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.
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.
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.
"The U.N. is a place where governments opposed to free speech demand to be heard!"
Circumcision is child abuse.
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
Meanwhile...
Ah, much better. See how well compromise works?
....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."
What really concerns me is that if there were some sort of UN-sponsored treaty, certain countries that don't respect the ideas of free speech (these countries shall remain nameless) might want to include language that would allow them to interfere with activities lawful in other states. Simply put I think many governments fear a free and uncontrolled Internet. The idea that their citizens can directly, or indirectly through proxies, read things that the government doesn't think "proper" drives them up the wall. The Internet is teaching these governments fear, and now they will try to use the UN as a tool to restrain what they view as dangerous knowledge.
I do not have sufficient faith in the UN as it is presently constituted to actually protect what I consider my basic human rights. I do not want an entire mode of expression to be set on a plate where rights-violating states have any ability to moderate what I see.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
- 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.
...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
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.
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.
No, no, please government put all kinds of controls and filters on the Internet.
All this will do is give technically savvy people such as myself much more power and would basically kick off the revolution of the Internet underground.
I like the idea of doing things that 99% of the population can't.
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
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.