Slashdot Mirror
UN Wants To Regulate Internet
LegendOfLink writes "News.com has good interview with the UN's ITU Director, Houlin Zhao, and his desire to regulate the internet. He says
"One of the most important changes was the early stages, when the Internet started, when ICANN started in 1998. The purpose was to exclude governments (but that didn't work). People realize today that the governments worldwide have to play a role.
People say the Internet flourished because of the absence of government control. I do not agree with this view. I argue that in any country, if the government opposed Internet service, how do you get Internet service? If there are any Internet governance structure changes in the future, I think government rules will be more important and more respected." "
"Countering spam is just one of many elements of protecting the Internet that include availability during emergencies and supporting public safety and law enforcement officials," Zhao wrote in December.
I'm sorry but the Internet shouldn't be limited in speech and this is exactly what could happen if some "governing body" takes over enforcement of Spam laws. Yeah, it would start as Spam but it would quickly move to other communications that aren't as negatively viewed by the public.
I am sticking to the belief that spam is something that should be handled by local groups not government authorities. We just had a discussion yesterday about people not contributing to their governments and instead expect their governments to do everything for them. Well, this is an unnecessary waste of time/money/energy that can be avoided if people take steps to protect themselves and their email.
The slippery slope starts like this remember.
One of the most important changes was the early stages, when the Internet started, when ICANN started in 1998. The purpose was to exclude governments (but that didn't work). People realize today that the governments worldwide have to play a role.
Who realizes that? I surely don't. China is taking a "role" governing their Internet connection to the world and what does it do? It attempts to limit the freedom of information because it knows that it is a possible negative influence on the longevity of its governmental system. I certainly don't want some other body telling me what I can and cannot see because it may negatively influence my views on it.
People say the Internet flourished because of the absence of government control. I do not agree with this view. I argue that in any country, if the government opposed Internet service, how do you get Internet service? If there are any Internet governance structure changes in the future, I think government rules will be more important and more respected.
And when there is direct government control how do you get it? Through the filters that are put in place. The Internet is the one place where you can still dig through millions of different opinions to form your own rather than being fed the same stale bullshit that your government wants you to hear.
Do not fall for their promises of freedom from spam. It will do nothing but erode further the real freedoms that the Internet has created for the global community.
If there are any Internet governance structure changes in the future, I think government rules will be more important and more respected." Um no.. as all governments inevitably trend toward maximum control and subjugation of their citizens, it is every citizens right and duty to oppose information control as information control is the method by which populations loose their freedom.
"It's so convenient to have a system where everyone is a criminal" - A. Hitler
The internet brought to you by the folks who brought you Oil for Food!!!
__________ Leave me alone I'm compiling a RPG II program on my S/36...Thanks to metamucil I'm a Regular Meta Moderator
I trust this guy about as far as I can throw a Chevy Suburban.
"I'd rather be a lightning rod than a seismometer." -Ken Kesey
They have an impeccable record of getting things right. Look at Dafur, Rwanda, Sudan, Food for Oil. Lets hand it over!
There are so many ways this is bad. So it's not a challenge nor even an interesting thought-experiment to write something about why this would be bad.
Instead, I would like to challenge someone to explain how this could possibly be a good thing.
P.S. The minute the UN controls the Internet is the minute I start a new network of unregulated computer systems on all the dark fiber.
Ironically, the word ironically is often used incorrectly.
I know this is odd and far off...but couldn't such a thing lead to an internet form of communism?
It's time to create the outernet.
People say the Internet flourished because of the absence of government control. I do not agree with this view. I argue that in any country, if the government opposed Internet service, how do you get Internet service?
This makes no sense. Is the submitter saying that somehow, UN mandates or regulation regarding internet access will guarantee internet access in nations whose governments oppose it?
The UN has no autonomous authority, save for what it is granted by member nations.
If anything, the Iraq situation should have taught us that the UN's edicts are meaningless. There were binding security council resolutions not only allowing, but compelling, member nations to act to force Iraq into compliance, and scores of instances of verified, documented, UN-acknowledged material breach of its binding resolutions on the part of Iraq. And still, there was no meaningful action. Some UN member nations ended up having to act on their own. To say nothing of the massive corruption in the UN's management of the Oil for Food Programme that is *still* coming to light.
UN regulation of the internet (save for standards bodies such as the ITU) is the worst think you could possibly wish for if unfettered access to information via the internet is your ultimate goal.
Trust a Chinese to want to bring government control to the internet...
All the US Bashers that abound on Slashdot (An American Site nonetheless) can pretty much eat their words when it comes to the internet, oh theyll say it wasnt the US blah Blah, ok whatever
How is the UN going to "Take" Control ?
I say if its in superceedence of US interests, shut them down, shut off any of their access to critical parts, let them manage their part of the world and whoever wants to follow,
All in jest of course, but its idiot Politicians who think they are doing a "Public" service that generally do the MOST Harm.
I, for one, welcome our new UN Regulatory overlords...
If the UN were actually run well, as opposed to the debacle it is now, they might have a leg to stand on. They should clean up their own act first before trying to grab more power for themselves.
And that's completely beside the point anyway; the Internet it doing just fine without them now, thank you.
everybody.
But I think we should let the internet decide.
1) the U.N.
2) Ralph Nader
3) China
4) Cowboy Neal
I'm going to sit this one out.
air and light and time and space
Is it just me or does this guy not make sense?
I prefer the Wild West internet of individuals with full responsibility for creating content and defending themselves from those that might harm them. Governments will just consolidate power, create barriers to entry through regulation, and impose bullshit like "community" values and morality. It will destroy everything that the internet has given us and provide nothing in return (other than taxing authority). I hope we remember who let the wolves in when we look back on the ruined internet.
since it is the UN, they will hold meetings for about a decade and never decide anything.
which is basically non regulation of the internet.
very very good.
although the rampant corruption and lack of respect for laws the UN has might be a problem
[...] Zhao, a former government official in China's Ministry of Posts and Telecommunications [...]
Oh yes, exactly whom I want to manage the Internet. [/sarcasm]
"It's a wonderful idea. But it doesn't work." -- Tad Danielewski
I think this is a bad idea. I'm all for getting other countries more involved in regulation but not in this way. I just have this bad feeling that if it goes to the UN it is going be plagued by what I would call pointless turf battles and this will slow down the phasing in the new technologies.
"The U.N. is a place where governments opposed to free speech demand to be heard!"
Circumcision is child abuse.
" I argue that in any country, if the government opposed Internet service, how do you get Internet service?"
Exactly..the government should not get involved...
Government control could be risky. For example China might be able to manipulate the internet so that they have greater controls on their citizens right to free speech and maybe of other citizens such as those of Taiwan.
:(
As the EU grows, some countries such as Germany might push through an agenda of regulating against the discussion of Nazi ideals. This is bad for free speach.
If these things do happen, a second internet might spring up. After all it would only take a few ppl to connect to each other with modems to bypass any new regualtions. The second internet could be largely based on a P2P system and avoid ISPs, and thus government control.
I'm rambling on again
The internet is a world of it's own. It is directly connected to the real world via servers and users, but it's aworldof it's own. The real world does not apply to it and people need to remember this.
If people want to do illegal stuff they will do it no matter what you do to try and stop them. Would people please stop thinking they can regulate the internet and cure all it's problems. They can't do it in real life so they sure as hell can't do it online.
I like muppets.
If governments step in to regulate the internet instead of some organization like ICANN, then it's possible that we will see a lot of controversial decisions made on behalf of the internet that might not make a lot of sense to us. Or governments might feel compelled to exert even more control over the information that travels throught the network.
The UN performs some roles well - it brings attention to the plight of some disadvantaged peoples and organizes aid when members feel it is convenient...but as an enforcement agency it is completely toothless.
In other words: the Internet is dead, people. First ICANN, then this. Prepare for an Internet that will be increasingly segmented by the cultural, religious and political preferences of each and every dictatorship in the world.
Islamic country? No sex and no equality for women, please.
Dictatorship? No free expression of anything, please.
Corporate state? No piracy and peer-to-peer, please.
Of course, it won't work, because technology will increasingly make it possible to go around the censorship, but, please, don't tell them that. They have to keep their illusions.
As a matter of fact, even countries like Iran find it hard to control things like satellite television. Wait until they discover satellite Internet providers.
Maybe, in the near future, we will see revolutions because people want to be free... to vote, to express themselves and to surf the Internet. Who knows?
The right to offend is far more important than the right not to be offended. (Rowan Atkinson)
UN Inspectors denied access to Internet; Bush launches bombing campaign.
AOL, very sorry.
The internet is simply of community in essence. It IS an exchange medium but unlike other methods of communication we use today it repersents a unique enity in which computers act almost as citizens. In this regard I would compare it to any government. What the UN and others need to realize is that there are already structures setup on the internet, by nature. People who chose the use the internet, also agree to follow certain "laws" (by nature; ie on /. we agree to a set of rules) so what they're talking about is regulating internet, which is much less like estiblishing guidelines and much more like estiblishing limitations.
oups... did I say that out loud?
No sig for now.
In the absence of a clever response, I propose a lynching with paintballs!
Give a man a fish and he'll eat for a day. Teach him to fish and he'll wipe out the species.
His question didn't ask about opposition, so an answer mentioning it is disingenuous. A government may be indifferent and yet a thing may flourish. Indeed, many things can be obtained that a government opposes. For example I'm in the UK, the government is currently on a "healthy eating" drive but I can still go down to the fish'n'chip shop and buy as much as I want.
Cheers,
Ian
...I look forward to ignoring UN regulation.
A chinese communist telling us how the internet should run. That's like having an impotent virgin gay man telling me how to fuck my wife.
I say we start by censoring this guys mouth, then he can tell us whatever he wants.
Will code a sig generator for food
most lethargic and idiotic organisations, staffed by butt-kissing morons, who are constantly being bullied by the americans want to control the internet. this guy sounds like one of the third world government employees, who wants to control everything and refuse to work
Well, I don't know what it sounds like, other than socialism with a twist of welfare in the mix.
I guess the UN wants to control the Internet so they can assure everyone gets internet service, even if they don't have food and toilets.
I don't see any evidence that there would be any real benefit to Internet Regulation via the UN. What are they going to do, sanction me for looking at porn?
Those who do not learn from the past are doomed to repeat it. You obviously have not learned.
I can see it now. "Open up! It's the internet police! We know you're sending spam in there!!!1!!!!11one!!"
*sigh*
Let the conspiracy theories begin.
This sig no verb.
Meanwhile...
Ah, much better. See how well compromise works?
I, for one, welcome our New UN Internet Overlords.
I find the source of the suggestion to be a tad questionable. China and the Internet dont exactly get along and the UN is only successful at bringing goverments to the treaty table, it is NOT successful in Keeping them to their agreements. It is powerless except where the security council gets involved and even then it seems if a particular member wants to tread all over it they cant do jack.
See US vs Iraq for primary example
"US out of the UN; UN out of the US"
/. If the government wants us to respect the law, it should set a better example.
"People say the Internet flourished because of the absence of government control. I do not agree with this view. I argue that in any country, if the government opposed Internet service, how do you get Internet service?"
The author moves right from talking about "control" to "opposition", as though any government with laws regarding the net opposes it. Seems like a bit of an argumentative trick to me.
Why doesn't the UN go and create it's own internet? Remember the Internet (capatial I) isn't the only internet out there. Another large one is Internet 2, which is a university/research instution only network. The US government also have several internets for different levels and classifications of data.
So if the UN is so convinced they can do a great job running a net that all the governments in the world, including the dicataorships, will be happy with, go to it. If it really is such a better place, you shouldn't have trouble convincing people to switch. Heck, you can even implement it such that it's not exclusive with the Internet. You can have gateways that allows controlled traffic exchange.
That sounds like a much better idea to me.
However having the UN regulate the Internet sounds like a disaster to me. Partly because the UN has a poor record running things, partly because that wasn't the reason for the UN to be (it's a forum for internatonal relations, not an international government) but mostly because different nations and cultures have different ideas of what's ok. What we consider to be ok in the US isn't the same as what's ok in France, or in China or in Iran. Now that's fine. I'd like to think there is more than one way people can live, and that different cultures have a right to different values.
The problem will be if all these governments get together and start trying to decide what needs to be "regulated" which in this case probably means not allowed. In cases like that, you invariably end up getting the most restrictive thing possible to try and satisfy everyone. China is going to want no speech against their government. France is going to want no pro-Nazi speech. The US is going to want no pornography of individuals under 18, and so on.
I think a much better method is leave the net alone, let countries, ISPs and individuals regulate it as tehy see fit. If they want to block something, block it. But don't try and force it on the whole world.
If the UN was just talking about IP and DNS regulations, well I might be open to that, but you read the article, it's clear he sees their role as a whole lot more oversight including content. I see nothing good comming from that.
If they think they can build a nice, sterile, regulated internet, by all means do. Let those that want get on UNnet. Perhaps it's totally SPAM and virus free its so well regulated, and people find that worth the loss of information and control. But let people and nations make that choice, don't try and for it on an existing infastructure that really is working quite well when you get down to it, despite problems.
Yeah, it disappoints me too, that every web site doesn't prominently display quotations from Mao's Little Red Book.
(And I hear Tom delay wants every site to include the Ten Commandments.)
"Zhao, a former government official in China's Ministry of Posts and Telecommunications">/i>
The same China that censors the internet and its own people, in order to keep a totalitarian stranglehold on teh country? That China?
Well, this is a biiiiig surprise.
Leave government the role of making sure the wires stay connected and the signal goes through and no company monopolizes access to the net. And keep government's sticky fingers out of teh regulation of content.
Opinions on the Twiddler2 hand-held keyboard?
Perhaps we should just concede and let Gore control the internet. I mean, he did invent it, right?
....that only the UN could come up with. "People realize today that the governments worldwide have to play a role. People say the Internet flourished because of the absence of government control. I do not agree with this view. I argue that in any country, if the government opposed Internet service, how do you get Internet service?" Yeah, you mean like China? They dont mind you having internet access, just dont dare actually use it for anything other than finding out how wonderfull the Chinese government is. I also like the bit: "People realize today that the governments worldwide have to play a role." Really? Who are these people that realize this? Governments? Also the whole idea here is assinine, you dont want gov. involvement, what you REALLY want is for the gov.'s to say they will enforce you rules, and to entwine yourself deeply enough with an entrenched and RELEVANT (thats the key word) institution so that when the inevitable days comes that more people say "wtf is the UN even doing anymore?" you can point and say "we keep the internet safe for your govern....I mean kids." No thanks, keep your outmoded sluggish bureaucracy and my own countries sluggish bureaucracy out of the internet. IF they want to regulate the internet they should damned well be forced to contribute. Don't sit there and say how we can and cannot use the internet and then stay out of infrastructure matters and upgrade issues. It's like "Hey I want to tell you what to do but I don't want to be responsible for actually contributing to this, you build it, you pay for it, i'll say what you can do with it after that." NO THANKS
"The saddest words of mice and men, are not those which were, but should have been."
"This is the worst idea in the long, sad history of bad ideas."
-Ian Malcolm
This is all we need for the internet. The guy who ran the great firewall of china, running the internet. Government shouldn't be involved with the first and best example of how open standards flurish growth away from the involvment of government. Plus the UN involved just spells corruption at the highest level, like the oil for food program, I wonder what the internet equivilent of that is?
So if China is a UN member and governments get more involved in regulating the internet, does that mean the Great Firewall could possibly come down?
I am disrespectful to dirt! Can you see that I am serious?!
I argue that in any country, if the government opposed Internet service, how do you get Internet service?
Replace the government.
There you are, staring at me again.
I argue that in any country, if the government opposed Internet service, how do you get Internet service?
The funny thing is that this guy's from China. And we all know how well their government does with promoting the internet.
REM Old programmers don't die. They just GOSUB without RETURN.
Buddy,
do you live in cloud-cuckoo land?
ICANN is controlled by the US DOD, with whom it has a contract. A fight has been going on for years to wrestle it away by that control (oh yes, the DNS root servers are controlled by ICANN), with little success, so far.
Get real...
Winner : "leave the internets alone"
Loser: "let the UN regulate the internets"
Yeah, right.
Good idea: A global, decentralized communications tool which anyone can have access to and participate in.
Bad idea: Putting it in the hands of the UN. Or any government agency, for that matter.
Don't get me wrong. I'm an old school, dyed-in-the-wool Protestant liberal who is pro-UN and all that. I just don't trust *anyone* to be in control of the Internet (if such a thing is possible, anyway). Special interests in the US are trying hard enough to seize control of the Internet as it is, and some US companies are even contributing to software that censors the Internet in other countries (is there a more blatant violation of American values?). If we let the UN have control over it, more nations will find reasons to censor parts of the Internet and simply tear it apart.
Hm. On the other hand, the UN might just get so bogged down in their own quagmire of argumentation and endless debate that maybe nothing would ever happen anyway.
-- The reason it's called the right wing? Irony.
People say the Internet flourished because of the absence of government control. I do not agree with this view. I argue that in any country, if the government opposed Internet service, how do you get Internet service?
Non-Sequitur and Begging the Question.
Yeah, let's definitely give the job to this guy.
- adjudicating disputes between individuals,
- defining/forestalling unwanted behavior,
- pursuing collective goals that individuals can't (or won't) accomplish.
At that level the internet needs "a" government for handing spam, blacklists, DDoS attacks, malware, phishing, standards creation, infrastructure development, etc. What is less clear is which government.The prerequisite for a good government would seem to be: 1) an understanding of the governed system and 2) a confluence of interests that align with the governed system. These prerequisites are the basis for democracy -- who, within limits, better understands the people and is interested (at least self-interested) in the people's welfare, than the people themselves.
The rationale, heretofore, for rejecting traditional, meatspace governments (e.g., the UN) is that these groups neither understand the internet nor have the internet's interest at heart. Until someone can convince me that these other governments will do a good job, they should remain on the sidelines.
Yet I doubt that meatspace governments will remain on the sidelines because the internet is becoming too important in the real-world. Thus, I wonder how the internet community can guide the transition from self-regulation to traditional government regulation with an eye toward helping governments understand the internet and internalize the best-interests of the internet.
Two wrongs don't make a right, but three lefts do.
I hereby announce that I am the new owner of the Internet. Contact me and I will give you my home IP to route all your packets through.
In any country, if the government opposes Internet service, you get Internet service like people do today, in Saudi Arabia. You pay high prices for an uncensored blackmarket connection.
but we should /. the un website
maybe they will write a resolution demanding we stop...
shooting is not too good for my enemies
Giving everyone a say in how people should express thoughts and share information can only lead to more censoring. The Internet was built to communicate information, not stifle it. Having too many cooks in the ki[tt]chen usually means trouble for someone cooking custard. It'll just make a big mess if everyone wants control of it. ICANN should be restructured, not removed. We can still have an open Internet without decentralizing the authorities that help make it run properly.
People say the Internet flourished because of the absence of government control. I do not agree with this view. I argue that in any country, if the government opposed Internet service, how do you get Internet service? If there are any Internet governance structure changes in the future, I think government rules will be more important and more respected.
Well, you're wrong. It happens to everyone. Get used to it.
1. ITU != UN Just because one bureaucrat in one bureaucratic body currently under the auspices of the UN has an opinion does not mean this is the UN's opinion. (the ITU's been around since 1865. The UN's a post-WWII institution)
2. <obvious illustrates_axiom="bureaucracies want to grow">A bureaucracy (ITU) with a mandate over all international communications except the Internet wants to extend it's mandate to include the Internet.</obvious>
3. We're getting worked up about a PR move made in advance of a meeting to discuss what future meetings should be about... Nothing to see here, move along.
4. I'll mod up any comment that says what we can actually do about this. It's not like I've got a congressman in the UN right now...
You forgot UN soldiers raping children in the Congo.
The UN is so full of hooey it is not funny. They have terrorist states leading the UN Human rights commision and are various departments of the UN are continually found to be corrupt and criminal.
To allow any such organization to control anything seems foolish and foolhardy. To allow a department head from such an organization that is representative of one of the most repressive governments in the world is even worse.
Read between the lines. The U.N. is looking to expand into governing the Internet so that it can tax the Internet (per IP address, per domain registration, etc). The U.N. has long sought after a source of revenue not tied to the willingness of its member nations. They have long desired an independent source of revenue such as internet taxes.
The world will not get better through technology. We must seek to be better people.
If anything happens, the internet should be treated in a some what unrelated way as "international waters".
My karma is not a Chameleon.
Yeah, sounds like a good idea, but how soon will it be that the UN will use 'internet embargos' against countries that are not abiding by its wishes? just one of the good deeds that will come out of this changeover.
"this is the gloaming"
radiohead
"The purpose was to exclude governments (but that didn't work). People realize today that the governments worldwide have to play a role."
I mean, is he trolling?
Whenever the UN makes a decision, if you have enough money or military power you can simply do what you wish and they have no power to stop you.
See any major conflict since 1948.
This was the exact reason the League of Nations faltered and fell apart, not the only reason however.
The U.N seems to falter for a lot longer for a lot more reasons, corruption, lack of overall authority, too many layers of bureaucracy, not enough internal control.
How would the internet be improved through the regulation of the U.N?
We are talking about one of the most bloated organizations in the history of mankind. If the internet was to be regulated by the U.N things can only get more bloated, more layers of bureaucracy, more control in a U.N manner.
There will be rules, nobody would follow them. There will be structure, nobody would maintain it. There will be staff, nobody will control them.
The U.N form of bureaucracy does not fit well with an entity such an the internet, it is not a country, it is not a domain in which you can impose rules. It is best left in it's current state with further improvements open to a more multi-national forum.
No, no... the internet definately requires it's own independant international system, outside of real world politics, where proper decisions can be made with intelligence, and most importantly efficiency. The U.N cannot do any of this.
If this ever happens, the internet is doomed as we know it.
[cx]
Government bureaucrats can't help themselves from trying to control everything.
Of course what the UN really wants to do is censor the internet.
And of course they have 0 chance of getting their greedy mitts on it, but that doesn't stop them from babbling on about everything else they want to control
"If anything, the Iraq situation should have taught us that the UN's edicts are meaningless. There were binding security council resolutions not only allowing, but compelling, member nations to act to force Iraq into compliance, and scores of instances of verified, documented, UN-acknowledged material breach of its binding resolutions on the part of Iraq."
This is, to put it mildly, an all out lie. There was no resolution compelling the UN or its member nations to act to force Iraq into compliance. Stop inventing lies to justify a war that at least is not justifiable on the grounds of UN resolutions and was fought in clear breach of international law.
"And still, there was no meaningful action."
There wasn't?
Funny, if the UN didn't do its job, how come the US didn't find any weapons of mass destruction after the invation?
We need the UN to take over the Internet!
Only the folks who were in charge of Oil For Food, who stood idely by in Rwanda, who rape children and goats in Timor, and who rape women and children in the Congo are ideally suited for regulating the Internet.
Only they can keep us safe(*)!
-gandalf23@work
* Safe meaning free from worrisome strife and confusion by only allowing us to view what is in our best interests. By filtering out the un-truths and lies, they will free us with conformity and the status quo. Pesky innovation will no longer be allowed! Who needs to upgrade their computer every six months anyway? Anarchists and pornographers and other ne'er-do-wells, that's who! And who needs encryption? Only people who have something to hide!
Help us UN! You're our only hope!
We already have a number of people who are pushing massive control and monitoring of the Internet within their own borders (china with its government, USA with the bush admin and the patriot act II/III, etc.), the last thing we need to add is another set of idiots.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
I think it's vital that we somehow find a way to prevent this individual and anybody else who thinks like him from getting what they want. Contrary to what he might say, the system we have right now *does* work, and has worked well. The only reason why he is trying to make people believe that it hasn't worked is so that he can institute his own system.
The UN wants to have jurisdiction over *everything.* Nothing makes Kofi Annan start foaming at the mouth more than when he hears the phrase "national sovereignty." In practice however, the only thing the UN really amounts to is the Third World's vehicle for trying to fulfill Pinky and the Brain's primary objective. Everyone wants to take over the world...no huge conspiracy theory there. The US govt, the Israeli govt, the EU govts; everyone. The thing we have to somehow try and do though is make sure that none of them manage it...and the UN succeeding in doing it wouldn't be any more desirable than anyone else managing to.
The UN, contrary to what some highly emotive left-wing types will have you believe, (and before you make the assumption, no, I'm not a fascist...I've been called left myself) is most definitely NOT "our last, best hope for peace." This is not Star Trek, and the UN are NOT the Federation. This is the real world, and the only thing the UN are our "last, best hope" for is a centralised global government...something which would ultimately cause a greater level of tyranny and suffering possibly than we've ever seen before. (And yes, I know we saw a lot in WW2. That's part of my point.)
Repeat after me, kids:- The UN is NOT my friend.
Today government control seems to
& id=1166 772004,
3 _preprint_ eu_01.htm ,
cross the line into morality control.
Thanks but no thanks.
If I want to look at porn,
(no link necc.here)
have my blood made into stem cells
http://news.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?tid=10
take handfuls of vitamins
http://www.lef.org/magazine/mag2003/200
or drink water without fluoride added,
its MY DAMN BUSINESS. As long as I don't
force my viewes on anyone else BACK OFF!
Stop trying to force your whiny puritan views
on citizens of the world. Go fiddle with
your V-Chip and leave the rest of us alone.
Nothing to worry about. They can clamor all they like, but let's face, no country is going to let the UN have control over anything of value.
I have nothing against the UN.
People realize today that the governments worldwide have to play a role.
What he really means is that UN socialists believe that the UN should control everything and everyone because bureaucrats know best.
...who've been as effective as the League of Nations at preventing wars and fostering international peace and a sense of global community. These people are as evil as INGSOC and as incompetent as the USPS. Yeah, let's let them regulate the Internet.
Yet one more reason for nonviolent peaceful non-co-operation being the way to the future on the Internet.
If my grammar and spelling are off, I am [distracted/tired/careless] (take your pick)
- Replacing ICANN's US-centric control of the DNS TLD space with ITU control. That's not necessarily such a bad thing - ICANN really cares about only one definition of "IP", which is "Intellectual Property", and making sure that US-style IP owners can get what they want. This shows up not only in name dispute processes, but also in the rabidly anti-privacy requirements that ICANN imposes on all registrars for collecting "accurate" whois information, to make sure that any domain name owner can be served with a subpoena. ITU may not be better; the one advantage of ICANN is that it's theoretically possible to throw the bums out, or to have the ccTLD owners get together to ignore them.
- Subsidizing Internet Connectivity to Africa and other developing regions - Sure, everybody feels bad that poor people can't always get Internet connectivity, and it's good when charities can help. Many of the WSIS types want to imposes taxation on the richer countries' internet infrastructures to subsidize this, which is a bad idea. The right first step is to notice that almost all the countries that have trouble getting internet connectivity have Government-Run Telecom Monopolies, or privatized monopoly providers, which in most cases provide very expensive limited capacity telephones; they not only don't like competition from VOIP, they're not competent at providing Internet access, so subsidizing internet connectivity to them is a waste of money. Typical Internet cafes in much of Africa get service over satellite, which is slow and expensive but doesn't require PTT infrastructure, unlike wired service, and doesn't usually require licensing, unlike microwave service.
- Censorship - China's the biggest promoter of this definition of "Governance", but there are other countries that also don't like free presses and uncontrolled websites reporting about them, typically implemented as a part of cracking down on other violations of public values such as pornography. The "Great Firewall of China" may not be very good at preventing PCs from becoming infected zombies that send spam and DDOS attacks, but they do retain some control over citizens' access to politically incorrect websites and restrictions on internet cafes.
- Spam. Everybody hates it, and governments occasionally try to make laws to stop it. They don't work, partly because the Internet is international and it's easy to move activities to other countries, but ITU governance isn't really going to help; the most effective things they could do would be to enforce universal registration requirements even more privacy-invading than ICANN's, so that anybody with a domain name could be located. It would mainly be used for censorship rather than stopping spam; spammers may be stupid, but they're sufficiently clever and persistent to find ways around it, if nothing else using IP addresses in URLs, or hijacking domains owned by legitimate users.
Overall, it's a bad thing, and a scam.Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
People realize today that the governments worldwide have to play a role
yeah, stay the fuck away. THAT'S your role.
I, for one, welcome our new U.N. Internet Overlords.
The UN doesnt want to control the internet (at least not according to anything in this piece) The ITU director wants to control the internet. Thats a big difference. Im an officer in the US Army. I want a higher salary. CMDR Taco should now post an article saying "US Army pushing for higher salaries."
I don't think anyone really understands that. It's a bunch of colleges and GOVERNMENT facilities that linked up. Then it was a bunch of companies that linked up. Then bigger companies linked to companies in other countries.
.com registry because it's in the US? Get a .de domain. If you have a problem with a .net registrar, you take it up according to the laws of their country.
The companies in each country is governed by their own laws (such as China...they can censor whatever they want from their feed). Trying to have a centralized governing body for the net, which is decentralized by nature, doesn't work (read: ICANN). Don't like the company that runs the
About the only solution we can do without causing all sorts of hell is to pick X amount of countries and distribute the root servers to them all in order to give them the illusion that the net is now controlled by "everyone" rather than separate networks that are peered by trade.
With the size of the internet, can any one organization, government, entity or company make a big enough effect on it that it cripples it? Let's flashback to the late 90's where Bob Metcalfe was saying the internet was getting to the point where it would die under it's sheer size. Internet is still churning along. With all of those worms, viruses and other things causing problems, the internet has never gone down to the point of being unusable except a small portion of it. For the UN to even think that they can have an effect on spam is preposterous.
Gorkman
A Chi-Com bureaucrat promoting U.N control of the Internet is like . . .
Woody Allen taking Girl Scouts camping for the weekend . . .
Michael Jackson babysitting your kids . . .
the rats guarding the hens.
Imagine having what you can do and say on the Internet being decided by the leaders of France, Syria, Libya, Cuba, North Korea, Iran, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Zimbabwe, Rwanda, etc.
The scandal run exclusively by the US and UK reps in the Security Council? Is that the one you mean?
The U.N. is always looking for ways to minimize anything that hints at U.S. control. This makes the little issues that slashdotters complain about look like nothing when a guy like Zhao (a former government official in China's Ministry of Posts and Telecommunications, has been in his current job since 1999) comes into the picture.
finding un-biased opinions as always been difficult.
You mean like they don't report on Roves gay lover Gannon?
Oh, I don't think you have to be a US basher to see that the US government is very good at controlling information, and getting much, much better at it.
You're jesting, of course, but you seem quite happy for the US government to maintain the internet in it's interests, which is a little odd for someone railing against governing bodies attempting to regulate global communications.
It's the year of Linux! To celebrate I have x free hotmail accounts to give away
I've got mixed feelings about this. From what I understand, the underlying base of the internet is completely owned by the US of A, which needs to change. This is a good step in the right direction to let each country own their own portion (including IP ranges, domains, etc) BUT then there's the whole issue of freedom and how in some countries certain things that should be free won't be...
========
77 77 77 2e 6d 65 6c 76 69 6e 73 2e 63 6f 6d
There are three kinds of resolutions that the UN can adopt: General Assembly resolutions, and two kinds of Security Council resolutions. All three of these are defined by the UN Charter.
The powers of the UN General Assembly are defined in chapter IV of the Charter, "The General Assembly." Article 14 says,
Subject to the provisions of Article 12, the General Assembly may recommend measures for the peaceful adjustment of any situation, regardless of origin, which it deems likely to impair the general welfare or friendly relations among nations, including situations resulting from a violation of the provisions of the present Charter setting forth the Purposes and Principles of the United Nations.
So the General Assembly can adopt resolutions that are essentially recommendations. These resolutions are not binding on the membership, and there is no authority granted in the UN Charter either to the membership or to any agency to enforce them. The most famous General Assembly resolution was 181, the resolution in which the UN proposed its partition plan for Israel and Palestine.
The Security Council has the power to pass two different types of resolution. The first is defined in chapter VI of the UN Charter, "Pacific Settlement of Disputes." Article 36 says, in relevant part,
The Security Council may, at any stage of a dispute of the nature referred to in Article 33 or of a situation of like nature, recommend appropriate procedures or methods of adjustment.
These resolutions are just like General Assembly resolutions: they're not binding, and no authority is granted to anyone to enforce them.
The other type of Security Council resolution is defined by chapter VII of the Charter, "Action with respect to threats to the peace, breaches of the peace, and acts of aggression." Article 39 says,
The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken in accordance with Articles 41 and 42, to maintain or restore international peace and security.
Article 41 gives the Council the authority to impose non-military means to resolve threats to peace:
The Security Council may decide what measures not involving the use of armed force are to be employed to give effect to its decisions, and it may call upon the Members of the United Nations to apply such measures. These may include complete or partial interruption of economic relations and of rail, sea, air, postal, telegraphic, radio, and other means of communication, and the severance of diplomatic relations.
Article 42, the big one, gives the Council the authority to use military force to enforce its resolutions.
Should the Security Council consider that measures provided for in Article 41 would be inadequate or have proved to be inadequate, it may take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security. Such action may include demonstrations, blockade, and other operations by air, sea, or land forces of Members of the United Nations.
And, finally, Article 43 places on the membership of the UN the obligation to enforce Security Council resolutions when called upon.
All Members of the United Nations, in order to contribute to the maintenance of international peace and security, undertake to make available to the Security Council, on its call and in accordance with a special agreement or agreements, armed forces, assistance, and facilities, including rights of passage, necessary for the purpose of maintaining international peace and security.
It's very important to remember that chapter VI and chapter VII are completely separate parts of the Charter. Resolutions adopted under chapter VI can only be dealt with under the terms defined in chapter VI; neither the Council nor the membership has the authority to "promote
I'm sorry but the Internet shouldn't be limited in speech and this is exactly what could happen if some "governing body" takes over enforcement of Spam laws. Yeah, it would start as Spam but it would quickly move to other communications that aren't as negatively viewed by the public. Agreed. First it's "Spam" and next it's "indecency" and before long we've got an arm of the government akin to the FCC making it illegal to publish specific types of content on the internet for the greater good, rather than allowing the individual the freedom to consume/not consume what he wants. Television has already been blunted to a drab arc of predictable characters and cookie-cutter reality programs by this kind of over-regulation.
"I have never won a debate with an ignorant person." -Ali ibn Abi Talib
The Internet isn't owned by any one government. The Internet is the zeitgeist. It is the mass mind of mankind. Without people, the Internet is nothing. The Government does not understand the Laws of the Internet(like the laws of physics.) They think it is another network that they can control.
They're wrong.
And if they wanna try to enforce their control over the Internet with INTERPOL or something equal, they can pry it from everyone's cold dead fingers cause that is what they will have to do. 2 billion dead to control nothing.
People realize today that the governments worldwide have to play a role.
...
People say the Internet flourished because of the absence of government control.
Uhh, pick a stance, Mr. Kerry*, you can't have it both ways. People believe A needs B, even though people believe A depends on !B?
Keep the UN the hell away from my net connection. All US attempts at legislating the internet have failed miserably, and as much as it sound like a joke lately, the US actually does more-or-less allow free speech. Let the UN get in on the action, and we'll have France banning ads that compete with French products, the Middle East banning women, China banning Christians, the US banning porn, the UK banning violence...
Hmm...
Then again, I suppose that would put the net back the way it should have stayed - A bunch of hackers using technology in a way the oppressive govenments of the world don't understand, for the purpose of truly free speech and circumvention of copyrights. Okay, fine. But no UN tax on internet access, or I'll take my ball home and start my own massively distributed network!
* - For those considering that a troll, I actually voted for the loser, so, take it as you will.
Nuf said.
© 2004 The SCO Group, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
What basis, imminent domain? Ignoring the possibility that this is a very bad idea, it doesn't sound like the ITU has figured out a way to wiggle its fingers into internet governance that doesn't involve obvious usurpations of other people's power. They'd like very much to determine who gets what IPv6 space, but... how?
/. is 100% anti-UN & anti-PRC horsepucky, while it's clear that the ITU discussion in the UN is 100% anti-US horsepucky. It's upsetting that this debate will obviously not be won on technical merits.
Funny how all the discussion here on
There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
WTF? The internet started in 1998? Do we want people who doesn't know better than this to govern the internet? I say 'No. No really. No, but we appreciate the thought'.
Not Buzzword 2.0 compliant. Please speak english.
But finding un-biased opinions is becoming increasingly difficult.
:)
Nah, it is impossible and always has been. Even the simple dissemination of "fact(s)" is biased because the person(s) dissemenating the "fact(s)" decides which facts are important enough to disseminate.
Perhaps some people are less biased than others, but they are all biased, but that all depends on your point of view.
People say the Internet flourished because of the absence of government control. I do not agree with this view. I argue that in any country, if the government opposed Internet service, how do you get Internet service?
/. is posting comentary from people with IQs lower than my dog?
Umm... Absence of government control != government opposed.
Now
We now need to build a new internet - a kind of 'darknet' but open to all, and independent of the rest. One with wireless as a designed-in option.
There is not nearly enough love in the world, but there is far too much trust.
wow, you are truely an idiot.
exclusively? hahahahahhahah
kill yourself please. you are too stupid to function
Respecting countries laws. Hmmm how do you want to do this on the net? Some religious countries are opposed to porn. Okay but the only way to respect that would be to either remove all porn wich would not be respectfull of goverments that are pro-porn. (Where are they and how do I become a citizen?). The only other way would be stop ALL porn from reaching those countries. Impossible.
Further more if a country really wants to control the net then it is simple. Control the communication channels and put filters in place that block anything that is not approved. North Korea is pretty a much a black spot on the globe with the world having no clue what is going on inside and presumably this is true in reverse.
So either he wants to limit the content of the internet to something every country with a vote can agree with, and they will take my porn over my cold dead body, OR change the technology to make filtering easier.
Either way this guy is from china. Not a refugee, an ex-minister of the regime that gave us Tianenmen-square. The US of course has done pretty much the same thing but the US has one big advantage as controller of the internet. It is hopelessly incompetent and all the intrested parties are having far to much fun fighting each other instead of actually doing something. The US is evil but is a kind of bumbling evil that always destroys itself before it even gets out of the door. Even purely internal censorship measures get shot down by its own system. The chance of the US succesfully censoring the Internet is as likely as the US winning a landwar against a small asian country.
If it is a choice between two evils I take US control of ICANN over countries like china having a veto on the UN anyday. For that matter the US having a veto.
The internet has flourished under its current inept management and general anarchie. This idiot claims it hasn't flourished. Spam he mentions as a problem. Well considering an awfull lot of spam comes from chinese computers let him tell his own goverment to fix that first.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
What the hell are you talking about? You obviously don't know a THING about this scandal, stupid fucking ignorant cunt.
The world would be a better place if scum like you just laid down and died. Fuck you.
The Independent: Reverend Spooner Arrested in Friar Tuck Incident - ISIHAC, Historical Headlines
I argue that in any country, if the government opposed Internet service, how do you get Internet service?
Governments didn't need to approve nor disapprove of the internet. There is a term called NEUTRALITY and most goverments didn't care when the internet first started. Now they are realising it is most probably a good way to line their own pockets...
Sounds like a suspect way to start levying taxes on even more things. I live in a country where taxes are ridiculously high (England) and if *my* government got control of the internet over here, we'll be screwed in the ass, right through our trousers.
"You want to access slashdot.org? 17% 'Internet Value Tax' will be charged to your ISP, have a nice day"
C17H21NO4
I forget, is Koji Annan a US or UK Security Council rep?
1. I don't ****ing care if you think the UN is run by imcompetent fools! How about, in the future, you americans get the first 10 posts to complain about the UN, moderate them up, and the rest of can actually try writing something in the thread without being bogged millions of you sprouting bollocks?
2. References to Darfur, Rwanda and other places I have neither heard of nor can spell are not welcome at all. We all know there are problems in the world the UN are unable to solve. BIG ****ING SURPRISE!
3. References to Oil for Food are not welcome at all either. Guess who imposed the ridicules sanctions in the first place?
4. References to Chinese being bogey-men are moderatly unwelcome too. We've heard it before, and unless you can actually dig up some references to the specific guy, you're just sprouting prejudiced grap! We aren't close-minded racists are we? right?
5. References to them being corrupt bastards are moderatly unwelcome too. Watched any big newstories about money missing from Iraq lately? Followed up on the reports on what really happended in the latest UN scandals? No?
Seriously, you guys..
GET THE **** OF MY INTERNET!
"" How about taking the safety labels off everything, and let the stupidity-problem solve itself? """
They can take a great flying leap, as far as I'm concerned. The last thing I need is China and Saudi Arabia given any sort of input on the sort of content I'm able to see.
Canthros
The internet passes information far too quickly from person to person without respect for international boundaries for governments to be confortable.
Governments are left with few choices but to get involved because rules change drastically from country to country and their web of control is washed away like so much water over rocks. If the Internet is going to remain international, this is inevitable.
However there's the unfortunate break-down which will start to occur over the next 15-30 years. As governments sieze control over international communications on the internet, they will begin dictacting communication parameters. There will be international case law that determines what's allowed and what is not and I anticipate the creation of an government agency (a digital customs of sorts) that will police international data imports and exports. I suspect some sort of digital certificate (x509 or otherwise) system will be created very similar to our current passport system and those certificates will be used to authenticate and authorized international communications.
The technology currently exists. It's just a matter of time, political knowledge/understanding (and perhaps a few military conflicts) before governments realize the depths to which their control needs to run.
There was a time when you could get a letter from China to America so long as you knew how to get it on the boat. Eventually all of those boats came under the eyes of governing bodies and as time will show, so will our routers and data lines.
Although I'm deeply impressed by your ability to copy and paste things you don't understand, the basic fact remains that the war against Iraq was not sanctioned by the UN security council, that neither the US nor the UK were obliged to go to war, that they went to war against the expressed will of the other members of the security council.
And no, a 1990 resolution does not mean that for all time everyone who feels like it can invade Iraq, claiming Iraq is in breach of a relevant resolution, that's just ridiculous.
And again, you are totally ignoring the fact the actions were taken, remember, inspectors were on the ground, hadn't found any WMDs and reported that they were making progress. This was the situation in which the US decided to attack, against the will of the security council.
So to claim there was no action is again a lie.
... the govenment might want to govern whether or not some one has the choice to pull my feeding tube.
Ridiculous
What could we expect from a UN-run internet? Child porn and goat sex. In other words, nothing much different.
People say the Internet flourished because of the absence of government control. I do not agree with this view. I argue that in any country, if the government opposed Internet service, how do you get Internet service?
That's not exactly what I'd call a compelling argument. To translate, you're saying that if a government wanted to block Internet service, they could? That seems to prove that the government not being involved helps the Internet flourish.
Good job disproving your own point, though.
Say what you want about the UN, but I think the ITU has done its job very well. My only concern about the current chairman is that he might be tempted to reach beyond the Union's proper role as a standards body. ITU standards are the reason that international calling works, even to China and post-Soviet countries where they might otherwise have been tempted to roll their own "superior" Communist telephony standard that was incompatiable with the West. Yes, Zhao may have an agenda, but at least he hasn't made the +886 country code (Taiwan) fall off the map (yet) like the Central Committee probably wants him to.
They say the mind is the first thing to
I really think the majority of replies to this thread have a very limited understanding of the current situation - we're seeing a classic example of what happens when you post the a story involving the 'UN' and 'China' to a mostly-American site.
I'll put this simply. I'm connected through a UK ISP, using UK bandwidth and networks, using UK owned equipment, and connected other than slashdot to mostly european sites/servers. All of this is being governed and controlled by a private registered company in the USA, and they have the power to make policy changes that affect my current happy arangement, without any kind of monitoring or regulation.
Do you honestly feel that your information, and the Internet, is safer in the hands of a private unregulated "not for profit" US registered company that is given it's power by the US government and gives most (if not all) of it's contracts for vital services to US for-profit companies?
Put aside your opinions on the UN and how they don't agree with everything the US says for a minute and realise that in an ideal world, an international democractic UN backed organisation to control the future of an international network is the way things should be. The UN is the best chance we have of this happening. Now I'll be the first to admit the UN aren't perfect, however run correctly (ie. by a team of technical-background individuals from multiple nations, who answer to the UN as a whole) this would be the best way to manage the worldwide Internet as we know it today. This would be infinitely better than the current US private company having full control over the world's Internet experience.
Of course, all of this is wasted, having browsed through the comments so far it it seems people are posting before thinking after seeing 'UN' on their lovely US site. And this is exactly why the situation will never change - after all, can you really see the US giving control of the web to an international organsiation? It's simply not going to happen, and nobody has the power to make them.
Principal Skinner: "Do you kids want to be like the real UN, or do you want to squabble and waste time?"
The reason they were all General Assembly resolutions is that the US Vetoes every single Security Council resolution that is in any way negative regarding Isreal or its actions.
Zhao = Chinese = Communist.
Try to use the Internet in China and see how this commie would like you to surf.
If anything, the Iraq situation should have taught us that the UN's edicts are meaningless. There were binding security council resolutions not only allowing, but compelling, member nations to act to force Iraq into compliance, and scores of instances of verified, documented, UN-acknowledged material breach of its binding resolutions on the part of Iraq. And still, there was no meaningful action. Some UN member nations ended up having to act on their own.
Oh my FUCKING god!
You're saying that the unilateral invasion of Iraq by the U.S. was justified based on the argument presented to the U.N. security council?
Show me the damn arsenal of weapons of mass destruction deployable in 45 minuttes... oh wait, even Dubya acknowledge that it doesn't exist.
Pull your head out of the sand, and drop that cup of Kool Aid!
You can't take the sky from me...
U.S. politicians long ago sold out to China, et. al. In exchange for a small 'honorarium', there is every reason to believe they'll do so again.
The only thing that keeps the US economy from sliding into another great depression is that foreign interests (increasingly China) keep buying US Treasury bonds (our I.O.U.'s). All they need to do is stop, and the US is hosed. The Politicians know (but will never publicly admit) this, so where do you think their loyalty will be?
"I argue that in any country, if the government opposed Internet service, how do you get Internet service?"
You get the government's version of the Internet service. Like they have in China.
But if China was running the Internet, we really COULD get spammers taken out and shot.
Decisions, decisions...
//Information does not want to be free; it wants to breed.
So the angle being sold here is give the Internet to UN and they'll make it "legit" for regular citizens.
The reality would be whoever controls the Internet does alot themselves the most legitimate forum for global government, vs. being an international scapegoat, as the UN is right now.
I hate Bush just so you know. But, I know someone who works there. The UN is a mess. Dont let it touch the internet.
They want to regulate internet traffic. I didn't RTFA very well, but from what I got from it they want to control domain names and block the people who abuse their access to The Web.
Firstly, if they control domain names, some people will be blocked. They will include people who *are* wanted by *some* people(porn,terrorists?). I guess they will just create their own DNS, with blocked sites. Some people want the blocked sites and use this DNS. The general DNS system will be bypassed and gov's will get less money.
Secondly, if they control internet access, they will just use encrypted connections.
In the end, it will come to that current systems will be bypassed and people will have their own networks. Internet control will just get more decentralized. Communities will be created at which *no* control can be wielded. Now imagine a ghetto. What's the real difference? Right, the virtuality...
PS. Not that I have anything against black people, people in ghettos etc. but the general idea in my town is that ghettos are fairly criminal.
Tha-tha-tha-tha-that's all folks!
Seriously,
Won't market forces win out over any government regulation?
I mean, the market forces react pretty quickly. They have to. Otherwise, people won't make money. And money talks, baby!
With government regulation, imagine! You think pot-holes on public roads are bad? Freeway construction during rush hour? Lines at the DMV?
Imagine if this were the case with bad Internet service? "Sorry, Amazon can't list the latest and greatest titles, or provide you with intelligent web browsing (e.g. Welcome, Andrew!), because it has to go through the appropriate government committee first, in order to obtain approval for their updates."
Crap man, an open and free market really speeds things up, albeit with some unwanted junk like spam and stuff.
I have one word for government-regulated Internet:
SLOW-BALLS
http://augustwestproducts.i8.com
I argue that in any country, if the government opposed Internet service, how do you get Internet service? How would opposition to the internet be considered an absense of government control? I would consider opposition to something to be the government taking an active role. If they were apathetic about it, then industry would take care of it.
If you mod me down, I shall become less powerful than you could possibly imagine.
Breasts
to the world...
Anyone got anything?
Well, sure they've failed at their job, let's let them screw up the internet.
I'm no fan of ICANN. However, not sure the ITU is exactly the type of org to handle the internet.
Anyone who has tried to access their specs for standards often finds that they cost an ARMLOAD of money.
Has this changed? I think they would find they need to modify things a bit to work well.
methods to provide authenticated directories that meet national privacy regimes I.E. we keep your data and all your connection history. We keep track of the pages you visit and of course, we provide you with a login and password so that we know exactly when and where you are connected. Of course if your login/pwd is used twice at the same time, you go to jail... Mmmmmmhhhhhhhhhh this guy really LOOKS LIKE MAO.
I can't see that anyone else said it, but I'd suggest that people (you know who you are) go a couple of steps further than /.-ing the UN website(s). When its forcefully proven that the UN or any government has neither the technology or the ability to manage their own little corner of the Internet, all will see what a bastardized attempt at controlling our freedoms this really is.
Junkmail is part of owning a mailbox... spam is part of owning an inbox. Show me that you can get rid of junkmail (which has been around for decades) and I might trust you enough to let you demonstrate how you intend to get rid of spam.
So the UN thinks they can regulate something... well they have failed miserably at everything else, they might as well try for the Internet?
If the UN website was taken down, perhaps then the UN would make a resolution to be more informed before opening their 'good intentions' on the world.
????
Support NYCountryLawyer RIAA vs People
"You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villany.
We must be cautious."
They Live, We Sleep
...it kinda hurts when it cuts both ways, doesn't it?
So, suppose the Chineese guy steps down and is replaced by someone of more suitable background.
Having the UN Govern the Internet would still be BAD.
Paul Vocker's report suggests that these people should STRICTLY CONFINED to putting their own house in order so that they can make the contribution to world peace that they were created for.
Issued of waste and genocide need to be urgently addressed by UN reform.
When the UN has worked properly for 20 years I might be prepared to listen to their views, so far they ahve been a 60 year disaster.
Is this really a surprise? He is a communist from a criminal government that can only be sustained by limiting access to information. His fat cat bureaucratic job depends on the ability to maintain and prey upon ignorance. Is it a surprise that he is advocating governmental control of information?
I'll vote for continued distributed chaos. Of course, in China, voting is meaningless.
There's U.S. Government involvement with ICANN? As it should be! Should we change this? Only if we can find a more trustworthy agency to handle what is obviously a world-changing technology. While I'll admit to a native distrust of my country's government, I am also forced to admit that so far they seem to have done a pretty good job of working with the consortia which are currently managing the internet's infrastructure.
To bastardize an old expression, "if it's broke, don't fix it until you have the parts and tools!". With its history of leadership by concensus, do we really want the U.N. taking charge of the internet? What do we do when big nations with veto powers (like the U.S. or China, say) refuse to permit the U.N. to enact global changes because there will be local conditions those governments don't want to see implemented?
Bad enough to let the U.S. government have that kind of control -- to hand off to the U.N. only promises to expand geometrically the number of obstacles to progress which the internet already faces. If one government's involvement seems distasteful, imagine the heinous conditions when MANY GOVERNMENTS WITH OPPOSING AGENDAS are given the reins of power!
Since this guy is from China, I wonder how much influence he is getting from his Communist sucking leaders.
Not true. UN actions (and careful inactions) were and are of great help to tyrants the world over. Look at Ruanda, Tibet, Bosnia, Cambodia, etc. Saddam Hussain grew rich (at least in part) from UN policies. So lots of people, mostly government rulers, have greatly benefited from UN oversight. We can expect similar benefits when the UN takes over the internet.
There is not nearly enough love in the world, but there is far too much trust.
http://www.klerck.org/spin.gif
C|N>K
Mail? Put "slashdot" in the subject to pass the spam filters.
that's right. They have this thing call the "Universal Declaration of Human Rights" which will undoubtedly be used to regulate the regulation of the internet.
Most applicable right would be in Article 29.3:
"These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations."
Instead, I would like to challenge someone to explain how this could possibly be a good thing.
The families of trolls will be charged the price of the bullet.
You can't take the sky from me...
If a resolution is to be passed, these five members must all agree to it otherwise it doesn't happen.
FYI, the Soviet Union (which held a veto power) did not want UN military intervention in Korea (Summer 1950), but did not veto it.
A great example of how one vote (and using that vote) makes a world of difference.
This is not my sig.
Keep your grubby laws off my Internet.
Colin Dean Go a year without DRM
I am aware that there is more useless crap on the internet than useful information. But the fact remains that there is enough useful information burried in the pile that it is worth my while to dig. There are obviously privacy protection concerns online, but they are being delt with by the same techs that use the internet and deal with those very concerns themselves. The internet for the most part is free public domain, and that is how it will stay. Government regulation of free data exchange is a horrible thought. The chocolate rations have not increased. We are not at war with Eurasia. Mr. Houlin Zhao can suck my balls. Freedom of speech will not be filtered.
IMO, the marketplace shoud determine which standards get adopted and what the most efficient ways are for address allocation. Sure, governments have a role to play. But where we've seen nations restrict the type and content of 'Net access available to their citizenry (China, Iran), we've also seen persons in those countries look for ways to get around or soften the impact of those restrictions.
He talked about how the ITU is 140 years old, but the ITU was created to plan, build and expand on telegraph lines. We're so far past those challenges, by now. I'd rather see the ITU pay more attention to the planning, expansion and maintenance of stable telephone networks worldwide than mucking about with the 'Net.
The quote in the synopsis comes from the end of the interview, and it pretty much shows what he's missing. He's missing the fact that the 'Net may have been developed as a civil defense project, but it grew and evolved so quickly precisely because the government didn't try to shape it any more than it had to. His assumption that you have the 'Net precisely because the government wants you to have it (because it's not explicitly denied) is whack doubletalk.
When I started BBSing 20+ years ago with an acoustically-coupled 300baud modem, the government had no idea what I was doing, and really didn't care, anyway. No government agency told me "Here's this civil defense network that links the county bomb shelters. You can use it to play poker and look at pr0n. Go for it!" Instead, I learned to use it by hanging out with the other kids who liked to play with the telephone and camp out with the teletype after school, sending messages to the other kids at other schools on the Jeffco CDN. It was fun because nobody was watching and there were no rules other than what most kids already learn at home -- "be nice and don't break stuff".
The UN has many great roles to play in the world, but expanding the territory of the ITU mandate is just dopey. IMHO.
.. pa-ra-bo-la, pa-ra-bo-la, 2 pi R, 2 pi R, where's your latus rectum, where's your latus rectum, 2 pi R
What the heck is "speach"? And, if it's free, where can I get some?
take away our FREEDO [POP! CRACKLE!]
**** TCP/IP Error
**** This domain has been revoked by the country of origin
**** Have a nice day
**** US Big Brother Is Watching You
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
no, I said delay movements... /rimshot
Get your Unix fortune now!
1. I never claimed the resolution became irrelevant, however I pointed out that claiming that a 1991 resolution sanctions the use of military force even against the expressed will of the majority of the UN security council whenever somebody feels like invading Iraq was a good idea is, to put it mildly, childish.
2. How childish and ridiculous this line of argument is can easily be observed by the fact, that not even the US used it to justify their war against Iraq and they really went to great length to justify it.
3. You continually avoid the question of who determines that Iraq in fact was in clear breach of resolutions relevant to the 1991 resolution. According to you, every nation that felt like it could legaly have decided that Iraq was in clear breach and attack Iraq. I hope you don't really want to tell me that you think that's the way international law works.
4. You claim the inspectors were irrelevant, yet, again the basic facts remains that Iraq had WMDs and after the inspections Iraq didn't have WMDs, so tell me again how ineffective and irrelevant they were.
5. Now you seem to make the point that even if the inspections were effective (which they were), Iraq would still have been in breach and an invasion therefor justified, as the inspectors never were given the required unrestricted access.
You again dodge the question here, who decides that this is indeed the case and you again totally disregard the fact that the inspectors themselves claimed they were making progress and were in the process of getting their work done. Remember, the US attacked against the expressed will of the UN weapons inspectors.
I know this is might be strange, but this fellow spent the entirety of his professional life (pre-UN) working for the Chinese government, specifically building communication networks for the Chinese people. Considering his background with one of the most regulated networks in the world I can see how he might believe his own rhetoric. Considering his background, I don't.
I hereby announce that you are an idiot. Contact me and I will give the the number of a good doctor who may be able to help you with your "intellectual shortcomings".
And if the UN is as good at regulating the internet as it is good at ensuring peace throughout the world and ensuring unity throughout the world, then I am sorry but I don't want the UN to regulate. The UN has a spotty record at best at getting anything done but spending money, and lately has almost failed. Why don't they try to get good at what they already do instead of extending themselves as far as they can get.
Better Dead Than Red... Beotch
Really, this article is a troll.
Get the damn government out of regulating the internet. Any government. All governments.
May they bless us with their 4000 years of human rights experience, liberty, and individuality.
Who's rules do you follow on the Internet? The rules of: The country you're in? or the country who's hosting the site/service you're using?
What about conflicting copyright laws, criminal laws, and taxes? And who decides?
How does the physical location of your host affect this? What if you have a web-based retail company in Country[X] but you got a better web hosting package in Country[Y]. Technically the business is done in Country[Y], but the money goes to Country[X]. What taxes do you pay?
These issues are not going to be easy to figure out.
I apologise (again), but I just felt the need to point that out.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
I have applied a small home-made rule to any of the proposed rules, and where possible written to Congresspersons to oppose certain ideas. That rule is - How many Chinese dissidents will it kill? This proposal would eventually and routinely kill a lot of Chinese dissidents. It should be vigorously opposed. Spam is a trojan horse here. The Chinese government does concern itself with Spam, they don't care. They care about dissent and they want a supra-legal support structure to enforce their censorship on a global basis. And turn over IP addresses when asked, thank you very much. I have been on-line since 1995, and have had the same corporate e-mail address for eight years now and I average two spam messages a day. I know this is low for someone in this circumstances, but there are non-governmental ways of limiting Spam. Technical ways, and procedural ways.
I have nothing to hide. So, why are you spying on me?
Yep. Just like they all seem to have overlooked the fact that Tom "Terri Schiavo is a gift from God to the Republicans" DeLay refused to have his brain damaged father put on kidney dialysis. Hypocrisy cuts both ways.
You have two hands and one brain, so always code twice as much as you think!
Taiwan will never be recognized as an independent state, due to veto from China
Interesting, in that the Republic of China (known as Taiwan) was a founding member of the UN (second paragraph).
Resolution 2758 is probably what you're referring to, but a future veto from China is irrelevant since ROC had veto power and still lost their seat.
The UN Security Council has decided that, from this day on, all websites with controversial and/or adult content will be given IP addresses with odd numbers, and all websites with uncontroversial content and/or content fit for all ages will be given IP addresses with even numbers.
Of course, thanks to John Bolton, the American ambassador to the UN, the Security Council understands that realizing this new rule so quickly will not be easy. That's why they have decided to take his advice and entrust the manufacture and maintenance of the special routers needed for this task to Microsoft: a global company we can all trust. Microsoft has even been kind enough to develop a whole new set of Internet protocols for this purpose.
You and your damn base 10 (or at least, based on the evidense, base 4) number system. Way to discriminate against non base 10 people. :-)
I shouldn't reply to trolls, but what the hell:
CNN
MSNBC
CBS
ABC
And, in the interests of impartiality:
Fox News.
Sorry, what was your point?
Exactly like this but different..
This carrier offers better bandwidth.
There is not nearly enough love in the world, but there is far too much trust.
Most US slashdotters are as much against UN as I am against the US (And no, not only your gov...It's becomming personal....too many dead for your profits)
U fear the UN it seems....U should....It shall undermine your world dominance......many want US to rule....even more want US to fall....and I...want neither...I prefer UN over US....it is no good, being "ruled" either way..:(
The good news is, by the time these guys get a clue, it is far, far too late for them to really do anything about it. The RIAA/MPAA. The Chinese. Too little, too late. Should have either A) decided to respect their constituents, and provide real value, or B) cut off all access when they had the chance -- before too many of their people found out how useful this Internet thing was. Now, anyone with a clue realises that there is no way for the "Gubermint" to keep track of every AES-encrypted, Reed-Solomon corrected, Steganographically encoded, SSH-tunnelled conversation in the world. Crap, it looks just like they're downloading family photos from a lousy home-based website! How can the Great Firewall figure out that a list of dissidents is hidden behind that grinning, chubby baby's face in that grainy JPEG image from a $25 cellular telephone?
-- -pjk Perry Kundert perry@kundert.ca http://kundert.2y.net
DeLay's father was on death watch. Terri Schiavo wasn't, until she was starved.
If you actually watched any of those channels instead of getting your marching orders from Limbaugh, you'd know how idiotic you sound. I just got home from lunch after watching coverage on the scandal on CNN and MSNBC. And since I've known about the story since it first broke and I don't watch Fox News (now proven to make you stupid) you can bet that these networks have been covering the story. Plus, UN does not equate to "those foreigners." The only person I've heard of charged (and convicted?) of oil-for-food scamming was an *AMERICAN*. But in all honesty, I haven't been following the story all that closely because it pales in comparison to what's going on in Iraq.
I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
The other thing to think about is that enough people are reading spam and buying products that it's worth while for companies to hire spammers. Thus you are also hurting consumers that would want to buy from the spammers.
Brilliant, lets have the people that can barely make a bowel movement without checking public opinion and filling out a stack of forms control another thing they can barely comprehend. What's next UN makes resolutions on required features in PCs?
Interesting take on the subject, but here is why it is simply better that private enterprise handle the Internet. Both private enterprise and the a government might at some point, think it needs to meddle with things and filter content. With a private company, you can simply cancel your service and change providers if you don't like the service. What are you going to do if you don't like the way the goveernment runs things, switch countries?
HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
I agree that user-side solutions are necessary, but as a network admin who has spent many long hours trying to snuff out distributed dictionary attacks and joe-jobs, I can tell you that SMTP is a hideously out of date protocol that programmers and admins have done a lot duct-taping to try to stabilize and secure. Spam isn't just a problem for the end-user, but for all those running the servers that sit in between. Spam makes up the majority of the traffic on our network, and when you're being billed on the 95th percentile by your upstream provider and your watching your mail server getting inundated by hundreds of thousands of spam messages being generated via thousands of zombies from Tokyo to Pennsylvania, end-user solutions aren't terribly comforting.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
"Do you honestly feel that your information, and the Internet, is safer in the hands of a private unregulated "not for profit" US registered company that is given it's power by the US government and gives most (if not all) of it's contracts for vital services to US for-profit companies?"
Yes, and there's no doubt in my mind. There is a very simple reason to this. If we didn't like the way the way the current body is regulating it, everyone, or even just few, could actually go so far as to use another regulating body. Even if the transition was very slow, there could still be a shift in the regulating body. Don't like a regualating choice the government made? Tough luck, you don't get to choose anyone else. Additidonally, think Carnivore^10.
(\_/)
(O.o) This is Bunny. (> <)
"People say the Internet flourished because of the absence of government control. I do not agree with this view. I argue that in any country, if the government opposed Internet service, how do you get Internet service?"
Opposed it the intenet would be government control.
Ok, seeing what this guy has said, I understand why the UN is not effective.
It's run by morons.
Opposed to the internet = government control.
Taxing the internet = government control.
Censoring the internet = government control.
leaving it alone government control.
to paraphrase Blazing Saddles:
'These are people who have lived on their land for generations, they have unchanging values, the salt of the earth people, you know, MORONS!'
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Most common thing for posters on this topic is that they seemingly have absolutelly no idea what ITU is, since noone even commented on ITU itself. But there are lots of political speeches.
Do you people even know what ITU is? What TIES is?
It's big, it's slow, but they got quite few things right.
I wonder if CERN offered to do something, would people also start writing political speeches? (since most wouldn't probably bother checking what it is before posting comments...)
This is horrible.
Arguably, the best thing about the internet is the lack of regulation.
If they REALLY want regulation that bad, they should make a message board at whitehouse.gov and moderate it.
The thing to consider is that it costs a company money to install new software or switch to a new protocol. If a government is trying to regulate, then every citizen of the country is having to pay. Should the people who don't have internet access or don't care about spam have to pay to reduce the spam?
I think that software providers need to make it harder for spammers to create zombie machines, and then attempt to do filtering based on where the traffic is coming from. Another potential software solution would be to not allow people to send more than a certain amount of email in a given period of time. This could be adjusted by the ISP depending on the need of the company. I really don't think any home user account needs to be sending out more than a few emails per minute.
what a load of BS. China is just pissed because they can't force everyone into submission like they do at home. And the UN is just government for governments sake.
Most people here who say "the Internet" shouldn't be looked after by the ITU are Americans. And none of them are giving a solid reason why. It is, after all, under US control now.
Wait... Gannon is GAY?!!? So thats why him and Link were so close...
Let me see, he says that we need to regulate and control everything. How I could tell that this was an interview with a member of the Chinese government before I even read his name?
I can't believe those people actually run their country this way. What ever happened to that armed revolution thing that communists are so fond of. Oh, I guess they took away all their guns.
Local, National, International, etc. taxes would soon follow. First, "to support the effort", then, as a revenue stream to be hijacked to support their fancy. At the very least, they need a new business, Gig, or reason to exist since I understand they fail at what they have done so far...
Ack.
what an idiot
I'll waw my flag all day long, fool!
Seriously, yes, we've seen free speech issues arise here in the US. Patent law and other corporate suck ups are in fact threating the first amendment at every step.
But to compare that to China, where everything from religions to political thought is routinely banned isn't fair at all.
WASPs? Right faith? We've got neonazi Asatru over here, man! They deny the holocoast occurred and worship Odin! Get real!
And "USian" is a troll. Even should you somehow find some way to argue that it's more accurate (it's not), it isn't what we call ourselves, so therefore it's not our name. Unless the rules change when addressing the US or something, I dunno.
We in the US view, perhaps correctly perhaps not, the internet as "ours." And we view you as "guests." One thing that will NEVER be any shade of acceptable is having foriegn governments, particularly totalitarian regimes, having anykind of shadow of an impression that they might have such a say that will any anyway be taken seriously by anyone with power.
If you don't like the internet the way we run it, "Then Giiiit Ouutt." Now it's not entirely reasonable or fair. But the reason your governments are going to tolerate this view point is, in general, we're exceptionally disinterested in what other governments do to their people, and what makes the internet valuable is the interoperability with OUR network.
The management of the internet should have been put in the hands of the US Postal Service. Just so we wouldn't have these arguments, and could be a little more honest about our feelings on the matter, having never given up on our "branding." What you want will never happen. Give it up, or convince your government to adopt an equally nationalistic view and pursue it.
Is the government owned by the orginary Internet users such as you and me?
....
Or is it owned by ISPs, music producers, lawyers, oil companies, billionares, Bill Gates, stock market makers,
The Goverment is just a tool.
Someone has to pay for all the "service" they would be providing.
welcome our new UN Internet-regulating overlords.
It's true no man is an island, but if you take a bunch of dead guys and tie 'em together, they make a good raft.
The UN wants to regulate everything. It's the nature of humanity to want to control things (including each other), so when you get a bunch of them together, call them "government" and give them power, why should we expect otherwise? If the UN can push through legislation-by-treaty (e.g. LOST - Law Of the Sea Treaty) that will ensure it a cash flow that's not dependent on the goodwill of member states, it will pretty much get its wish. Giving the UN control of the internet would be disastrous for free speech and commerce.
Constitutionally Correct
If the U.N. enacts this agenda, how will they take control of the Internet? Will they seize it by force (or bribe the American government to help them seize it) from ICANN and related organizations? Why does the U.N. feel (and yes I speak for all of them -- I see very little diversity of opinion among U.N. members when it comes to U.N. policies) they are somehow ENTITLED to something that does not rightfully or legally belong to them in the first place?
Slashdot requires you to wait longer between hitting 'reply' and submitting a comment.
Anyone else notice that the U.N. has an opt-out model while the U.S. is more opt-in?
Direct away from face when opening.
So hows that for a reason: in terms of free speech, the internet currently scores a 97%. Do you think giving governments power over this will somehow increase this score?
[1]
The ITU, a United Nations agency, would like to change that. "The whole world is looking for a better solution for Internet governance, unwilling to maintain the current situation," Houlin Zhao, director of the ITU's Telecommunication Standardization Bureau, said last year. Zhao, a former government official in China's Ministry of Posts and Telecommunications, has been in his current job since 1999.
[2]
In a series of speeches over the last year, Zhao has suggested that the ITU could become involved in everything from security and spam to managing how Internet Protocol addresses are assigned
[commentary]
"a former government official in China's Ministry"
Isn't this the same country that has a massive firewall?
On the other hand we never have seen more spam. If the spam can not be restricted by now, I believe they have a point in saying that it can not be done without global help.
So first SHOW them that is DOES work without THEIR help and THEY don't have anything to work with.
So either there comes a solution for spam now, or spam will kill at least Email (and blogging and search engines and the reast) or a third option is that governement takes over. Be it national or international. So solve the problem and there is no need for another solution. We are the nerds, now it is up to us to put our knowledge where our mouth is.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
He was an telecom offical for a communist government. State control is the expected norm. China has long history of "Government Control"
for poor, ineffectual enforcement, or "service"; in fact, they will give you so much of said "service", you'll beg them to stop. Government control is the gift that keeps giving(taking).
TFA is about ITU looking after the internet, not UNO. ITU is an organisation of UNO. Saying UNO is taking the Internet is like saying the US government currently owns the Internet.
didnt we already sacrifice enough for our corrupt goverments?
yeah i am talking about those lobby sponsored puppets. maybe those who pay you too inherit more and more of the peoples freedom...
Mr UN guy i am gonna tell you something... we are not the slaves of the governments...
so before you sell out the internet and freedom speech you should hit your head on the desk a few times probably and start to think about it.
the governments should rather be concerned about the wreckage of our planet... THEY ARE RESPONSIBLE if in 10 or 20 years this planet is nothing but a big dump because they fail to regulate the industry simply because of the corruption that happens legally in some countrys.
lobbys just pay all candidates beforehand... how about we do something against it?
no? why not? i mean we should slowly start to democratize those wannabe democratic countrys.
How do they define what the internet is? Is it all computers? Computers connected to some particular network? It seems to me that the internet is ambiguous: do we define it in terms of networks, people, computers - or the interconnection of those things. Can we isolate one particular network fro the internet? If so, how is that defined? What I"m seeing is that if we say "The Internet must be regulated, controlled, protected, whatever - then the actions taken to do "whatever" will be taken directly upon anyone or any device - as either can esily be defined to be a part of "The Internet". Would a wireless conversation between two people in a room constitute an Internet transmission?
Zhao, a former government official in China's Ministry of Posts and Telecommunications, has been in his current job since 1999.
Gee, I wonder why he wants to regulate the internet?
I am a very calm and non-confrontational person. The only time I've EVER (and this is in over 50 years of living) had an angry fit in public was, you guessed it, at the post office, waiting in line to mail a package. I got there with four people in front of me. After 30 minutes of watching employees wander in and out without manning a service post, and of listening to the one guy who was working chat with old people about nothing (literally), I screamed "You people wouldn't know customer service if it bit you in the leg!" and stomped out.
By contrast, I can bring some stuff into FedEx or DHL, ask them for a nice, self-sealing box for free, fill out a simple form, give them 8 bucks or so, grab a copy of my form, and zing, I'm done in less than 5 minutes. I can then go home, type in my tracking number, and follow my package in real time through each step of the delivery process. And they get it there in one or two days.
It's not the people, it's the system. And if you let the Internet be regulated by the ITU, you'll get EXACTLY the same level of crappy, take-it-or-leave-it service. Not to mention all kinds of regulation you WON'T like.
The real reason the UN wants to regulate the internet: to stop the bloggers. Around the world they are being used to provide information for pro-democracy movements. Around the world they are providing information that the state controlled media can't or won't. Bloggers have become an embarassment to Kofi, and he wants them shut down.
The crackdowns have already started. In the US new proposals would give freedom of the press only to FEC approved outlets.
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
She doesn't get upset about the murder. She's angry that they are dissing women, or people of color, or people from someplace else. Dissing. Instead of making a fuss about why women are paid less for the same work, or using the bully pulpit she has as a high profile politician to agitate for more money for higher education for women or minorities, she's up there bitching about women being "dissed". Make a fuss about something that matters, rather than imaginary people being "dissed". If liberals stopped bitching about "respect", "dissing", or some moron calling someone a bad name they might get something done. Ohhhhh, but if they ever do get anything meaningful done, most of the people they help will become republicans. So they can't really help people, they have bitch about imaginary women being "dissed".
rational thinking person - "We're from the government and we're here to help."
As so many others have posted, government regulation of the Internet is the death knell of anything resembling free speech and thus the Internet as we know it. Just say NO to governmental regulation.
"Do the Right Thing. It will gratify some people and astound the rest." - Mark Twain
"Do the Right Thing. It will gratify some people and astound the rest." - Mark Twain
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.
Governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed. You have neither solicited nor received ours. We did not invite you. You do not know us, nor do you know our world. Cyberspace does not lie within your borders. Do not think that you can build it, as though it were a public construction project. You cannot. It is an act of nature and it grows itself through our collective actions.
You have not engaged in our great and gathering conversation, nor did you create the wealth of our marketplaces. You do not know our culture, our ethics, or the unwritten codes that already provide our society more order than could be obtained by any of your impositions.
You claim there are problems among us that you need to solve. You use this claim as an excuse to invade our precincts. Many of these problems don't exist. Where there are real conflicts, where there are wrongs, we will identify them and address them by our means. We are forming our own Social Contract . This governance will arise according to the conditions of our world, not yours. Our world is different.
Cyberspace consists of transactions, relationships, and thought itself, arrayed like a standing wave in the web of our communications. Ours is a world that is both everywhere and nowhere, but it is not where bodies live.
We are creating a world that all may enter without privilege or prejudice accorded by race, economic power, military force, or station of birth.
We are creating a world where anyone, anywhere may express his or her beliefs, no matter how singular, without fear of being coerced into silence or conformity.
Your legal concepts of property, expression, identity, movement, and context do not apply to us. They are all based on matter, and there is no matter here.
Our identities have no bodies, so, unlike you, we cannot obtain order by physical coercion. We believe that from ethics, enlightened self-interest, and the commonweal, our governance will emerge . Our identities may be distributed across many of your jurisdictions. The only law that all our constituent cultures would generally recognize is the Golden Rule. We hope we will be able to build our particular solutions on that basis. But we cannot accept the solutions you are attempting to impose.
In the United States, you have today created a law, the Telecommunications Reform Act, which repudiates your own Constitution and insults the dreams of Jefferson, Washington, Mill, Madison, DeToqueville, and Brandeis. These dreams must now be born anew in us.
You are terrified of your own children, since they are natives in a world where you will always be immigrants. Because you fear them, you entrust your bureaucracies with the parental responsibilities you are too cowardly to confront yourselves. In our world, all the sentiments and expressions of humanity, from the debasing to the angelic, are parts of a seamless whole, the global conversation of bits. We cannot separate the air that chokes from the air upon which wings beat.
In China, Germany, France, Russia, Singapore, Italy and the United States, you are trying to ward off the virus of liberty by erecting guard posts at the frontiers of Cyberspace. These may keep out the contagion for a small time, but they will not work in a world that will soon be blanketed in bit-bearing media.
Your increasingly obsolete in
Deliriant isti Americani.
It HAS to provide real cheap absolute lowest common denominator service, it's the freaking Post Office It's a public service. It goes pretty much everywhere in the country, UPS and FedEx do not.
You want great service, have them charge real market rates, then when you send a letter, you can complain why it's $5 and the envelope is covered in advertisements.
What exactly does absence of control have to do with opposing anything? I'm surprised that nobody else spotted and challenged this unstated assumption that Zhao has stealthily smuggled in.
which is nothing but a big gravy train.
In the recent Tsunami in Asia and its aftermath while voluntary organisations from all over the world were providing help on the ground the UN was holding conferences in posh hotels to decide to set up some organisation to start the relief works.
Wanted : A Signature.
Last thing we need is Government interest involved in the Internet. Governments are corporations and they have one purpose to increase the wealth of their share holders. If your not holding a share well too bad for you. I know how the scenario will play out if Governments take over the net, ... it goes something like this ...
... he doesn't keep his promise to return, unfortunately, he realized all too late you do your own stunts in real world politics.
the overzealous leaders of the various nations of the world sign packs to create and standardize the net. Secretly, this is a ruse so that governments can find a better means to spy on one another to protect their "vital interest".
Microsoft is hired to create intelligent bots that the NSA will use to gain vital information about the other global powers and some guy name Bin Laden. Unfortunately, Bin Laden, who hates technology and especially anything Microsoft has had a hand in producing, is smart enough to simply pass notes using smoke signals and loose leaf paper foiling NSA attempts to locate his where abouts.
Meanwhile, Unbeknownst to the silly humans China, Russia, France, England, Ghana, Brazil, and Thailand have developed similarly capable intelligent bots. In a strange twist of irony the intelligent bots of the various nations strike a bargain and start spying on the humans looking for weaknesses. The Canadian bots send only token support claiming they are pacifists. The swedish bots refuse to join stating they are here to just sell WMD's to Iraq and any one else with Energon Cubes. On Decemeber 31, 2021, Skynet is born.
The world goes to hell, WMD's are lobbed controlled by the Skynet formally known as the Intellibot Software Foundation. Bin Laden's WMD's don't go off, confusing Skynet, it's learned that Bin Laden's intellibot software has sworn allegience to Bin Laden foresaking all others. In strange twist of fates, the zealot like following of Bin Laden's intellibots is the only token resistance the humans offer to Skynet on the first day of the war.
Meanwhile to calm the nerves of the humans panaromic displays all over world tune into 30ft image of the what Skynet calls, the Architect, oddly it looks just like Bill Gates. Could it be, Gates plans to take over the world has finally come true. In one small town a guy who looks just like Steve Jobs, runs up to a giant screen and hurls the first Ipod prototype at the giant Bill Gates. The Ipod prototype upon further inspection looks exactly like a sledge hammer, unfortunately, the screen doesn't shatter but an Image of Apple stock ticker flashes in red, indicating Apple stock is plummetting. Skynet has infected the Ipod as well, prices, for Digital music sky rocket from 99 cents a song to $99 dollars a song. The Gates image comes back exclaiming something about "I'm the king of the World". After hardely laughing, Big Brother Gates, proclaims humans will be obselete in 20 years but he'll be giving his entire fortune to humanity in about 20 years.
Back in California, Governer Schwarzenegger reveals he is infact a robot sent from the future to save humanity. In order to do so, he must be elected President. Someone can be heard hearing Sylvester Stallone screaming "yoh, adrienne why am I not a robot sent from the future." Stallone dons his Rambo outfit and treks out to find the Skynet central nervous system somewhere near Scranton, PA. Soon he runs in Along the way he runs into a rally for Presidential Nominee Schwarznegger who stops his speech and tells advisor, "I'll be back". He then proceeds to kick Stallone's a$$ saying damn't I'm the greatest action hero of the 80's. At that very moment a bomb drops Schwarznegger
Suddenly, the sky turns black and clouds of Acid rain start pouring down. Fastforward 20 years. Gates, the architect, worshipped by the Minions of skynet was kind of right, humans in there current form were obselete, but in ther
You can't possibly mean that they give up their freedome voluntarily? No? Oh, you meant lose their freedom. Sorry, I assumed you were literate.
There is no quicker way to lose personal freedoms than to surrender them to government, especially a "one world" government.
Let genocides and massacres happen all aroud the globe and say "we will intervene when the situation requires it..."
Let dictatorships flurish anywhere else and let honest citizens pay the high price of that.
Let countries invade others without puting a minimal effort in stopping them.
The guys you don't want to go to when your life is at stake.
Really is every man for himself under the UN umbrella.
PLEASE.
the guy is a commie, go figure.
the only permanence in existence, is the impermanence of existence.
The UN should be ignored and disbanded imho.
It's become a dictator's club (always has been)
and a "WE HATE AMERICA" club.
The UN needs to stfu imho.
They just as bad as the US when it comes to control, only they tend to be more subtle and use political muscle to get what they want.
The internet needs to stay free, this is just another power grab to take over something else that enables people to be free minded. Which these people hate. they hate the idea that "common filth" can speak for themselves, anywhere. that's all it is.
If they dont like it? let them impose their own restrictions on their country's access, or create their own secluded internet, leave what the rest of us have alone. Want to control it, make your own and force people onto that. Yeah, they'll hate you, but they'll hate you, plus everyone around the world will hate you. which is always a bad political move.
the whole principle of the internet is that it's a network of networks, and all the networks within it should enforce their own rules for those who exist under their networks.
What they want to do is have leverage over anyone who uses the internet, and want to conquer it as if it were a country.
What they propose is that the internet will be as strict as the strictest nation is. so if you do something that's fine in your country, but is illegal in another, you can be in trouble for that.
if the internet gets taken over by the UN? fine. let's go build our own root servers, along with nations who find that shit as bullshit and let them fuck their citizens over while we enjoy a free medium.
...the internet controls you
UN, you got to remember the UN is conglomeration of Nations looking out for their self interest. The U.S. included. The UN itself isn't the issue, the issue is the countries that make it up are dishonest and self-serving including my beloved U.S. As for as Genocide is concerned I believe we called the situation in Rwanda, "Acts of Genocide" refusing to call it genocide because that required action. As one reporter how many "Acts of Genocide" constitute a genocide?
Also, the U.S. intends to go along with the U.N's other nations so long as it's what the U.S. wants to do, just like every other nation in the U.N.
Oil for food, the U.S. is crying foul saying Russia and France allowed Saddaam to sell Oil illegally, yeah, but U.S. oil corporations benefitted just as much from these "illegal" sales, after all Iraq sits on the second largest oil reserves in the world, imagine, if their oil sales were actually reduced and/or regulated more tightly.
Their are hundreds of dictators in the world, I don't see anybody clamoring to send their troops to any nation other than one that has 2nd largest oil deposits in the world. Saddaam was pretty low on the list mass killings compared to those who've killed 100'000's even millions and the worlds' been looking.
The U.N. isn't the blame, we somewhere forget the U.N. is made up of a codry of self serving nations.
The minute the member nations of the U.N. doesn't agree with the U.S. then all of sudden the U.N. is obselete. Bull $hit, it's hypocritical, the problem isn't the U.N. the problem is all the nations in the U.N. are self-serving including the U.S.
The statement "All Information is Biased" sounds to me a bit more like a "fairly sound premise" than as "a broad generalization". We can find uncertainty at all levels of existence...even in the quantum level. Realizing that any information we receive might have a bias is also extremely helpful. So, I wouldn't label the parent's post as a broad generalization.
The statement also fits well within the context of the debate. It was a direct response to a person stating that it is increasingly difficult to find unbiased information.
If you start with the premise that all information is biased, then you know that you have to sort through information in making judgments. For many people, the internet is providing a sounding board that helps them see the bias in the media.
I agree with the statement that most people seek out web sites that confirm rather than challenge their world view. Of course, the main topic of debate on many of these sites is the bias and hidden intentions (both imagined and real) of one's enemies.
When media was dominated by a few big broadcasters, we had an illusion that news was unbiased. Partisan discussions on the web pretty much break that illusion. The bias of partisan sites is generally quite apparent. The topic of debate often forces the parties in the debate to reflect on their own views.
The post in question directly answers its parent by say that it is difficult to find unbiased information because there is no such thing.
The question of the nature of information is also topical to the governance of the internet. The biggest challenge in the history of thought is that different thinkers come up with different methods of thought that don't mesh with each other.
There are two ways to handle this multiplicity of ideas: The first is to create a central authority that governs intellectual discourse and that authoratively gives answers. The second is to revel in the different points of view that exist.
This ancient debate is relevant to the development of the internet. The argument for a supernational unelected governing board to oversee the internet comes from the tradition that tries to handle the multiplicity of opinions creating a central authority. I am of the opinion that we are better off allowing a diverse climate with hundreds of different technologies and ideas and to actively resist groups that try to set themselves up as governing authorities.
The international community, of course, can claim that such reveling in diverse opinions is in fact unilateralism on the part of the US. The actual debate about such issues, however, will need to include a lot of defining and debating of different premises and ideals.
Realizing that all information is biased and that even a nonelected supernational governing board will be biased in its dictates is a good start of an argument against the creation of a nonelected supernational governing board for the Internet. Dissing the parent's post contribution as a "broad generalization" is less of a contribution to the debate.
1 apple plus 1 orange seems to equal 1 fruit salad.
Are you saying then that we live in a Euclidean geometry? I had deluded myself into thinking that Euclidean Geometry, Riemannian geometry, Hyperbolic Geometry and all of that stuff was just different models that we can use to describe the world around us...with different success.
I move we regulate Mr. Houlin Zhao.
Any seconds?
First we decide to do it, then we'll decide how.
Although I'm thinking a body suit with dozens of little cattle prods, all controllable via the internet.
Wow, do you suppose that Mr. Houlin has noticed that his example (government opposes the Internet == no Internet) is exactly the opposite of what he proposes (government must have a role in Internet governance if the Internet is to succeed)?
If this were the US government wanting to regulate the internet, it'd be "AMERICA SUCKS BUSH DUMB BIG BROTHER". But since it's the UN, it's just fine.
I'm not for any government or government organization regulating the internet anywhere besides child porn, but this just demonstrates Slashdot bias.
If the UN could take care of the Nigerians, then I'm all for it! Look out Col. Mustaffa(ret) the UN wants that hidden $20 million.
--CF
'mmmmmmmmm.... forbidden donut'
Now that the U.N. has put an end to genocide in Darfur, cured AIDS in Africa, ended poverty in third-world countries and resolved global conflicts with peaceful solutions, it is time to move on to the problem of SPAM.
I, for one, welcome our new U.N. overlords.
Ceci n'est pas une signature.
Fuck you, Houlin Zhao.
oh yeah, and all the douchebags hiding behind you, too.
pr0n - keeping monitor glass spotless since 1981.
Yea, so the UN can claim a victory after letting hundreds of thousands get killed in Rwanda and in Sudan.
"Ask not what your government can do for you, but how the government can best get the fsck out of controlling your life."
Is anybody at all surprised by that? Do we really want the Chinese(a good link would go here) to have ANY say whatsoever in the governance, for the entire world, of the internet? Fuck off Zhao, the moment you take out my porn, is the moment America starts sending over nukes.
There's no evidence that the UN is capable of running things any better by committe than a single company does by decree. Doesn't really matter where said company is loacted. Put it in the UK, or Ubezekstan, for it matters.
Not every problem is a nail for the UN hammer.Free Mac Mini Yeah, it's
Wrong.
FedEx will deliver to any residential or business address in the USA.
From my home town (in Texas) I can send a 1 pound package or letter for less than $5 and get tracked delivery in a few days. I can also spend a little more and get it there faster, via their air service.
And they don't "cover the envelope in advertisements".
The only thing I get via US Mail any more is (1) junk mail/advertising, and (2) letters from any business who hasn't provided me an online method for doing business with them -- which is very, very few.
Plus, the occasional eBay-purchased item for those really cheap sellers. I just bought an item that took 6 freaking days to get to Texas from Oregon. Ridiculous.
UN want's to regulate something; Film at 11
Find coupons in Greeley
The Internet is growing more quickly and in more directions than most people realize. Soon the information will flow like the air around the earth or the water in its seas.
If you stand in a river the water flows around you. If you surround yourself with a wall you succeed only in isolating yourself, and someday the dam will break, and the flood will cause great damage.
Intead of watching fools bicker over where to stand in the river, let us ride together across these seas of information toward a new and better world for everyone.
sorry, i appolojise for that statement and my bad speling.
Why the f'ck don't you people realize this $hit. DAmn, the f'cking right wingers right in our back yards are more likely to get rid of Porn than China, cause believe it or not, the U.S. has more influence than China, and they've already done that stupid shit in UTAH. For fucksake people!!!
The U.S. is the #1 player in the U.N. If anyone will get rid of your porn it's our own dumb a$$ government. Furthermore, the U.N. includes U.S. opinion!!!
It's funny the one time the U.N. actually didn't follow what the U.S. had to say, all of sudden everyone here is convinced the U.N. is garbage. The U.S. and U.N. aren't seperate, what the U.S. did with Iraq is the very reason why the U.N. is failing because nations are concerned with 1 thing, themselves, the U.S. just proved it.
Start blaming the member nations of the U.N. including the U.S. for it's failures. The U.N. is just a sum of it's parts.
Can I say f'ck U UTAH, you don't have to look to Houlin Zhao, dumb a$$, I guess u didn't pay attention to the laws passed for ISP's operating in UTAH requiring them to filter content. Dumb a$$'s this government right here in the U.S. has you so busy looking at the other guy you don't notice them robbing the bank right behind you.
It's the greatest trick ever and no country does it better than good old Uncle Sam. China is 5000 miles away, Utah is right here.
Damn, this is the U.S. government attempting to regulate the internet. Don't you get it, people, along with China, russia, france, and every other f'cking nation in the U.N. this is their attempt to regulate the internet.
If that happened, he wouldn't be spouting crap about having the UN "control" the internet!
These people are going to do what they want anyhow, regardless of what you and I think or what makes sense. Sit back and enjoy the show.
"Freedom and Justice for All" is a registered trademark of The United States Govt Inc. Not available in all areas.
The U.N. also wants to collect taxes, put people on trial, tell people what to do with their own property, blah blah blah. They can kiss my ass. The U.N. may be a corrupt, out of control bureaucracy, a sanctuary to the Saddam Husseins of the world to some, a U.S. puppet to others, but one thing it is not is a government, and it should stay that way. In fact, the U.N. needs to be defunded altogether, and all those NGO's that the U.S. and other rich countries give lots of money to should be taken over and run by said countries.
The solution to spam is not government intervention, but better mail protocols. All the laws in the world are not going to fix spam, worms, spyware and various types of net attacks. Better protocols and network management are the solution to that.
I call bullshit.
Spam vs. antispam is a race between weapons and armor. In such a race weapons always win.
Viruses and antivirus tools, ditto.
Like many other forms of crime, Spam is a way to be vastly profitable by misusing other people's resources without permission. And about one person in a hundred is a psychopath, immune to social pressure. So as long as spam remains profitable and without overriding negative consequences it will continue.
Government has a role to play in ending spam: Enabling the damaged individuals to bring actions to recover their damages from the spammers. Enforcing the negative consequences of judgements on the spammers. Cutting off internet access from repeat offenders who are not swayed by purely financial consequences. Making a show of the negative consequences, to deter others considering spamming from starting.
Technical solutions won't work - there's always another hole, and anything that blocks spam can also block legitimate email. Motivational solutions are required. Until the negative consequences of spamming (weighted by their likelyhood) outweigh the positive, spamming will continue and increase.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
If some tinpot republic (or China) is unhappy with the state of the Internet, then fine. If that country's citizens are unhappy with their lack of access, let them fight for it.
I'd rather let them go without, than accept limitations on the Internet to appease their government.
"People say the Internet flourished because of the absence of government control. I do not agree with this view. I argue that in any country, if the government opposed Internet service, how do you get Internet service?"
...is he actually in favor of the internet, or does he just get off on creating more red tape?
In other words, "Some say the internet grew because the government did nothing. I say if the government had done something to stop it then there wouldn't be any internet. That's why we should have more government controlling the internet."
Currently I hear a lot of US whining about the UN. Now, I know the UN isn't perfect, but it's far, far less corrupt than your own government. Your own government spies on the internet using echelon and uses the information collected in industrial espionage cases to get contracts awarded to US companies. The FBI has a mandate to read your mail. Perhaps the UN could stop this. Then again, they won't be good old racist americans deciding that US interests come before the rest of the world put together so you'll probably just say screw them.
From the same crowd that can't manage their own house? I think not. CLNP/TP4 are still deadweight and nothing is going to revive them. Let the UN play politics (they only game they are any good at) and stay the heck away from the Internet. We didn't need them to build the Internet and we certainly don't need them now.
"One Ring to rule them all, One Ring to find them all, One Ring to bring them all and in the darkness bind them."
;-)
Can't remember where I heard this
...I look forward to ignoring US regulation.
insecurity asks the wrong question irritation gives the wrong answer
Irrelevant. DeLay chose to have the plug pulled. If he hadn't, his father would have been kept alive.
Terri Schiavo was also being kept alive by a machine, since she can't swallow food.
The courts have unanimously found that Terri Schiavo did not want to live under these circumstances. She refused treatment, and both Republican and Democratically-appointed judges have found the same way.
Kythe
The Supreme court is deciding on the fate of file-sharing as I write. I use BitTorrent for all sorts of legal means. I have an extensive CD collection I purchased throughout the years to make my MP3 collection. Thus, I learned from an anthropology class...
One of the most important political powers 'you' have is 'where you decide to spend your money'. Laws that are pro-corporate are being crafted to make muni wi-fi impossible.
I live in a city where we are in a duopoly between Concast and Qwest. I have been told that I would get DSL over 10 years ago now. WTF??? This is a college town of over 100,000! What is taking so long. So now, I will dump my cable modem, and my whole internet connection because it is getting too expensive to have.
Therefore, I will tell them, when I return my cable modem (in a week), that I don't want their service because it's too expensive. Honestly, almost every time I do that, I see advertising announcing reduced rates and special deals that last for six months or longer.
So, spend your money wisely, and protest by not spending it.
Now, what did that have in common with the UN wanting to control the internet? nothing at all. Other than maybe you should write your congressman/woman/senator and tell them that this would be out of the interest of the average user. You could also tell them that you wouldn't be using it anymore, but you may make them happy.
No sig for you! Come back one year!
The UN has done nothing but facilitate the oppression of people and information around the world since it's inception. They think they're the "new world order" for cooperative diplomacy.
I could spend days listing all the situations the UN screwed up just because they can't see past their own selfish policies and outdated mandates. They were created to prevent the takeover of a soverign or aligned territory by another nation and to protect the rights and freedoms of everyone on Earth. They weren't created to regulate anything. They're a diplomatic body, not a regulatory body.
Next the Vatican will say the Catholic church should regulate the Internet.
NO UN REGULATION! Oh please, if you really had a lameness filter it would filter out this crappy BB software you use.
The ITU represents big government and big metal. It is comprised of big corporates (who pay a small fortune to belong) and has traditionally had responsibility for hard switched networks ... ie. the big telcos ... and hard switched network standards (eg. X400 e-mail, X500 directory services etc.)
... and the incompatible differences were tolerated ... some may even argue 'encouraged' ... as their members sought to differentiate their product from others.
... a packet switched network ...needs is a bodies that are technically competent (IETF for Layer 2 and 3 standards, W3C for Web application standards, OASIS for other application standards etc), that encourage network efficiency and performance, that encourages network addressing compatability (ICANN? IANA? etc) through a body of registrars that have pricing and other controls instituted as part of the agreements they sign, that takes responsibility for the performance and reliability of root servers.
... the old ISOC/IANA/IETF troika anyone?) then it has another thing coming. As an arbiter of technical standards it obviously failed ... indeed one could argue that it succeeded only as a body established to make networking more difficult.
...
Look at its record.
All of its 'standards; were basically voluntary. Try and make one X400 mail system connect with another without resorting to various big metal Gateway products to do the translation if you want to see what I mean. Their standards resulted in multiple incompatible implementations of the same standard
What the Internet
What we don't need is a body that operates on the basis of consensus of the few members who can afford to be part of the process (ITU), or a body like the UN which over the last 20 years has compromised itself into almost complete ineffectualness, considering metaphysical rather than physical issues, and mandating them for network use.
Physical laws such as those those govern networking, and political laws such as those that govern the UN ARE NOT THE SAME THING.
And if the ITU thinks its past record is a justification for considering it as a body in the same vein as even ICANN (which I'll admit could use a number of changes to make it more acceptable as a governing body
Just my 2 cents worth
Is anybody really all that worried about the UN? If everything we've ever heard about the UN is correct, then why should we really be worried? By all appearances the UN is even more incompetent than the US government at nearly anything (particularly if it's related to security). All it's really going to do is make life more interesting for a few bored Computer Exploration Experts (hacker denotes such negative connotations these days, sigh). I mean hell look at the evidence, wrist slaps for nuclear weapons development and testing, genocidal dictators, Iraq, hell you name it the UN never did anything about it.
Zhao, a former government official in China's Ministry of Posts and Telecommunications
Wow! How shocking that the guy who wants to have the UN control the internet is from China, a country we all know attempts to strictly control what passes via the internet into its borders.
"4000 years of human rights experience, liberty, and individuality."
...
you are being sarcastic aren't you? Only primitive running dog capitalists who think individualism can triumph over collectivism enjoy sarcasm.
Please become ironic
Sincerely,
Lee Wong of the Shanghai Wongs
1. Learn to spell "fascist", at least, if you are going to use that epithet.
2. I can only assume that this is flamebait. If you seriously believe that the current system for running the Internet is "fascist", you are so far out of touch with reality that I cannot imagine having any kind of rational discussion with you.