Slashdot Mirror
World Summit On The Internet And IT
eegad writes "The Seattle PI reports on the upcoming first phase of the World Summit on the Information Society to be held in Geneva on December 10-12. 192 nations are involved in the effort to set some ground rules for the Internet (a little late, eh?) including ways to deal with spam, a possible "digital solidarity fund" to help developing nations, and discussion of UN regulation. The goal of this phase is to adopt a "Declaration of Principles" and "Plan of Action". Some countries plan on asking for a UN commission to study new ways of running the Internet aimed at the 2005 phase. The official website will provide coverage of the event. How come I wasn't invited?" The Washington Times also has a piece on it, as well. We had covered this a bit before.
The best thing they can do is make it illegal for spammers to get safe harbor anywhere.
Or, failing that, to make sure that spam only gets sent to the country of origin somehow. That would eliminate 90% of my spam, which is from the US.
Probably it will only end up in another treaty the US will refuse to ratify, like Kyoto and the International Court of Justice.
for great justice
There's an interesting article about this at El Reg. I'm pretty worried about what's going on there; for all the failing of ICANN, it's always been sort of emblematic of the prevailing idea in western countries to keep bureaucracy from throttling the Internet. Think what you will about various nations bad handling of Internet traffic and user rights, the over-corporatization of the net, and ICANN's distasteful tactics over domain handling; the Internet as we know it is a far cry from what it might have been had the ITU been allowed to be the driving force behind it.
I don't relish the idea of the type of bureaucrat who brought us WIPO deciding by fiat where the greatest communications revolution in human history is going to go.
Cole's Law: Thinly sliced cabbage
Isn't this the technological equivolent (time-wise) of the U.N. right now in 2003 trying to decide what to do about this 'Hitler' guy? To quote my favorite Vorlon: The avalanche has already started. It is too late for the pebbles to vote.
But maybe I'm just pessimistic and jaded...=)
Organizations like the UN, unaccountable by most means in their actions, will only try to leverage further control by government authorities to make sure we're all trackable and monitored for "appropriate behavior". Nothing good will come from this. Kiss the "free" anarchy-style of the Internet goodbye.
Since the U.N. is inherently a governing entity, it will invariably feel the need to regulate everything it can. It is in its very nature to regulate. They even managed to throw in the word "solidarity". Every time I hear that word, my ears perk up.
I vote yes on both accounts. To hell with globalization efforts, all you do is exploit everything and everyone for your own gain.
Sorry, but they can't manage anything. The United Nations is a failed idea looking for relevance. Unfortunately anything they take over becomes a mockery of what it is supposed to.
Worse, the UN routinely caves into member states that are notorious violators of human rights. What good can from an organization that has human rights committees comprised of brutal dictatorships? Of disarnament committees run by the same?
Sorry, a UN managed internet would simply give certain 3rd world countries (and some European) a new means to bash or otherwise attempt to restrict prospering Western countries. It would advance anti-Jewish attitudes, probably going as far as to restrict Israel! China would be given free reign to threaten Tiawan and run ramshackle over tibet. Can you imagine what these nations would want to classify as SPAM?
No thank you. ICANN might be annoying but at least we can lay hands on them
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
I find it hilarious that the same Slashdot crew that was screaming for UN control of the Iraq situation now wants nothing to do with the UN when it comes to the Internet. Seems to me the desire for the UN to intervene was mere anti-Bush propganda.
Changing your position when it suits you is intellectually dishonest and is known as hypocrisy. Have the balls to hold your position.
The UN has no business in anything. Intelligent people can look at their track record and come to the conclusion that they are more fucked up than a football bat.
Why do developing nations need the Internet?
Isn't that putting the cart before the horse...
By definition maybe what they really need is heavy infrastructure development?
Giving bushmen WWW access isn't going to help any nation develop.
"Spam could be outlawed once and for all worldwide, with harsh penalties for violation."
Should we apply Marxist solutions: gulags (Stalin), death farms (Cambodia) or rape camps (Serbia)?
"An international agreement of standards for content could bring freedom of information to places where there is a lack of information"
Yes. We know that government control always makes things more free!
"Centralized taxation..."
Yes. The greedy ruling class must get a cut!
"Elimination of various objectively hateful websites from the internet, e.g., holocaust denial, neo-nazis, gun merchants"
And, of course, left-wing hate sites (MLM, neo-soviets) all remain uncensored.
Where oh where is freedom of expression in all this? Or is that too much of a threat to the organizations sponsering this summit?
Let's face it, if we had a cent for every IQ point our leaders have, the sum total of our entire government wouldn't be enough to buy a happy meal at McDonald's. That being said, do we really want to trust these people with determining the best policies for the system???
There's a growing sense that even if The Future comes,
most of us won't be able to afford it.
-- Lemmy
New rules:
1 - No individual anonymity
2 - No free speech for individuals
3 - No national information sovereignty.
4 - Taxation to pay for enforcement of the new rules
5 - Jails to house all the new criminals.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
I read the Draft "Plan of Action" availible. It reads a lot like a polictical document. The scary part is the one about the un taking over control of the internet, but it mostly says that everyone should have access to the internet and it should be geared towards all languages and cultures.
.. giving starving people food and water. That seems like a higher priority than internet access. Furthermore, one of the questions in the Faq is "Will one language or culture takeover the information society?" The answer says that we should encourage people to provide content in all languages. First of all, I think Internet is already heavily US centric perhaps because it was originally its network. Secondly, that is a pipe dream just like everything else in the summit.
Thats great, but I think the UN should be focused on oh I don't know
Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
"Claim: Vice-President Al Gore claimed that he "invented" the Internet.
Status: False"
Status: True. "Invent" and "Create" mean the same thing in the context.
"Origins: No, Al Gore did not claim he "invented" the Internet, nor did he say anything that could reasonably be interpreted that way"
Yes, he did. He clearly took credit for its creation.
"but that he was responsible for helping to create the environment (in an economic and legislative sense) that fostered the development of the Internet."
You are making up things Gore did NOT say in the interview, and then making your argument based on that. However, in the interview, Gore said he created it.
See his quote:
"During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet"
"To those who say the words "create" and "invent" mean the same thing: If they mean the same thing, then why have the media overwhelmingly and consistently cited Gore as having claimed he "invented" the Internet when he never used that word"
Because invent is a more commonly used word. It is a correct paraphrasing, however, and Gore looks to be a liar with either word.
"Any statement about the "creation" or "beginning" of the Internet is difficult to evaluate"
It is easy to evaluate. The Internet already existed before Gore got to Congress. Therefore, he could not create it.
"that one could claim helped bring the Internet into being,"
That claim is flat-out false, as much a lie as Gore's claim of inventing it. The Internet existed before Gore's involvement.
"Seems to me the desire for the UN to intervene was mere anti-Bush propganda."
The desire to have the UN involved in Iraq is to make the invasion have some resemblance of legitimacy. To make it clear that this occupation isn't about the United States' ego and that it really is about helping Iraqi citizens. The inclusion of the UN could go a long way towards repairing the damage already done to the US's image and towards stopping the attacks on US soldiers happening every day. What do we stand to lose?
Added to this, US tax payers are currently funding almost the entirety of the occupation (which in my opinion is only right since we decided to go at it unilaterally). Getting the UN involved could lessen the burden on the already weak US economy.
As to your perception that it's the same people who oppose Bush's occupation plans that are against UN regulation of the Internet, three things.
First, Slashdot is a big place with lots of different people and viewpoints.
Second, the Internet isn't broken, it doesn't need guidance from a slow-moving organization like the UN, and there is little to be gained from having a global governing council in charge of Internet issues. One of the beauties of the Internet is that there is no single regulating agency that can control and monitor all content. Once that entity is formed the free form Internet that we all know and love will begin to break down.
Lastly, the UN isn't something to be considered universally good or universally bad. The UN does some good things and some bad things. The same person can both praise it what it does right and critique it for what it does wrong. You're "Us vs. Them" mentality is outdated for the modern world, there is no singular them to scream about.
Every time I hear about another organization taking it upon themselves to do some global rule-making, I can't help wondering: from whence do these organizations derive their authority? I didn't vote for these people. I don't even know who they are.
Yes, I know. Sovereign nations have engaged in international diplomacy, treaty signing and the like since time immemorial. I still question the authority of those who would make rules without being elected.
Hmm... do you really think that this will do anything to Echelon other than use more compute cycles? Do you really doubt that the operators of Echelon have enough compute cycles to crack SSL encrypted emails?
And if this passes, what is to keep larger nations from setting up polluting factories in these developing nations? I think the point is...if they are exempted....then existing polluters will move there...and save the cost of running these businesses in the countries where they'd have to pay to clean up....I've heard nothing in Kyoto that prevents this.
"So since when is (offensively) invading a sovereign nation defence? Invasions are not defensive, what ever weaselwording ("pre-emptive strikes") they're wrapped in. If your army attacks a sovereign nation without you being attacked by their army first, you're the agressor. "
I'm not all that comfy with the supposed reasoning for the new aggression against Iraq. I feel that pre-emptive strikes weren't needed as a reason. The significant reason was that Iraq had NEVER fully complied with the treaties signed at the end of the first Gulf War. Period. They were given more than enough time and more than enough chances. If they had fully complied upfront with all inspections, and hadn't tried playing politics and cat and mouse with the world....that asshole saddam would still be in power. However, he did not comply with a treaty of surrender...in which case...the war was never over. If Germany had reneged on their surrender back in WWII...I can guarantee that the Allies would not have been so patient for years upon years....they'd have started the bombing virtually immediately. So, we didn't need any further reason since because he had not complied with the terms of surrender of Gulf War 1....the war was technically never over...
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
If your army attacks a sovereign nation without you being attacked by their army first, you're the agressor.
Without taking one side or another, may I suggest that if I wanted to harm a sovereign nation without me being held accountable in a "war-crime court", I'd just hire some mercenaries to do the damage over and over again, then deny any knowledge of it. However, I'm also curious when Saddam Hussein will be brought to trial for his decades of torture and warcrimes against Kuwait in 1991.
The problem with some nations is they can't accept authority that might judge their actions as wrong, just like some offenders can't.
And why, exactly, does the UN get to state what the USA should and should not do? There are 10 members in the Security Counsel, right? Why should 7 of them dictate what the other 3 do (for instance)? Because it's a "consensus"? What if a group of 6 countries get together and decide that the world would be better off without the other 4? Are the other 4 supposed to roll over and die, just because it's a "consensus"? Or would you permit them to fight for their survival?
The United Nations is worthless, and has been for years. Their resolutions aren't followed, which makes them ineffective in enacting any global changes, and if they can't enact any global changes, the debating is just wasting time. It's already been proven that if someone defies the UN, nothing will happen.
If you're trying render global consensus meaningless, there will be global consensus in condemning you.
Exactly. The UN has tried to render global consensus meaningful, but lacked the ability to follow through with any of its decisions. Thus, there is now a growing consensus of the belief that the UN is meaningless.
There is just to many nukes and other dangerous stuff in the world to throw these moderating diplomatic structures overboard and fight it out.
If there are so many nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons, and if they're so easy to use (as you're implying... apparently you think that without the UN, everyone would just light the fuse and have it out), why let people like Saddam Hussein stay in power? The man murdered over a million people in his own country, using chemical weapons. What possible GOOD could come from him staying in power? What possible BAD could come from him staying in power? The worst-case scenario is that he has a bad day sometime, and uses all his weapons and kills over a billion people by feeding some of his biological weaponry into the water supply, or using his chemical weapons in India or China or something. The worst-case scenario if he is expelled from power is he hides his weapons and waits for a time to use them, hoping that the "good" guys won't get him first, with the possibility that the "good" guys find the weapons first, and he never gets the chance. I'd rather take option #2.
"It's better to have a gun and not need it than need a gun and not have it." ~ Christian Slater, True Romance