Slashdot Mirror
Europe Proposes International Internet Treaty
Stoobalou writes "Europe has proposed an Internet Treaty to protect the Internet from the political interference which threatens to break it up. The draft international law has been compared to the 1967 Outer Space Treaty, which sought to prevent space exploration being pursued for anything less than the benefit of all human kind. The Internet Treaty would similarly seek to preserve the Internet as a global system of free communication that transcends national borders."
Europe is not a country. You need to clarify what institution in Eurpoe proposed this treaty, the European Union for example.
The european parliament, the council, some other organisations or perhaps a country from Europe?
The article is a little bit light on detail.
If I actually get a vote on this. Do we get a vote? What about the people of North Korea, do they get a vote on this? Even if it passes, do they get internet access since the "world body said so"? Somehow, I don't think so.
Home of The Suki Series
Let me guess: by giving total control to corporations (especially in the old-school entertainment industry).
AS a sweeping overview, presented in a non-legal and non-technical news source this sounds like a great idea. Whether it turn out to be as good an idea when you get down to the proposed details and specifics is another matter, but so far I like it. It's very easy, in politics, to cover changes that will accomplish one set of goals with rhetoric that claims they will do the opposite. In this case I suspect the devil is very much in the details, but I'd love to see what they come up with.
I don't need a million points of light, just two points of multi-mode fiber and a 10 Gig-E router.
Perhaps it will be equally as effective as the Outer Space Treaty of 1967, the efficacy of which is in serious doubt.
"Among its principles, it bars States Parties to the Treaty from placing nuclear weapons or any other weapons of mass destruction in orbit of Earth, installing them on the Moon or any other celestial body, or to otherwise station them in outer space."
I, for one, don't want to see any nukes on the interwebs.
Invenio via vel creo
Wait, wait, wait. What about ACTA? I thought that was supposed to get us all on the same page. The one treaty to, in the darknets, bind them.
Can we at least wait until the US department of commerce significantly screws things up before we go around demanding international treaties?
...more pseudo-political crap from Europe that we can ignore.
Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
Until Cory Doctorow chimes in, I'm a blank slate on this issue. I'm sure he'll have a way to sort this out and make the world a free place for hugs and artists.
While the US is a large country, if this made it to the UN, they still only have 1 vote against numerous other member states
Anyone got a link to the draft ? The OA says that they have it, but I don't see a link
One vote is all that is needed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_veto_power
Just as the declarations of international human rights in the past, even if this is passed, it will be another silly international resolution with no binding effect on individual countries. While I agree with the purpose of this law more than the international declaration on human rights, it doesn't make this any less pointless. I would certainly like to see countries stop regulating the internet but there has to be a better way to go about protecting individual internet freedoms.
...of the Internet by having the politicians and governments agree to a treaty.
Lets think this through for a minute.
Whereas the status quo does not. In Europe it is common to have bureaucrats who put into place censorship in the form of hate speech laws which don't have any clear cut boundaries (who gets to decide what kind of speech is hateful?) and I'd rather not have them be enforced for "the benefit of humanity." Besides, I don't see such a treaty being signed by countries such as Iran, China, Cuba, etc.
In other words, this sounds like a bad idea.
Careful with names containing L slashdot.org/~AiphaWolf_HK slashdot.org/~AlphaWoif_HK slashdot.org/~AiphaWoif_HK
I'll support this if the intention is to maintain a free internet, with free speech, etc. However, if this is just some thin pretense to enforce some kind of WIPO-esque copyright/"IP protection" scheme at the behest of the RIAA/MPAA and their international equivalents--then forget it. Sadly, I suspect the latter may be the real motivation here, though couched as the former.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
He's not serious. He's mocking you. Please, please *don't* chime in. We've got it covered, thanks...
As ostensibly noble-minded as this is, it's a means of saying "an international body should make internet rules". If they can have authority to force some things to be allowed, that same authority can be used to have other things banned. I would worry over any treaty that allows other nations sovereignty over what I can view or post, as many of my views on individual rights run counter to European governmental values (the freedom to own weapons that are effective against modern police and infantry, and to use them in violent acts of rebellion and insurgency should the need ever arise; the freedom to criticize religious organizations and dogma when they demonize me or attempt to seize secular power; the freedom to keep the rewards of my work rather than subsidizing others who have no intent to work at all).
Thanks, but no thanks. My political speech is already protected, I can already look at jigglers and danglers belonging to consenting adults, and there is no circumstance under which I would permit a European treaty body to have even the slightest authority over me, regardless of its stated purpose. Bureaucracies only grow, and they only do so by expanding their realm of control.
Everybody gets what the majority deserves.
Given the stated goal it is probably a way to slip in some form of government control of the internet.
Much like the can spam act here in the states. Supposedly it was to make spam mail illegal. But before the bill all spam was illegal. What the bill did was establish a set of rules under which one could legally spam people.
While it's not a huge effect (compared to say, space just being damn hard to do anything in), the Outer Space Treaty has helped hinder the expansion of humanity into space by prohibiting people from owning things in space. If an internet treaty were to have a similar effect, then that's not helpful.
Here's a pro-tip from the internet: If you don't care for people, don't listen to them. You can't stop Cory Doctrow from commenting anymore then I can stop you from you from bashing Cory. That's one of the reasons that the internet is so awesome.
So quit yer bitchin.
The council of Europe has for example a treaty on cybercrime that the USA have ratified. So this treaty could be open to non-members too.
So a treaty on Internet freedom for democracries is a very good idea, to avoid some democracies to fall on the dark side...
Franck Martin
Avonsys
Sad, Sad, Sad...
A Treaty such as this would only accomplished exactly what it is pretending to prevent. Use your brain people!
We already have the power to accomplish what this bill indicates, yet I hear no elected officials even remotely advancing ideas to that end. We only need to get the general ignorant population from voting in people with special interests... namely any candidate from any party! George Washington warned everyone about the evils of a party system in his farewell address, but 200 years later, even after he basically predicted the Civil War, we pay him no heed!
This treaty would only accomplish more control over the internet. You people forget how cunning a government is by making your believe that you are getting more with each bill signed into law, having only been taken!
This also raises my eyebrows : "political interference which threatens to break it up" .
What do they understand by 'political interference" ?
An internet Treaty , regardless of it's intentions , is in a sense political interference on it's own ( as obviously , they want to enforce something on the internet , if only that everything remains the same ).
Don't get me wrong : there may be a need for regulations ( net neutrality ) , but then they should state this more clearly.
Slipping shoelaces ?
The difference between the internet and space is that only advanced western states have access to space. All states feel like they need to protect their own resources on the internet from hackers (mostly non-state actors), so they will want complete freedom when deciding how to do that. As soon as western countries believe that Al Qaeda (or whoever we are afraid of at the time) has any change of destroying their satellites, they will pull out of the Outer Space Treaty for the same reason.
The principle of net neutrality will be established in international law, ensuring that the network will not discriminate against the traffic that passes across it. Any discrimination will be left to the end points, the clients, for people to decide for themselves what they censor, what communications they will or will not countenance.
...
It will also force governments to co-operate with one another to tackle the net's security vulnerabilities. It should force them to exchange data about security problems and work collaboratively to solve them and keep net criminals and military aggressors in their animal pens.
Great step in the right direction, those are the two issues I wanted to see addressed. I hope it's strongly phrased so as to strictly prohibit government-sponsored attack vectors like DDoS et al, as it appears from the above paragraph that it's aimed at spammers and other profiteers, completely missing the military possibilities.
As an FYI, here's the WikiPedia article on the Outer Space Treaty.
Use my userscript to add story images to Slashdot. There's no going back.
...but first, you're never going to legislate away nationally motivated cybercrime, so that's out.
Second, as far as I can tell it was the Europeans who started getting all squirrelly about the 'nationalism' on the net when the US wouldn't do what they wanted.
No country worth it's peoples' loyalty is going to voluntarily give its sovereignty to the UN, a non-democratic pack of calumnious backbiters or bored dilettantes, depending on who you're speaking about.
Meh. It's the Internet. The US built it. If you don't like it or the rules it's operating under, build your own.
-Styopa
...by giving total control to western corporations (especially Hollywood).
Much more accurate now.
And there are 100 other votes the US has.
Per the US Constitution, the Senate must ratify treaties for them to be legally binding.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_Clause
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Six_of_the_United_States_Constitution
and they will bring forth any violation that others make or they perceive them making but they won't adhere to the same rules or so loosely define their own compliance we will have the equivalent of the UN Human Rights Council.... where the worst of us define the rights of all.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
louis vuitton ? siemens ?
do you think, if there was that level of corporatism in eu, acta would ever be rejected, or, a parliament that could reject acta would ever come to being ?
dont talk like witless fools.
Read radical news here
I'm in favour of it, but if the opposition gets to cut through doors with lightsabres, count me in.