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.
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.
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
[...] 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'm not sure how exactly, but it will in some way involve black helicopters.
If you don't know where you are going, you will wind up somewhere else.
"The U.N. is a place where governments opposed to free speech demand to be heard!"
Circumcision is child abuse.
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
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)
...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
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?
"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.
....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."
Well, anything that leads to the bombing of AOL can't be ALL bad.
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?
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.
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.
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.
but we should /. the un website
maybe they will write a resolution demanding we stop...
shooting is not too good for my enemies
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.
...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
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."
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
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
The Independent: Reverend Spooner Arrested in Friar Tuck Incident - ISIHAC, Historical Headlines
I forget, is Koji Annan a US or UK Security Council rep?
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.
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.
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.
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
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!
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...
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
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! --
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.
Spam isn't limited to email...
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.
Unfortunatly true : (
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.
Well, I haven't made up my mind on this U.N.-internet thing, but what if the U.N. internet rules included disallowing some forms of censoship? Sure, coming from a chinese official, that sounds douptfull, but it could be well done. I mean, it's improbable, there's, as you pointed out, a lot of opposition to basic freedoms, but the U.N. has had some sucesses in the past, maybe this could turn out allright. Maybe.
I'd be thrilled if the U.N. banned nations from blocking acess to health information. The religious nutjobs wouldn't be able to pass laws forbidding access to sites containing real information on contraception and other "touchy" subjects.
You can't take the sky from me...
When discussing the problem with the UN Security Council, I agree with you. I liken it to a felon on probation who has to take a piss test every month. Just because the felon knows he isn't doing drugs doesn't mean he gets to tell the probation officer to fuck off. And the probation officer has a duty to bring the felon in for breaking the terms of his parole. How pissed would you be if you found out the parole officers in your neighborhood were just letting the people run about willy nilly?
However, when it comes to our government, it DOES matter. They assured us - and the world - but most importantly us that Iraq posessed weapons of mass destruction and showed intent to use them. They were wrong. As much as I hate Bush (mainly because I hate can't stand someone religious telling me what to do, but that's neither here nor there), I can't hold him responsible for this. It isn't his job to tell his subordinates to double - or triple - check their facts. They should have been double and triple checked before they ever even got there. What I did want to hear, however, was "hey, we made a mistake. our bad. we've taken steps to assure this never happens again."
Before the war started, I didn't believe Saddam had WMDs, but I did believe he was in breach of the UN resolution. I was against the war in Iraq, not because I enjoy letting people take advantage of me (or my country), but because I thought we had bigger fish to fry elsewhere. North Korea being the big one. I also thought we should make sure Osama Bin Laden was taken care of and Afghanistan was completely under control before we started ANYTHING. Sure, Saddam was an asshole. As someone once said, "there isn't a person in America who hasn't said 'you know, if Saddam ever comes to my bar, I'll beat the fuck out of him.'" Saddam was a despot. There is no question about that. I didn't question the act of war itself so much as the timing of the act.
But I digress.
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 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?
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?
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!
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.
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..:( And you...talk...like William...Shatner...
If you don't know where you are going, you will wind up somewhere else.
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.
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.
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