EU Speaks Out Against US Censorship

bs0d3 writes "The EU Parliament has adopted, 'by a large majority,' a statement warning the US to refrain 'from unilateral measures to revoke IP addresses or domain names' due to the 'need to protect the integrity of the global internet and freedom of communications.' This resolution highlights both the practices prescribed in SOPA/PIPA... but also the actions of Homeland Security and ICE in seizing domain names. By adopting a resolution against domains seizures the European Parliament recognizes the dangerous precedent the pending SOPA legislation would set, and it wouldn't be a surprise if more foreign criticism follows. No country should have the ability to simply take over international domain names, and surely the US would feel the same if this plan was put in motion by a foreign country. Or as some 60 press freedom and human rights advocate groups put it in their letter to the US representatives: 'This is as unacceptable to the international community as it would be if a foreign country were to impose similar measures on the United States.'"

Comments

Re:US, get out

[Psmylie]

As a US citizen, I also find these practices unacceptable. The current mentality of complete control by our government has gotten entirely too far out of hand in this country. I vote my conscience in every election, and I write letters and am as politically active as I can be while still holding down a job, but there's only so much I can do when so many of my fellow Americans are bound and determined to allow our own government to undermine everything that our country is supposed to stand for.

Actions like this by the EU are pretty much the last hope I have of something may give the US the wake up call that we so desperately need. Unfortunately, with the US's current extremely confrontational attitude, the only reaction that I can see is a bunch of angry griping about how the rest of the world just better shut up and stay out of our business. Still, I applaud the EU and anyone else that refuses to tow the US-mandated line.

Re:US, get out

[BMOC]

Have you seen the approval ratings of the U.S. Congress? They are abysmal and have been there for a very long time. This group does not represent its citizens, not by a longshot. This is an example of what happens when corporations corrupt a representative process.

Re:US, get out

[jd]

This is why NO key element in the Internet Backbone should belong to any individual corporation or any individual country. The backlash against the UN owning them was, I think, a serious mistake by geeks. Assuming a benign (even relatively speaking) US is clearly bogus. Placing ownership completely outside of any nation is the best hope we have. True, the UN hasn't exactly been perfect, but it is the closest we have to a multinational system that special interests (including the special interests of specific national agencies) cannot readily control.

In and of itself, though, this is not sufficient. We'd have to move away from the spanning tree topology currently popular on the Internet (because it's cheap) and move to as close to a full mesh topology - even across international borders - as finances permit.

The first part makes overt control much more difficult. The second part makes covert control much more difficult. Without both, total control - including over other nations - remains a possibility. This MUST be stopped.

I do not believe that private corporations, who are slaves to profits, are capable of deploying such a mesh. It would be expensive and would eliminate the congestion problems they're using as excuses to hike rates, so they'd be spending more and earning less. Shareholders would never permit it. That means the Internet can only be run either by a quango (a semi-devolved agency, similar to the British BBC, where it runs independently via an established charter even though it is government-funded) OR by a non-profit group that also has core policy defined by charter but is funded by the userbase.

So a UN quango (ie: the UN can only negotiate and enforce the terms of the charter, and where it is legally obliged to pay the charter-defined amount annually, but the quango is otherwise politically outside of the UN) would be the logical solution. It would defeat nationalists usurping the Internet, it would prevent many of the problems feared when UN ownership has been talked of before, but the UN would be contractually obliged to provide any and all protections necessary to stop nations threatening other nations' usage.

I don't seriously expect to get a positive response to this, but I can honestly think of no other solution since everything else has been tried and been shown to be a disaster.

Re:US, get out

[Bucky24]

Actually I've noticed that the number of people who disagree with US policies is increasing. Slowly, yes, but people who are out of work and have very little to do but actually pay attention to what is going on seem to be getting the picture.