Europe Proposes International Internet Treaty

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Europe Proposes International Internet Treaty

Posted by Soulskill on Monday September 20, 2010 @04:28AM from the it-will-all-be-accessible-by-train dept.

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."

27 of 116 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Europe? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-20 04:34 · Score: 2, Insightful

Europe is not a country. You need to clarify what institution in Eurpoe proposed this treaty, the European Union for example.
1. Re:Europe? by Runaway1956 · 2010-09-20 06:07 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  Dude - most of my countrymen have no idea what DIRECTION Europe is, let alone how many political bodies there might be there!
  
  --
  "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
2. Re:Europe? by Belial6 · 2010-09-20 06:33 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  No kidding! Just the other day, I had some idiot telling me that if you traveled east, you would get to Europe, and then not 10 minutes later claimed that you could get their if you went west instead.
3. Re:Europe? by Apatharch · 2010-09-20 07:11 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  Maybe it was these guys?
Who is Europe? by lyml · 2010-09-20 04:34 · Score: 2, Insightful

What does the article mean when they say Europe proposes something?
The european parliament, the council, some other organisations or perhaps a country from Europe?
The article is a little bit light on detail.
1. Re:Who is Europe? by vlm · 2010-09-20 04:43 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  What does the article mean when they say Europe proposes something?
  "Council of Europe" a very fuzzy imitation of the EU that does not have binding laws.
  I cannot figure out what they do or what their place is. Plenty of fuzzy HR stuff about "whirrled peas" and so forth but nothing concrete about whom does what when to whom.
  
  --
  "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
2. Re:Who is Europe? by TheRaven64 · 2010-09-20 04:55 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  The Council of Europe predates the EU by quite a large margin. It was set up at the end of the Second World War. The organisation proposes treaties, which their members then sign. It covers a much larger area than the EU. You might be familiar with the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), which has been implemented in law in most of the member nations.
  
  --
  I am TheRaven on Soylent News
3. Re:Who is Europe? by TheRaven64 · 2010-09-20 10:02 · Score: 2
  
  You might do well to check who is part of the council of Europe. The council of Europe includes all of the European countries, all of the former USSR, and has the USA, Canada, and Japan as official observers. That's a huge proportion of the industrialised world.
  
  --
  I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Protect from whom? by DeKO · 2010-09-20 04:36 · Score: 3, Informative

Let me guess: by giving total control to corporations (especially in the old-school entertainment industry).
What about ACTA? by piffey · 2010-09-20 04:41 · Score: 2, Insightful

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.
1. Re:What about ACTA? by TyFoN · 2010-09-20 04:44 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  Not after EU rejected it :)
2. Re:What about ACTA? by mbone · 2010-09-20 05:24 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  ACTA was not supposed to be a treaty, but an Agreement (that second A) - i.e., something the President could do by Executive Order. That it really was a treaty in all-but-name was a large part of the reason why I opposed it.
  At any rate, ACTA came from the US. This, isn't. So, based on the limited knowledge we have, I would consider these two efforts orthogonal.
Re:If it is "keep the governments out" I am a yea. by Lumpy · 2010-09-20 04:44 · Score: 2, Informative

It's all posturing and waving in the air. It's as useless as the Space treaty.
Ignore it as some politician trying to get his name in the history books.

--
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
I am without an opinion. by retech · 2010-09-20 05:16 · Score: 4, Funny

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.
Sigh more attempts at making international rights by Sirusjr · 2010-09-20 05:34 · Score: 2, Insightful

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.
Keep the government and politics out... by NevarMore · 2010-09-20 05:34 · Score: 2, Funny

...of the Internet by having the politicians and governments agree to a treaty.
Lets think this through for a minute.
Europe has a history of censorship by AlphaWolf_HK · 2010-09-20 05:40 · Score: 2, Insightful

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
1. Re:Europe has a history of censorship by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-20 06:10 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  You Obviously don't watch fox news :P
2. Re:Europe has a history of censorship by shaitand · 2010-09-20 06:12 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Censorship applies to all communications. Not just facts and opinions. If I want to say something, ANYTHING, and you prevent me. You are censoring me.
3. Re:Europe has a history of censorship by istartedi · 2010-09-20 06:28 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Censorship applies to speech. Hate is speech.
  Opinions may or may not be expressed as speech.
  Opinions expressed as speech are protected in the US. Opinions expressed as DEEDs are not.
  Why is that so hard for the rest of the world to get right?
  Nazi marches down street with swastika flag in US. Protected.
  Nazi smashes window of shop owned by Jewish man. Prosecuted.
  Simple.
  
  --
  For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
4. Re:Europe has a history of censorship by elrous0 · 2010-09-20 06:46 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Actually, it's a very strong opinion. And, even if I accepted your premise, who would get to decide where to draw the line?
  
  --
  SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
5. Re:Europe has a history of censorship by Xest · 2010-09-20 21:17 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  US management of the internet has led to censorship of foreign sites globally through the court seizure of gambling domains, the court orders to take the Wikileaks domain offline and so forth.
  As US management of the internet currently allows arbitrary judges to arbitrarily censor any part of the net from public view by seizing the domain names, whether based in the US or not then I don't see how a treaty to prevent exactly the sort of thing could make things worse, even if it is sponsored by Europe.
  At least European censorship has to pass through democratic process and can be challenged in courts both at local and European level, rather than the arbitrary censorship US judges can impose on the internet at the behest of any random litigant requesting it currently. It's also worth noting that the US has pushed ACTA provisions, and it's comments regarding Wikileaks suggest it is moving strongly towards even greater powers and ability to censor parts of the internet at will.
Re:If it is "keep the governments out" I am a yea. by Wonko+the+Sane · 2010-09-20 06:05 · Score: 2, Informative

Do we get a vote?
In Europe you will if and only if the politicians think that you will vote the "right" way.
If for some reason the popular vote doesn't go their way they'll just pass the same thing without giving the public the option of voting on it next time.
Re:If it is "keep the governments out" I am a yea. by pugugly · 2010-09-20 06:57 · Score: 2, Informative

Among the few specifics it gets into is formalizing net neutrality and the end-to-end nature of the Internet - if it only accomplished that it would be worthwhile methinks.
Obviously I hope for more, but that it does formalize that as an international standard tends to indicate that's something they agree on.
Pug

--
An Invisible Entity of Vast Power whose existence must be taken on faith alone: Liberal Media
This is VERY BAD!!! by SirAstral · 2010-09-20 07:09 · Score: 2, Insightful

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!
1. Re:This is VERY BAD!!! by cheekyjohnson · 2010-09-20 14:26 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  "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!"
  I'm aware. However, what would you suggest be done? Leave it alone? That won't accomplish anything, either.
  
  --
  Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
Re:Err, correct me if I'm wrong... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-20 09:51 · Score: 2, Insightful

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.
Do you know what the Internet is? Please read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet.
The US built the current Internet in the same way that the guy who built the first road built all roads.