Slashdot Mirror
Imagine A UN-Run Internet
Damon Dimmick writes "Small countries in the United Nations have been arguing to put the Internet under the control of the UN so that countries can more easily monitor (read: control) Internet content. It's on hold for now, but this could become a very real censorship problem, very soon. Some nations have gone so far as to suggest "monitoring boards" for internet content. Here is the link to the Financial Times article. It briefly describes the current situation. Just something to keep an eye on."
However, the US and the European Commission are staunchly defending the Icann model, which is based on minimal regulation and commercial principles. Icann members are predominantly drawn from industrialised countries and the established internet community.
So now, we're rooting for the much-maligned ICANN institution... I guess that's not such a cognitive dissonance now that they've actually faced up to Verisign -- though the end of that story is yet to be written.
Interesting that this should come up on the same day that NPR's Morning Edition (just audio, sorry) reported that the US is blocking an attempt by UNESCO to allow countries to subsidize their national film industries to preserve cultural identity.
In one corner, we have the US: protector of political free speech and homogenous corporate culture.
In the other, we have the rest of the world: protector of political speech restriction and diverse cultural heritage.
Damn, it's hard to know what side to root for these days.
Stressed? Me? Of course not. Stress is what a rubber band feels before it breaks, silly.
If the UN runs the Internet (which may not even be possible, to "run" the Internet), then "unapproved" content will be simply circulated by other means, radio, underground printing press, word-of-mouth, etc. It's the old adage - when encryption is outlawed, only outlaws will use encryption. This type of move is a pure power grab. This is analogous to the MPAA demanding a "broadcast flag" in digital TV streams, or the RIAA stomping on webcasters (despite the fact that analog radio is free, and IT IS LEGAL TO RECORD FROM).
I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
What is the lesser of two evils, a government censored internet or a corporate censored internet?
I's sad that in such an "advanced" time, the ideas of censorship are readily and seriously discussed. It isn't feudalism anymore, and people will find ways to get whatever information they look for if they're determined.
It should respect the constitutions of its member nations. The UN should not have the ability to override, veto, or limit decisions or rights made or granted by their sovereign member states.
The U.S. should respect the constitutions of its member nations. The federal government should not have the ability to override, veto, or limit decisions or rights made or granted by their soverign member states. -Southern worldview pre-Civil War...
-insert a witty something-
Where even criminals have civil rights
But how many innocents are held for questioning without said rights?
When those laws are put together by the dictator's club called the UN, you bet. You know, the place that puts Syria and Libya on the "human rights committee"?
But it's okay for the US to support similar interests, when it proves to be profitable?
Where freedom of speech applies to EVERYBODY, even the ones with unpopular causes. Hint: popular causes don't NEED freedom of speech.
If it applies to everybody, then why would there be a need for a 3-day shutdown of London so that protesters don't get a chance to "peacably assemble?"
Hint: we're still on our first Republic. France is on their fifth, with intervening Reigns of Terror, anarchy, kings, emperors, and Nazi collaborationist regimes. Hint: our popular culture dominates the world. Deal with it.
And you seem to be trying to outdo everyone else again by doing as much damage in your one Republic as anyone else did in 5. Aim high! And your pop culture dominates only because you refuse to listen to or view pop culture from other nations. Nothing else exists in your small world.
Where food is so cheap that even the poorest can (over)eat.
Are you trying to make the US look good by reiterating that what you throw in the garbage could feed several countries? Impressive outlook.
They're ours to "waste", Saddam-lover.
Again, you're not helping the world-view of the US out by flaunting your supposed wealth.
The UN is about as effective as a perforated condom or the League of Nations. They do very little other than waste the funds contributed by the member nations on a bloated, inefficient, inactive bureaucracy.
While I wouldn't exactly say the US has the internet under it's thumb, at least WE invented it. (No, I am NOT Al Gore...) If the UN were to be given oversight of the net, nothing would get accomplished. A matter would be brought up, some nations would vote for, some against and so no action would be taken.
With the veto powers of the Security Council members, it's actually much harder to get a resolution PASSED than round filed. In other words, it's practically impossible to do ANYTHING.
As long as you have at least 2 members on the security council with politically opposed views, this will continue to be the case.
I say we ditch the facade known as the UN, save the funds we spend on keeping them around, kick them out of NYC and work directly with all the countries of the world. I say each country becomes a state in a new United World. I say Balkanism only brings continued strife.
I say, Doctor, is it time for my medicine already?
Would be nice, but it'll never happen. Screw the puppet UN. They can have the net when they pry it from my cold, dead hands!
There was an arms embargo on Iraq, remember? Well, somehow Iraq ended up with some pretty new French missiles, which were used to fire upon the Baghdad hotel a couple of weeks ago.
With friends like the French, who needs enemas.
Shame on Google.
You are forgetting the recent infatuation some of our Supreme Court justices have with international law. They trump Congress.
No, it doesn't make sense for a country to try to control the internet, but the Third World long ago got the UN to agree that national presses should *not* be free. Their argument was that the Third World press is so important in directing agricultural reform, improving health practices, and reinforcing cultural values that it must be under the control of the government. Little stuff like chilling dissent seemed unimportant to many of the diplomats. Statistically speaking, First Amendment-like law is very rare. We should be grateful. And we should not surprised if the UN decides that the internet should also be under government control.
First off, IANAL, just a curious voter-slash-fair-weather-politician.
"Not according to this."
Looking at what's here and looking up the court case they looked at (Reid v. Covert), it looks like there's at least precedent at striking down treaties which explicitly violate the US Constitution, but there's still the catch-all of Missouri v. Holland that seems to say "So long as Congress isn't explicitly denied power X..." When you get into stuff that Congress explicitly has control over (like copyright), they can still get away with murder while still being able to say "Oh no, it wasn't us! It was President So-And-So's Evil Treaty!"
"I don't know who's legally right, but as a practical matter I can't believe that Thomas Jefferson and friends would knowingly leave such a gaping loophole."
Disclaimer: I have an axe to grind concerning the Seventeenth Amendment. Consider this the lunatic rantings of yet another political crackpot.
They didn't. As written, the US Constitution made sure that no treaty was ratified without the implicit consent of the legislatures of 2/3rds of the states (almost as stringent as the 3/4ths required for a constitutional amendment). The Seventeenth Amendment, however, changes the way US Senators are chosen (popular election instead of appointment by the state), which means that a treaty gets signed based on whatever political issues are popular at that moment. If the Framers wanted public participation in diplomacy at such a direct level, they would have had the House ratify treaties, not the Senate.
Freenet nodes abound, the cute little 'monitoring boards' will be of no use. Freenet's development staff would increase by factors of 10 overnight, with the staff of many OSS projects chipping in to make things easier for the everyday users. Continued monitoring will simply result in better encryption and more secure software. The harder they push, the more resistance they'll find. China has no doubt tried to regulate and stop the use of Freenet, yet the freesites of Chinese dissidents continue to thrive, and the use of Freenet message boards by them continues.
To those who wish to control the internet: don't bother - you've already lost. Your continued efforts to increase your control merely expose your despotic aspirations. The mass criminalization of your countrymen will result only in your own downfall. You will never succeed with technological restraints, as there are far too many who will fight with a true passion to unyolk the minds of their peers; a passion your cold hearts could never comprehend, nor overcome. Look to the government of China for a spectacular mural of failure in the abuse of technology to restrain the use thereof.
I can't help but laugh at the prospect of a worldwide effort to outright control the flow of information through the internet. You can slow it down, make it more difficult to find, and even stop some from gaining access to it, but information can no longer be suppressed to the extent you'd like.
-- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
Maintain whatever you want, but the US wasn't a superpower until after WW2. America was pretty isolationist between the world wars.
Not true at all. The US as isolationist only with regards to Europe, and then not really. We participated in the Washington Naval Treaty and other treaties with europe throughout the time between the wars. The US also agressively persued our policies in the far east (which lead us to confrontation with Japan).
The US was a superpower after WWI, indeed before WWI, because of her economic might. With regards to your other points, no the UN couldn't really do anything if the US or China went to war but it does reduce the liklihood of such an event occurring by giving a forum for discussing issues that might lead to war as well as allowing other world powers to convince them otherwise. Yeah, the US did what it wanted in the middle east but the rest of the world put considerable pressure on the US -- through the UN I might add -- to not go to war.
Administration of technical aspects of the net by the UN might or might not be a good idea, but the current push at the UN is clearly part of a long-standing effort on the part of oppressive countries to censor what their own people have access to and prevent criticism of themselves elsewhere. It is a continuation of a project initiated 20 years ago called the New World Information and Communication Order. The basic idea was that international action was required to remedy the imbalance in access to and control over communications between the developed and non-developed countries. Some proposals had legitimate goals, such as increasing access to communications in under-developed countries, but it was clear that much of the interest on the part of the states that supported NWICO was in censorship. At the time, this meant censorship of the print media, TV, and radio. Although the US succeeded in blocking adoption of NWICO by UNESCO, the idea has never died. The current activity at the UN is just the latest attempt at censorship, now aimed at the net as well as the traditional media. Here is a recent report [PDF-958k] by the World Press Freedom Committee and the New York City Bar. This is a danger that deserves to be taken very seriously.
The Internet is really the wild west - the great unexplored frontier. To me, it exists beyond governments and central control. When people with malicious intentions come to the Internet, the good people have no problem taking the unwritten law into their own hands. In a weird sense, the Internet is our one chance at an unbounded pseudo-utopia that is controlled by no entity. No one can tell us what to do or how to behave.
The real threat, as you said, are the government organizations that vie for control of this amorphous mass. They want to dictate what we see, record our actions, and like any government institution tax us to death. I would add corporations as our enemies as well. By pushing for legislation in the government, big business may one day control the Internet. We've already seen the frightening effects of this with Verisign's unbridled and unchecked power.
Both governments and corporations are an undeniable threat to the Internet. Indeed, they will destroy the Internet in their selfish quest for power and ruin it for everyone.
As Internet users, we must be aware of these ongoing assaults on our digital freedom. We cannot allow any organization to gain control of the Internet - no matter of said organization claims to work on behalf of the greater whole.
I don't know about what ICANN are like, but the idea that the UN would do a better job of it should be given the scorn it deserves.