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.
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
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.
...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.
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.
Right on, I agree 100%.
Assuming, of course, that by attention you mean pedophile rapists.
That's what you meant, right?
everything in moderation
...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."
The Independent: Reverend Spooner Arrested in Friar Tuck Incident - ISIHAC, Historical Headlines
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.
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
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...
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.
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 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?
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.