Slashdot Mirror


UN Considering Control of the Internet

Dangerous_Minds writes "News has surfaced in the wake of the WikiLeaks story that the United Nations is mulling total inter-government regulation of the internet. The initiative was spearheaded by Brazil and supported by other countries including India, China, Saudi Arabia and South Africa. Drew Wilson of ZeroPaid commented that while the Cablegate story may be bad, attempting to destroy WikiLeaks would only make matters worse for various governments around the world, given what happened when the music industry shut down Napster ten years ago."

27 of 402 comments (clear)

  1. global standards for policing the internet by YrWrstNtmr · · Score: 5, Insightful

    global standards for policing the internet
    Otherwise known as least common denominator. Say what you want about the US, but do you really want China and Saudi Arabia defining global internet standards?

    1. Re:global standards for policing the internet by duggi · · Score: 4, Insightful

      What it means in Diplomatese is that they are going to set up a commiteee first, talk to each and every nation about their preferences, and then create a document, laying the bare minimum regulations that need to be imposed. Of course, some countries will not like this, and will not opt-in. A few will opt in, but the implementation will be so broken, that each country will set up its own regulation mechanism on the top of it. As these clash with the UN, the UN regulation mechanism will be completely broken.
      The UN cannot tie its own shoe laces. This will only justify the creation of a government approved 'regulation' process, which is often referred to as cencorship.
      The Internet was nice while it lasted.

      --
      http://monkeynesianeconomics.blogspot.com/
    2. Re:global standards for policing the internet by aliquis · · Score: 2, Insightful

      China and Saudi Arabia and the US and North Korea and South Korea and Liechtenstein and Mexico and Canada and Australia and Britian and France and New Zealand and Japan and Russia and Sweden and Finland and Greenland and all other UN member states, yes.

      Actually? No.

      Zero policing is what I want.

      Child porn, Islamic terrorists, Joe not-so-much-of-an-sex-pack? Sure.

      I can decide where I spend my time myself.

    3. Re:global standards for policing the internet by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The Internet was nice while it lasted.

      If the difficulty US law enforcement has had in policing child pornography on the Internet is any indication, any mandated censorship is going to be very difficult to pull off. Every so often, people will get busted, but for the most part free speech online will be difficult to kill. Let them try to censor the Internet; we'll just see an age of common people learning more and more about cryptography, steganography, and computer security.

      Not that I think the Internet would be a nice place if everyone had to take those sorts of measures to protect their freedom of speech.

      --
      Palm trees and 8
    4. Re:global standards for policing the internet by TaoPhoenix · · Score: 5, Insightful

      US - China - North Korea - France - Australia - Britain -

      Aren't these the countries always hitting YRO for opressive initiatives?

      --
      My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
    5. Re:global standards for policing the internet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      Nah.

      Most of the 'leftards' (I assume that anyone from Europe qualifies, given that even the left in the US is right wing by our standards) want regulation (in order to prevent ISPs becoming abusive to their customers), but not censorship. Most of the groups demanding censorship are far right wing groups like the Chinese, Russian and US Governments, and Religious groups.

      For the rest of us, having some sort of UN regulation is about trying to minimise their impact - it would be *very* bad for us if the US started seizing control of the internet, given the wildly different political climates.

    6. Re:global standards for policing the internet by erroneus · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Indeed. It's a good thing that we can't agree on anything at all, or I would be worried.

    7. Re:global standards for policing the internet by JackieBrown · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Lowest common denominator sounds nice. The set of regulations that all nation states can agree on should be fairly lightweight,

      You are assuming they start with an "allow everything" policy. If they start with a "deny everything" policy then "the set of regulations that all nation states can agree on should be fairly lightweight" will result with a very heavily restricted internet.

    8. Re:global standards for policing the internet by mcgrew · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Agreed, it's YOUR job as a parent, not the government. It's YOUR choice what you think is appropriate, not the government. When my kids were still young, there were NC-17 movies I didn't mind them seeing, while at the same time there were PG-13 movies I thought were too violent for them.

      I didn't mind them watching Cheech and Chong with me (especially the ones with Pee Wee Herman, they loved his kid show on Saturday mornings, and so did I), but I wouldn't let them watch the "sanitized for TV" (read "dirty words and sex scene cut out") version of the Terminator.

      Who would want their kids having nightmares?

  2. How much more by Darkman,+Walkin+Dude · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Will nobody rid us of these lawyer politicians, whose only understanding of communication is how it can be used to control others? For countless millenia, these fools have been holding back humanity, calling themselves priests, or the aristocracy, or the upper class, or whatever. Enough! Can we not have a "normal people's congress" on the internet or something. They want to control the internet? I say let the internet control them.

    1. Re:How much more by Beyond_GoodandEvil · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Can we not have a "normal people's congress" on the internet or something.
      Unless "normal people" is code for people who agree with you 100% of the time, no. After all normal people can't set their DVR to record a show, or find a printer on a network. You want "normal people" to decide how technology should be used?

      --
      I laughed at the weak who considered themselves good because they lacked claws.
    2. Re:How much more by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No, I want normal people to be allowed to determine their own fates and communicate freely with one another without the intervention of those who dream themselves our masters.

      But normal people don't want freedom. Normal people don't want to live without the intervention of masters - they want to be the masters who "help" all those other poor unfortunates out there. You want freedom to choose. Most people are paralyzed with choice, and elect politicians who offer them freedom from choice. Not because they're naive; because they really want to be ruled :(

      Remember the conjugation: I am erotic, you are kinky, they are disgusting perverts.

      "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."
      - C.S. Lewis

      "The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule."
      - H. L. Mencken

    3. Re:How much more by DrgnDancer · · Score: 5, Insightful

      He didn't say stupid. He said followers. Most people are followers. It's a reasonably well established fact of the pack dynamic. Under the right circumstances nearly anyone becomes a follower. Have you ever noticed that most groups, no matter how loosely organized, have leaders? From a gang of kids, to a raid group in an MMO, to a multibillion dollar company, if there's no one in charge, we put someone in charge. Depending on their personal charisma and the institutional nature of the group in question they may answer to rest of the group to one extent or another, but they're still "in charge". Even when the group rises up against the leader, the usual result isn't "no leader" it's a new leader.

      We're hard wired to want someone in charge. Some of us want to be in charge, and some don't, but we all feel better if there is some one who is in charge. Of course we're all different, we want to have have various relationships with authority (possessing it, being close to it, being ignored by it, etc), and a very few of us would actually prefer to live completely outside of it, but in general its existence makes the vast majority of us happy.

      --
      I don't need a million points of light, just two points of multi-mode fiber and a 10 Gig-E router.
    4. Re:How much more by jandersen · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Can we not have a "normal people's congress" on the internet or something.

      The problem with The People is that it consists of, well, people. This is something revolutionary do-gooders have come face to face with many times throughout history; and ordinary people aren't highminded, good or noble, they are just average. They don't care all that much for liberty when it comes to it, they are not all that concerned about democracy or justice in general. They just want life to be relatively easy to live from day to day.

      Don't you realise that your democracy and your Congress etc were once exactly the "normal people's democracy/congress"? Only, normal people don't care enough to take part, so it always ends like this, and that is the fundamental problem we have to solve.

      Apart from that - what kind of ordinary people did you have in mind? What if it turned out that what a large majority really wanted was to to ban firearms? Or were in favour of something you would find intolerable - would you still want that kind of democracy? Ordinary people are not necessarily nice.

    5. Re:How much more by MindKata · · Score: 4, Insightful

      @”Will nobody rid us of these lawyer politicians, whose only understanding of communication is how it can be used to control others? “

      @Darkman, Walkin Dude ... Brilliantly said. Your whole post sums up so many centuries of problems, repeated all around the world, caused by these same kind of greedy, corrupt, two faced, lying, control freaks that each generation has to suffer.

      But then from so many diplomatic leaks, regardless of what we think of the leaks, one fact remains. We now have absolute confirmation our control freak governments (in almost every country) lie endlessly to us (so our leaders can get their own way and so they show they don't really work for us), yet they say they represent us even though their actions prove they are really seeking to deceive us. That isn't Democracy. It shows we are really dealing with an increasingly Authoritarian lying greedy Kleptocracy which is increasingly showing signs of becoming an outright Totalitarian Dictatorship. Worse still its becoming a global problem.

      But then the act of seeking power over someone else, is the act of seeking to dictate their will over the wishes of others. So is it any wonder people who seek power over others end up seeking to dictate their will over us on the Internet. After all, the Internet is helping to highlight how much our power hungry leaders lie to us and so don't really represent us. They know if we see the truth, we can argue against them, so they lie to us, for their own greedy gain.

      If that isn't bad enough, here's a shocking dictionary definition that shows how bad our lying greedy leaders actions really are against all of us. See if you can guess the word it defines. "A violation of allegiance to one's sovereign or to one's state. The betrayal of a trust or confidence; breach of faith; treachery." The word it defines is Treason. Its shocking to think of it, but our leaders really our in complete betrayal of our trust and confidence; breach of faith; treachery against their entire country, all for their own greedy gain. They really are showing acts of Treason!. They don't represent us, even though they say they do, when they want us to vote them into power.

      Some countries still have the death sentence for Treason. So is it any wonder more people are getting angry at all our leaders in most countries and why our leaders seek to control the Internet even more, to cut off ways for us to see the truth and discuss what our leaders are doing.

      The Internet has revolutionised many industries already so perhaps its time it also revolutionised the management of everyone where openness is forced into our two faced leaders, to stop them being able to lie to us all. After all if they want to represent us, then they take the job on that basis.

      --
      There are 10 kinds of people in the world... those who understand binary and those who don't.
  3. In the wake of Thursday... by Tom+Rothamel · · Score: 4, Insightful

    News has surfaced in the wake of Thursday that the UN is mulling total inter-governmental regulation of the internet.

    The UN has wanted control of the net for a while now, the WikiLeaks thing is just the excuse of the day for trying to take it.If it wasn't WikiLeaks, it would be some other reason.

  4. Re:Anonymous stands ready by paiute · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Thing is, reality is not a movie. Rarely do the well-intentioned, rag-tag band of rebels overthrow the evil world government and usher in a new era of freedom and prosperity.

    Usually, when the well-intentioned, rag-tag band of rebels do win, the resulting government devolves into a totalitarian regime as bad as what was deposed. In the US, our view is skewed because our well-intentioned, rag-tag band of rebels was not headed by such. Recall that some wanted to make Washington King of America, but he bared his wooden teeth at them and refused.

    --
    If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
  5. Sure, UN, Sure by Publikwerks · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The UN can't get pisspot dictators to stop comitting genocide, does it REALLY think it's going to be able to do anything with really powerful nations? Especially with the US, we don't want to give up control. So the UN thinks it can force the US to do so?

    1. Re:Sure, UN, Sure by Ltap · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If you think that the UN taking control of the Internet involves the United States losing control rather than gaining it, you're remarkably ignorant of the true state of international politics.

      --
      Yet Another Tech Blog
      (but so much more, including game and movie reviews)
      http://yanteb.peasantoid.org
  6. Re:Yes, yes, /. is all against this, but... by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Can someone shed light on whether they can actually control the internet, on a technical level?

    Sure they can; the Internet is not like the old Usenet/UUCPNet, where it is controlled by its own users. All the UN would have to do is go after a handful of companies that really run the Internet, and by force of law require them to do whatever the UN wants them to do. Sanctions against a country could suddenly mean a loss of Internet access -- just force the ISPs to drop any route to that country from their routing tables.

    The real question is, will they be able to convince the most powerful nations to play along? I am just going to guess that the answer is "yes," since the world's most powerful nations also happen to stand to gain the most from having a controlled Internet.

    --
    Palm trees and 8
  7. NO controls by Wowsers · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Hang on, all these countries that want control of the internet, they are some of the biggest despots out there and love censorship. Why don't they have their own version like China, and keep everyone else that loves freedom and democracy stick to the "Wild Wild West" internet.

    The UN are a bunch of retards who's time to disbanding has come. They claim to represent international laws, but enforce them for some countries, and ignore others. Get rid of the UN.

    --
    Take Nobody's Word For It.
  8. Just Say No by Valen0 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Let me get this straight: The Emperor was caught with his pants down, some people took pictures and posted it to etc.com, people started learning via etc.com that the Emperor has no clothes on, and now the Emperor wants to ban all knowledge of the incident by destroying the greatest communications invention since the printing press. I think the approach in this situation is completely wrong. Several common sayings such as "we had to destroy the village in order to save it," "shoot first and ask questions later," and "shoot the messenger" all come to mind and none of them should be encouraged.

    I propose the following solution to the problem: Do a comprehensive security audit of the information and everyone that had access to it. Find out who leaked the information, how they received access to the information, and how they removed the information from secured storage. In addition, do a comprehensive audit on the classification of documents. Having a minimal amount of classified material will cut down on the risk of loosing it. Document classification should be used to guard national security interests (e.g. the keys to the castle) instead of hiding potentially embarrassing material or promoting a political agenda. When you have successfully identified the responsible party and method of attack, fix the glitch and prosecute the offender to the fullest extent of the law. The Internet does not need collective punishment for the actions of a select few individuals.

    --
    -Valen
  9. The end of democracy by gmuslera · · Score: 5, Insightful

    No freedom of information means no freedom of choice. You could hang the label you want over the governments after that gets passed, but none would really be democracy.

  10. Their greatest trick... by copponex · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Their greatest trick has been making you believe that you aren't in control already, if you live in the United States. They thrive on your apathy. They rejoice whenever some new mindless form of entertainment takes over. That's why Iran left gaming lines open during their crackdown of democracy.

    Personally, I have no pity for the American public. We are receiving the democracy we are asking for, which is "whatever the powerful are willing to give me." The Tea Party just re-elected the only party that openly expresses more support for millionaires than it does for the middle class. The guy in the House who plays a major part in our environmental policy also quotes from Genesis to avoid discussion of the impact of climate change, because God promised that he wouldn't flood the earth again. (Despite some more barbaric claims in Revelation that He will indeed come back to destroy the world, and the claim that the rainbow is a symbol of God's promise, instead of a result of light refraction.)

    Regular Joes can't be bothered to give a shit about extrajudicial assassination, or trillions of dollars wasted on war. Until they can address those sorts of issues, I'm afraid the openness of the internet will be easy fodder for elite control.

  11. Stop that! by killmenow · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You'll let your kids watch the government approved violence on TV and youtube and we'll protect them from any and all kinds of human sexuality (except the Disney approved sexualization of teen/tween "stars", of course) AND YOU'LL LIKE IT!

  12. Re:Only the naive didn't see this coming by moeinvt · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "You poke a dog with a stick often enough and eventually it'll go for you. "

    I agree with that, but are you suggesting that the U.S. government is analogous to the dog and Wikileaks and its supporters are poking said dog with a stick? That's how I'M reading your words. It is with a mixture of sadness and frustration that I listen to the argument: "We better behave ourselves, or the government will crack down on the Internet!" I'm not saying that Wikileaks and Anonymous won't be used as an EXCUSE for government attempts to implement greater control of the Internet. That's a certainty. Actually ADVOCATING that we change our behavior to appease the government is the mentality of a serf or a slave. Better not do anything to make the Lord/Master angry because he'll punish us? Not only does that indicate a belief that the government has assumed the role of RULER of the people as opposed to "Representative" of the people, it indicates that the servitude is something that we must accept.

    Wow! That thought just blows my mind. It just seems like we've very abruptly crossed a threshold into a whole new paradigm.

  13. Government censorship of the internet? by grasshoppa · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Are they insane? Do they have any idea what this will do to the economy, let alone the precious information they are trying to hide? It's almost like...wait, it's the UN?

    Nevermind. Here's hoping they'll be as effective in this initiative as they are in everything else.

    --
    Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!