. She also was also cited saying that people seeking legitimate sex education would be hindered by the filters as one particular concern.... I have a link to the story in Norwegian newspaper, in Norwegian.

First, I would go to my parents and voice my concern to some of my best teachers first. For one thing, the Univerals Declaration of Human Rights states in Article 26 that parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children. Thus, the school should be careful about restricting you internet access more than what your parents say. If you find some good teachers who agree with you, preparing an argument as to why censorware is bad and illegal, is a really good school project, especially if you're preparing a lawsuit! :-) It would take an understanding of relevant laws that are beyond the curriculum, for sure...

However, I don't think a lawsuit would be your best primary move, I'd say first go for your school to drop it. Now, if you had the formal power we have, you would have a nice paved road to follow, but since you don't, I guess there are other people's advice here will be useful than mine.

Around here, I think the best way to kill censorware as a commercial product is to refer to fair trade practices regulations. It sounds to me like you don't have the same regulations like we do. For one thing, if someone advertises their product saying "our product protects your children from seeing pr0n", they would have to prove it. Of course, the censorware of today is pure snake oil, and all you would have to do is a short demonstration of that fact, and they're out. I think it would make a hell of a lawsuit here, I would consider it just for the fun of it.... :-)

Since you don't have a paved road in this case either, would have to work hard to get someone in power to understand that censorware is snake oil, and that it is not only that current block lists are poor, it's that any AI based software just can't work, it will remain snake oil for all foreseeable future. If you are able to get them to understand that, I think you've come a long way.

It's good that you're going to take up a fight! There are probably many who are suffering from these filters but who are not as intelligent, enlightened and resourceful as you, and who are not able to take up the fight. So go get 'em! :-)

Re:First China, now USA by PyRoNeRd · 2001-02-14 04:05 · Score: 1 · on China Prosecuting Webmaster Over Site

I strongly agree with your statements.

Freedom from discrimination is an important human right as guaranteerd in the UN Declaration of Human Rights. Article 1 and 7 of the UNDHR guarantee this right. Freedom of opinion is covered by Article 19. Article 30 states clearly "Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.". This clarifies that the rights guaranteed by the UNDHR cannot be abused to deny others rights. Therefore freedom of opinion may not be abused to discriminate others.

Anti-discrimination trumps freedom of speech. The US should follow the rest of the world and establish strong anti-discrimination laws that will make sure fascists, racists, Nazi's and white supremacists won't have a safe haven anywhere.

United Nations Declaration of Human Rights

Re:Just like the high seas by pubudu · 2001-02-11 03:22 · Score: 2 · on DVDs On The International Space Station

It would actually be very interesting if space were like the high seas: there is no accepted law of the high seas. The UN Convention on the Law of the Sea has been neither signed nor later ratified by Albania, Armenia, Ecuador, Eritrea, Israel, Latvia, Lithuania, Peru, Syria, Turkey, the United States, or Venezuela (or by several others, for that matter). The United Kingdom did not give its Accesion (still not a ratification) until 1997, and even then only with reservations.

So basically, if the laws of space were like the laws of the sea, everyone would agree that there is a law, but would argue about what that law is. The Open Skies Treaty has not entered into force yet, and in any case would only apply from Vancouver to Vladivostok, excluding the Pacific Ocean. The US may not recognize any claims of sovereignty beyond the planet, but whoever claims that sovereignty certainly will.

Re:Just like the high seas by pubudu · 2001-02-11 03:22 · Score: 2 · on DVDs On The International Space Station

It would actually be very interesting if space were like the high seas: there is no accepted law of the high seas. The UN Convention on the Law of the Sea has been neither signed nor later ratified by Albania, Armenia, Ecuador, Eritrea, Israel, Latvia, Lithuania, Peru, Syria, Turkey, the United States, or Venezuela (or by several others, for that matter). The United Kingdom did not give its Accesion (still not a ratification) until 1997, and even then only with reservations.

So basically, if the laws of space were like the laws of the sea, everyone would agree that there is a law, but would argue about what that law is. The Open Skies Treaty has not entered into force yet, and in any case would only apply from Vancouver to Vladivostok, excluding the Pacific Ocean. The US may not recognize any claims of sovereignty beyond the planet, but whoever claims that sovereignty certainly will.

Re:Free Speech Maybe? by amward · 2001-02-08 02:08 · Score: 1 · on Can Companies Control What You Say After You Leave?

Having a job is a _privilage_, not a right.

Actually, according to the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 23, "Everyone has the right to work...and to protection against unemployment."

This is further developed in Part III of the UN International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.

Andrew

Take them to Haag by KjetilK · 2001-01-24 04:16 · Score: 2 · on FCC Seeks Comment on Internet Filtering Rules

If this is correct, it is a blatant violation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 26:

(3) Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.

If you as a parent is denied this right, drag them to Haag.

While I'm not that opposed to general idea of Censorware, I'm very opposed to current implementations, and I would reserve the right to teach my kids (I don't have any yet) to crack the filters, or put up a proxy for them so that they can surf unhindered anywhere.

Also, it is worth pointing out that any rule-based filter is snake oil.

Re:Given? by mazur · 2001-01-12 07:36 · Score: 1 · on ICANN, new TLDs, and Congress?

Yes, perhaps you are correct that America should now give up control of the non nation specific TLDs, but how would decisions get made then? The UN is not exactly a model of efficiency (and even the UN has a small security council that wields most of the effective power).

There is probably no governing body in the world that is "a model of efficiency", so that's hardly an argument unless you know something better. Fact is, the US have been declaiming themselves the one true democracy in the world, and leader of all nations, at the same time balking at paying their agreed financial contribution needed to uphold the UN. But I should return to the matter at hand. Yes, the US started the internet, the first true democracy since the ancient Greeks thought of the concept, and now their baby had grown to a faltering maturity, they should relinquish their inclination to control it beyond their borders. As every other nation in the world. The UN, or another independent global institution, should conduct a research of law globally, including every nation and minority therein, and construct an international Law, hopefully with the Declaration of Human Rights as a constitution. There should be a court, widely recognised, with judges not appointed by any government, but apolitically, like the International Court in the Hague, to adjudicate, and we're getting closer to the basics of a world government. But of course most governments won't want to give up their own powers, as we can see in the lamentable struggles towards an European Union, and the fears of the US to recognise the International Court.

But to the point: the internet has outgrown the US, and if it was still 1990, or so, control would easily be distributed amongst those deserving, and with the current knowledge, the TLDs, that aren't country based, would be administered internationally. Alas, that is not how it came to pass, but I feel very strongly, that no single givernment should be able to exert decisive influence on the shaping of the internet, unless they tone down the influence of mighty companies. The internet used to be the only true democracy, bordering on the best of anarchy, but now everyone and his dog wants to get their claws on us and cream us.

Stefan.
It takes a lot of brains to enjoy satire, humor and wit-

Misleading domain name? by Garry+Anderson · 2001-01-07 18:17 · Score: 2 · on Misleading Web Page Cons Conference Organizers

I believe that WIPO should change its name to something more descriptive and fitting. For those that missed this:

WIPO PRESS RELEASE - September 11, 2000

The World Intellectual Property Organisation, to improve commercial profitability, are to have a name and Internet site change. Formally WIPO, is now to be known as SWIPO. We can be found at our new site SWIPO.ORG.

We have the full backing of United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO.GOV) and Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN.ORG).

We are the first and most excellent of the arbitration services for ICANNs big business friendly process - the Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP). Do not think just because we are part of the United Nations (UN.ORG) that we are even-handed, therefore may rule against you. Being financed by big business - we know where our loyalties lie.

We are to shortly start an advertising campaign to inform of this name change, aimed at the corporate and celebrity world. We will guarantee to them with absolute certainty, that they we will get any domain name they covet - whoever already owns it. Unless owners have more money and power, of course. We can do this because of rationalisation, ridding ourselves of honest panellists in readiness for our Initial Public Offering in January 2001.

Do not use any of the other arbitration services - eResolution etc, even in the past we were the most successful in getting the name you want. We made the rules - we know all the tricks. We are the most powerful, growing daily, and can take whatever you want. Tell us the name; we will do the rest. Example: Paramount approached us a short while back, saying they would quite like CREW.com for their camera crews to use. We thought about it and came up with a winning excuse - Star Trek has the most famous crews of any ship on the planet (or off). We told them to hang on until after a smaller case for the name had gone through. It would be silly to turn down jCREW money.

We will push aside ALL competition, using the quote from Francis Gurry, Advertising and Publicity Executive, "Domain Name Hijacking - Forget the Rest - We Swipe Best".

We deny all of the libellous slurs being put by our critics. WIPO.org.uk say we do not look after the interests of all trademark holders. It is a malicious lie; we follow a strict set procedure to make sure we do so:

1. We give domain to UDRP appellant, after their cheque clears.
2. We contact each trademark in turn, no matter how obscure or tenuous the link.
3. We offer them arbitration to take domain away from the new owner.

Case in point: After winning them JethroTull.com, told Tull about JT.com, which we just usurped for Japan Tobacco. Tull decided it was wanted; their money is as good as anyone's. We came up a winning argument; they are 'JT' to friends, all families and fans.

Seen a domain name you would like to hijack? Order it now from our site at SWIPO.ORG.

"Domain Name Hijacking - Forget the Rest - We Swipe Best"

Semblance of any the above to reality is purely a joke, as is the true state of affairs. All TM acknowledged. This has been written in the spirit of 'free speech' (you may have heard the expression). SWIPO is pointed to WIPO. If you want more of the truth (you be the judge), visit my site wipo.org.uk. You can see the answer to trademark problems there.

Wipo.org.uk and swipo.org have no connection with, and wishes to be totally disassociated from, the World Intellectual Property Organization. The above is considered and informed opinion.

Re:Stopping Peoples Free Speech by KjetilK · 2000-12-18 23:57 · Score: 2 · on Low Power Radio Setback by Congress

They've merely restricted the mechanism that you use to say it.

It is a very interesting problem this. To what extent is it good to restrict the mechanisms people have available to say what they want?

You can't let everyone on national TV, but given that you have the know-how, I feel it is an important right to be able to construct a TV camera and transmit broadcasts to your neighbour. You don't have the right to be heard, but you do have the right to say it.

Of course, there are practical issues that put restrictions on who can say what where. Such as bandwidth and airtime constraints. For radio, I guess bands are a scarce resource, and it must be managed in some way. Giving it all to media mega-corps is certainly not a Good Thing [tm], of course.

Next, read Article 19 of Universal Declaration of Human Rights:

Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

(My emphasis). Through any media. What does that mean? Shouldn't it mean that any mechanisms should be available?

Re:While we're at it... by Tonttoro · 2000-12-12 21:57 · Score: 1 · on Spammer Pleads Guilty

Death. That is a fitting punishment. But in case you didn't know, death penalty is somewhat against United Nations declaration of human rights. Not that US of A really cares.

Declaration of human rights
--
when everyone gives everything,

Re:It is not about the rice. by Perdo · 2000-11-24 15:14 · Score: 1 · on Golden Rice

This may better explain to you what I was trying to say. Basically any country with a GNP per capita less than US $500.00 has people starving to death in it. So... do some math. 20 billion dollars would buy a million people food for their entire lives. Good 'ol Bill could solve world hunger all by himself. A million deaths per year are on his head for every 20 billion dollars he has. That is potentially 5,000,000 people a year. He knows it too. His 3 billion-dollar charity work (which did not start until the feds started grumbling about trust busting) is working on the problem from the other side. He is attempting to get the whole planet to use birth control. A Corporation has no morality except acquiring dollars. Never defend corporate power. It means you are a sucker and believe their propaganda or you have no morality yourself. Either way your defense of the acquisition of dollars has belittled you. Think before posting next time.

Should the Constitution be set in stone? by jonbrewer · 2000-10-16 07:04 · Score: 1 · on Ask the Presidential Candidates

Two part question:

1.) Do you think the "founding fathers" had today's society and government in mind when they wrote the Constitution and Bill of Rights?

2.) If a clear, unambiguous document were written, taking into account documents such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and defining the United States as not an isolated nation but a member of a world community, would you consider supporting it?

Re:Please, the UN is a farce by nomadic · 2000-09-10 08:29 · Score: 5 · on United Nations Brings You ... A Telescope

While they are arguably making an effort to deliver the goods on these needs, they can't address the political issues that keep food and medicine out of the areas needed (newsflash - most of the barriers to aid are political, not economic - see 80s Ethiopian famine for a case study).

They have problems addressing the political issues because their actions are done through consensus, which is very hard to get in the international community.

Why can't they address the political issues? The UN thinks it is above such things. This is why they are locked out of most of the useful change in developing nations.

The UN has trouble with the political issues because the member states want it that way.

I'm tempted to enter a "ROTFL", but seriosuly, the UN does little to keep or create peace - mostly it puts its own soldiers in harm's way with no mandate whatsoever. As a peacekeeper, the UN is a complete failure.

UN peacekeeping failures get a lot of press; successes don't. Check here for a listing of what they've accomplished. In my opinion, even if they don't succeed in a mission, I think it's important to have tried.

Sure - it creates elitist bodies that are answerable to no one, as they have no visible constituency. There is no real representation in any UN organization - its a loose thread of pseudo socialist ideals implemented by lifelong empolyees who respond to no one and have no notion of democratic accountability.

The UN's power rests partially with the general assembly, and mostly with the security council. Representatives are ambassadors; their job is to represent their own countries interests, and the bureacracies answer to them. Their budgets are at the mercy of the member states, and in general they're severely underfunded.

Its amazing that people think of this collection of appointed dupes as the ruling ideal - at the very best it stinks of a second-world planned-economy style operation that completely defies any efforts to further empower individuals over institutions.

The UN isn't meant to be a ruling body, and nobody, myself included, thinks it's any sort of ideal. What it is is simply two things; a forum for different nations to interact with each other, and a collection of what are essentially humanitarian agencies administered by it. The total amount of money spent by the UN to maintain itself and run it's operations is around 10 billion a year. This is less than half the budget of it's host city of New York. Last year a little over a dollar of your taxes (assuming you're an American) went to it. Money from the UN that enters the American economy (through expenditures, employees, etc) is more than what we spend on it. Personally, I think the work that the WHO and UNICEF does is worth that dollar a year by themselves.
--

Ooops. Sorry, try these: by Trevor+Goodchild · 2000-09-09 15:39 · Score: 2 · on United Nations Brings You ... A Telescope