Slashdot Mirror


China Wants UN To Help Trace Sources On Internet

An anonymous reader brings us a CNet story, which begins: "A United Nations agency is quietly drafting technical standards, proposed by the Chinese government, to define methods of tracing the original source of Internet communications and potentially curbing the ability of users to remain anonymous. The U.S. National Security Agency is also participating in the 'IP Traceback' drafting group, named Q6/17, which is meeting next week in Geneva to work on the traceback proposal. Members of Q6/17 have declined to release key documents, and meetings are closed to the public. The potential for eroding Internet users' right to remain anonymous, which is protected by law in the United States and recognized in international law by groups such as the Council of Europe, has alarmed some technologists and privacy advocates. Also affected may be services such as the Tor anonymizing network."

7 of 303 comments (clear)

  1. Re:"right" ? by magarity · · Score: 3, Informative

    In the USA there are two types of rights: enumerated and reserved. The enumerated ones are spelled out in the Constitution. At the end of the Constitution, it says (paraphrased) 'and all rights not spelled out here is reserved by the people'. That leaves a lot of territory and so pretty much any activity can be called a 'right' under that broad statement. So the tricky part is getting those reserved rights codified somehow so you know exactly what you can and cannot get away with. 'Privacy', 'anonymity', etc, are all reserved rights. The most famous is probably 'privacy'. The SCOTUS has on several occasions ruled that it was a reasonable right people should expect and they've applied it to abortion and birth control cases. That's all another rant as to whether abortion is a privacy issue or its own thing; the main point is that if you're pissed off that everything is claimed as an intrinsic right then you're probably in a country that doesn't have a Constitution that open endedly reserves a tremendous amount of power to its citizens the way the US one does.

  2. Not Just China... forcing the IETF's hand? by nathan.fulton · · Score: 5, Informative

    The United Stats (TFS:"The U.S. National Security Agency is also participating in the "IP Traceback" drafting group") and major western corporations (PDF linked from article) also support the proposal. What a surprise.

    "What's distressing is that it doesn't appear that there's been any real consideration of how this type of capability could be misused," said Marc Rotenberg"
    Wait... How can you correctly use this service? It seems like something only the clandestine agencies and major corporations of the world would like to see happen.

    Anyways, according to TFS, this proposal would almost certainly have to modify existing protocols. Can't that be blocked by the CS/Engineering community members who sit on respective committees? Can international/national governments really force IETF to do something, as the article claims?

  3. Re:Anonymity is not an unlimited right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    On the surface, I'd have to disagree with you. There is no bank in this world that doesn't have an audit trail. Mind you, this trail is probably (legally) mandatory not to mention if you don't have this trail, you are at risk of being bilked. Please post any banks info that you know that doesn't do this. ;)

    But, if what you say is true, it would be much simpler to FIX the financial system rather than fix the world. As long as there are idiot folks with money, you will always have people to milk that, no matter what you put in place.

    I choose freedom, you choose the weekly patch for security.

  4. Re:Anonymity is not an unlimited right by Naturalis+Philosopho · · Score: 2, Informative

    If that was sarcasm, please use a "~" or something. 1773 was the start of the American revolution. Boston Tea party and all that? Ring a bell?

  5. A second, apparently leaked ITU document by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    (For our chineese brothers and sisters - who will have true freedom of speach one day)

    Use Case
    1.5 Proxy "Safe harbor" A political opponent to a government publishes articles putting the government in an unfavorable light. The government, having a law against any opposition, tries to identify the source of the negative articles but the articles having been published via a proxy server, is unable to do so protecting the anonymity of the author.

  6. Them first by billcopc · · Score: 2, Informative

    I find it incredibly backwards that China is asking for this. It is practically impossible to get any kind of justice from China, which is why a large number of hosts treat Chinese IPs as hostile. If you get scammed by someone within the great firewall, there is no legal recourse.

    If China wants to play with the rest of the world, they need to start playing by our rules. I'm sure we all want to tap into their demographic, but until we can do that in a safe and controller manner, I don't see any reason why we should grant them any privileges.

    With privilege comes responsibility.

    --
    -Billco, Fnarg.com
  7. Re:Anonymity is not an unlimited right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    The purpose of the UN is not to serve your fantasy desire for sanctioning governments operating differently from what you are conditioned to approve of. The purpose of the UN is to facilitate communication and avoid war by providing a venue for that communication. The UN is a success.