Slashdot Mirror


India's Proposal For Government Control of Internet To Be Discussed In Geneva

First time accepted submitter cvenky writes "The Indian Government is proposing to create an intergovernmental body 'to develop internet policies, oversee all internet standards bodies and policy organizations, negotiate internet-related treaties and sit in judgment when internet-related disputes come up.' This committee will be funded and staffed by the UN and will report to the UN General Assembly which effectively means the control of the internet passes on to World Governments directly."

230 comments

  1. Oh Boy... by BlueStrat · · Score: 2

    That should work out well for a free and open internet, eh?

    Strat

    --
    Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
    1. Re:Oh Boy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Power always wants more power. Governments and corporations hate the decentralized anarchic Internet and want to control it. What they don't realize is that the Internet is a concept, an interconnection of networks speaking a common protocol. You can't control it anymore than you can control language. If you screw with the few central pieces (DNS, IP number allocation, etc) we will just replace them with something else.

    2. Re:Oh Boy... by MightyYar · · Score: 2, Informative

      I could get behind this if it weren't the entire General Assembly, but instead just a selection of governments with some kind of free speech and representative democracy. Letting countries like China, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, and Iran even have a vote seems ludicrous.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    3. Re:Oh Boy... by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

      And the tower of babel shall fall...again.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    4. Re:Oh Boy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      And letting in the US is better ?

      SOPA
      PIPA
      ACTA
      Trans Pacific Trade Agreement ?

      Give me a break. There is no government, no government on earth that wants a true free internet.
      So in my view its better these governments "fight" each other and leave the internet alone (mostly) than have them banded together and destroy it with certainty.

    5. Re:Oh Boy... by bhagwad · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Speaking as an Indian, I can safely say that we as a country don't deserve to have ANY control over the Internet. The US might not smell of roses, but compared to an authoritarian style government like India, they're pretty damn good.

      Actually scratch that. The Indian government is not authoritarian. It's just...stupid and uninformed and clueless. Ditto for most of the population.

    6. Re:Oh Boy... by MightyYar · · Score: 2

      And letting in the US is better ?

      Well, the US controls it now, so...

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    7. Re:Oh Boy... by jd · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The US is about equal to all those you list in terms of civil rights, meaningful free speech (not just the playstuff that's actually allowed), levels of corruption and levels of actual democracy.

      I agree that none of those listed should have a voice, but by the same standard neither should the US. At present, the US has very near absolute power. The GA may have depraved and corrupt elements, but on aggregate it's no worse than the US on any metric and at times is a whole lot better.

      Ideally, the Internet would be run by a meritocratic UN group, with all nations recognizing and respecting a group that chooses members by merit and acts on merit. There have been *cough* enough incidents where nations (US included) have actively sought to cripple meritocratic groups that I do not believe such a group could function. It would lack the teeth necessary to impose its decisions and to work it would need Predator X-like teeth.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    8. Re:Oh Boy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The US is about equal to North Korea in free speech? Hyperbole, much?

      By all means, go live in one of those places and the the US and tell me they are anywhere near equal. I'll wait.

      The US created the Internet, with all of the assorted freedoms it has right now. I can't think of any other place it could have been created, including most of Western Europe. You may feel butthurt about American hegemony and some of the bad decisions made under that umbrella, but you need a little perspective.

    9. Re:Oh Boy... by fredprado · · Score: 2

      It is true that the US is still nowhere near North Korea police state, yet, but it is walking at a very good pace in that direction. It won't likely get all the way to there, at least I hope not, but it will probably go far enough in that direction to be a considerable threat to the world, and considering what US can do and what North Korea can do, US is a much greater threat than North Korea could ever dream to be.

    10. Re:Oh Boy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      What "free and open internet"?

      They leave it open so you can feed them data and they can feed you ads, but the moment it threatens the status quo, the net will go down. Think it can't happen here? It already has.

    11. Re:Oh Boy... by Man+On+Pink+Corner · · Score: 1

      The US is about equal to all those you list in terms of civil rights, meaningful free speech (not just the playstuff that's actually allowed)

      You know how I know you're a barking idiot?

    12. Re:Oh Boy... by ewieling · · Score: 1

      I suspect the UN will be as effective at regulating the internet as they are at "peace keeping". I can live with that.

      --
      I really shouldn't have used someone else's email address for this account.
    13. Re:Oh Boy... by ravenshrike · · Score: 0

      And yet it's still walking slower in that direction than anyone else.

    14. Re:Oh Boy... by Ihmhi · · Score: 2

      That should work out well for a free and open internet, eh?

      Strat

      Hypothetical example: our worst dreams come true, and everything goes to shit on the Internets. Now everything in monitored and watched.

      Solution: do what geeks have always done, and create the Darknet version of BitTorrent. That is, a darknet that is easy to use, cryptographically strong, and damn near impossible to detect.

      Even if, well, any government clamps down and does their best effort, it won't matter for much terribly. Look at Iran, China, et. al. and how easily their censorship schemes are bypassed by their people.

      Lastly (in the United States at least), we have no problem telling other countries to fuck off when it comes to doing things we're not all that interested in following through with. As an example, there's been multiple proposals in the U.N. for personal restrictions on Firearms (i.e. citizens can't have guns), which basically has about as much of a chance in passing in America as a bisexual, atheist, and Arab President has being elected in 2012.

      The U.N. has proved ineffectual time and time again, so there's not really a whole lot to worry about here. Backwards countries like India will do their best to keep their citizens in the dark and fail on every level. The population will get more connected in every way and we'll see less and less bullshit as time goes on. Keep in mind things like how you can easily look up the voting record of any American politican from the comfort of your home and how we didn't have that capability 10 years ago. It's one of many small (but significant) ways in which the people have been empowered by technology, and I only expect them to grow and I also expect politicians' efforts to suppress them to fail due to, ironically, their lack of understanding of technology and the difficulty of the problem.

    15. Re:Oh Boy... by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 1

      But its destination is the same. "Better" doesn't mean "good."

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
    16. Re:Oh Boy... by geekgirlandrea · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Ideally, the Internet would be run by a meritocratic UN group, ...

      No. Ideally it wouldn't be 'run' at all.

    17. Re:Oh Boy... by Ihmhi · · Score: 3, Informative

      SOPA

      Failed to pass.

      PIPA

      Failed to pass.

      ACTA

      Failed to pass (as of yet), seems unlikely.

      Trans Pacific Trade Agreement

      If you're talking about this, well, it's still up in the air. My cursory read of the articles tells me that it would mainly be about eliminating tariffs between South Asia countries. The cynic in me says that it's all about setting up cheap and exploitable labor in those countries to reduce costs.

      And okay, that's where we failed. Shit like NAFTA has, ironically, put the people it was supposed to help out of business (such as Mexican corn farmers, a lot of whom now grow something else entirely). But our government has always been pretty shitty about stuff like this, but what are you gonna do? It won't affect an everyday American's ordinary life like SOPA, PIPA, or ACTA would, so you won't really see any action against it build up any sort of momentum, unfortunately.

      tl;dr: America writes up shitty laws just like nearly every other country in history, but on the ones mentioned we're 3 for 4 in keeping those shitty laws from passing.

    18. Re:Oh Boy... by Kreigaffe · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Letting the US is better?

      Compared to N. Korea, China, Iran, Saudi Arabia?

      Um, YES, IT IS FUCKING BETTER!

      The US isn't perfect, no one is saying that. No one is saying the US is the best. Compared to THOSE countries? Compared to the amount of freedom that can be found on MOST of the planet? Yes, the fucking US is better than that.

      Jesus fucking christ and this drivel was modded INSIGHTFUL? You want some real problems with limitations and outright lack of free speech, travel *outside* the US for once in your miserable, small and meaningless little fucking life.

      You've got most of Europe, the northern part of North America, Australia, and Japan & S. Korea. The rest of the world is pretty much fucking *shit*, and your rights mean *nothing*.

      But hey, I'm sure you're right. I'm sure the US is every bit as much of an authoritarian shithole with no respect for human rights as China and North Korea. Totally.

      Fucking idiot.

      --
      ... still waiting for this free-as-in-beer free beer I keep hearing about. :|
    19. Re:Oh Boy... by Kreigaffe · · Score: 1

      Let's be fair, they might be slightly better -- there's less food to be stolen and local girls to rape inside my computer, so by that fact alone it'd have to be a better job.

      --
      ... still waiting for this free-as-in-beer free beer I keep hearing about. :|
    20. Re:Oh Boy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      North America, Australia, and Japan & S. Korea

      Japan, HA HA HA. that's cute. Let me guess, you have never been to Japan. I have been living here for the last 12 years and rights is not something anyone in Japan would say exist in the formal sense of the word. Armchair Idiot.

    21. Re:Oh Boy... by Kreigaffe · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Find somewhere in Asia that isn't Japan and S. Korea that even pretends to know what rights are.

      Somewhere has to be the bottom of the heap of "free" nations, anyway. I should have added Israel to that list, in retrospect -- but Japan and S. Korea still have all the rest of Asia beat, and Africa is just a fucking joke of a continent.

      10 years ago I might've included Russia on that list, but... I hesitate, today.

      --
      ... still waiting for this free-as-in-beer free beer I keep hearing about. :|
    22. Re:Oh Boy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All of the "smart indians" have left and taken citzenship in other countries. This is a common aspiration amongst the middle class.

    23. Re:Oh Boy... by jd · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      The US did not create the Internet. DARPA (quasi-independent) created the protocols, the NSF (quasi-independent) installed the US infrastructure and research institutions in other countries (wholly independent) installed the rest. The US (as in the elected government, or the corporate entities within it) did absolutely bugger all apart from make life difficult.

      I didn't say equal in free speech, I said equal in MEANINGFUL free speech. The freedom to speak in the US is absolute provided it can't actually achieve anything. The total amount of influence you, I, or any other individual has is no greater than that of any North Korean. We can do nothing that has any substance, any real material worth, we can only play-act that what we say will do any good. Being able to uselessly scream in the dark might well make you feel better and make you feel like you've done something worthwhile, but you haven't.

      Look at the "Occupy" protests. They were massive, they were long-lasting, they were crushed through excessive violence and the political leaders responsible for that crushing have seen their poll numbers RISE as a result of using terror and intimidation on those who were asking only that the 1% pay fair dues. How's a protester getting his head smashed in and left in a vegetative state in Oakland that different from a protester getting his head blown off by a North Korean guard? Both are functionally dead, neither has done any good and neither had any free speech worth a damn.

      Sure, the US protestor was completely free to set up a website and colour it pink to protest, because that would have done bugger all. Sure, you can march in protest all day in the middle of Death Valley, where nobody can see or hear you, but protestors in Seattle for the WTO talks there got blasted with tear gas, water canons and probably shot at with the occasional live round. Speech where it matters isn't free in the slightest.

      Joe the Plumber only had any impact at all in the US precisely because he wasn't Joe and wasn't a plumber. If he had been, he would have been ignored utterly. It's because he was well-to-do and had connections that he was groomed, positioned and then hyped. How's that different from the way the Chinese government works?

      The US control over territories it illegally seized from Mexico is not legally or morally distinct from the Chinese illegally seizing Tibet. Both were criminal acts at gunpoint, both have been supplemented by attempting to replace the indigenous population with imports together with destruction of indigenous traditions and attempts to eliminate the indigenous languages. Both have been justified by the occupying power as having civilized barbaric regions.

      To me, that says that perspective isn't on the side of the US on this one. Once a criminal, always a criminal.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    24. Re:Oh Boy... by NeutronCowboy · · Score: 2

      Lazy analysis. Even if no government wants a truly free Internet, there are still differences between all the other governments. And quite frankly, the US is on a very short list of countries I'd like to see have control over the Internet.

      The UN controlling the Internet will be a lowest common denominator kinda issue, and that will be to regulate pretty much everything. Do not want. And that's coming from someone who supports the UN far more than the average american.

      --
      Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
    25. Re:Oh Boy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, the benign corporate collective knows best.

    26. Re:Oh Boy... by symbolset · · Score: 1, Interesting

      We're talking about the same United Nations that has Libya on its Human Rights Council. What do you think is going to happen?

      --
      Help stamp out iliturcy.
    27. Re:Oh Boy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you're goddamn fucking right!

    28. Re:Oh Boy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All of the "smart indians" have left and taken citzenship in other countries. This is a common aspiration amongst the middle class.

      Now that a random anonymous person has written this on the internet, I am convinced it is true.

    29. Re:Oh Boy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Umm, you DO realize that post is bat-shit crazy with no hint of reality detectable anywhere in it, right?

      If you're trolling, that's fine, each to his own. I'm just worried that you might be psychologically unwell enough to actually believe any of that. If so, please call for help and remain calm.

    30. Re:Oh Boy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      India has more free speech than Japan has, and No, I will not google articles for you to lessen your idiocy for you, you will have to do it yourself. Let me give you some pointers though. Look up rendition, for one. In India the police has to take you in front of a judge to keep you more than 72 hours in custody without a warrant. In Japan, 23 days. Did you get that? 23 FUCKING DAYS. After that, they can file for an extension without cause and those are always granted. Post arrest conviction rate in Japan is over 99%. Look it up. If you are arrested for any reason there is a 99% chance that you will be locked up for more than 5 years. I pity your ignorance of what goes on in the world. Before you start spewing nonsense next time, take some time to read about India, Japan and a few other countries, India is more free than the US. Chaotic, but definitely more free. I have lived in India, parts of Asia and US over the last 4 decades so i know a bit more than a wikipedia reading armchair expert.

    31. Re:Oh Boy... by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      So representative democracy is ok, as long as you get to rig the election?

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    32. Re:Oh Boy... by fredprado · · Score: 3, Insightful

      And yet it's still walking slower in that direction than anyone else.

      I beg to disagree. I am Brazilian and although my country has a LOT of problems it is certainly not going in this direction faster than US. The same can be said about a lot of developing countries and even most of the European countries, with some exceptions (UK comes to my mind). US certainly has a lot of laws protecting free speech and such, but laws are useless if the price of justice is not affordable and its decisions are each day less technical and more political. Add that to the fact that even these failing laws are being eroded each day by absurd amendments and acts and you have a very bleak picture.

    33. Re:Oh Boy... by SuricouRaven · · Score: 2

      The US created the internet by accident. The technology was designed for a military communications network that could continue to function in the event of severe infrastructure damage from nuclear war. Then it became available to universities, and eventually some companies started offering connectivity to anyone. If you gave a few high-up officials a time machine and a chance to do it all over again, they'd probably engineer it from the beginning to include a government-controlled censorship system, a means of easily determining the identity of every user and an appointed authority in charge of using the censorship system to block anything considered illegal or obscene under US law.

      Then someone would set up an abstracted darknet on top purely for the porn.

    34. Re:Oh Boy... by SuricouRaven · · Score: 2

      Someone has to run at least the DNS system. It's the only internet resource people will fight over. One IP or AS number is just like another, so all you need is a simple administrative body to make sure two people don't try to use the same one. But DNS? That's a source of endless disputes, and so long as those domains remain a source of substantial income that will be the case. So a body is needed to resolve them. Right now, that is ICANN and their resolution procedure can be summed up as 'the side with the best-known trademark wins.'

    35. Re:Oh Boy... by geekgirlandrea · · Score: 1

      One IP or AS number is just like another, so all you need is a simple administrative body to make sure two people don't try to use the same one.

      Yeah, true with current or foreseeable future protocols. Not necessarily impossible to avoid, though - what if networks were addressed by public keys in a large sparse space, and you could just randomly generate them when needed?

      That's a source of endless disputes, and so long as those domains remain a source of substantial income that will be the case. So a body is needed to resolve them.

      You're presuming I recognize the legitimacy of intellectual property there, I think. I do not, and see no reason to object to "whoever claims it first owns it".

      On the other hand, DNS is probably the most administratively problematic protocol around due to the need for someone to run the root zone. That one would sure be nice to find a workaround for....

    36. Re:Oh Boy... by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      "do what geeks have always done, and create the Darknet version of BitTorrent. That is, a darknet that is easy to use, cryptographically strong, and damn near impossible to detect."

      Sounds like Freenet. I've used it. It does work, but the anti-tracking measures impose a nasty performance overhead, so it's painfully slow and there are no real-time communications abilities. I've read that TOR and .onion site are the darknet of choice for when you want realtime comms, but never had need for either.

      The idea reminds me of Treehouse from the Otherland novels. Unfortunatly fictional, but a similar origin story to what is happening now: The internet becomes increasingly regulated in the future. Most people are happy with this - it means no more dodgy scammers, and no more pranksters joining forums just to flood it with pornography and leave. Those people who disagree with the new regulation made Freenet, a darknet overlay with obvious simularities to the darknets of the real world, where anything was permitted.

    37. Re:Oh Boy... by toriver · · Score: 2

      Correction: They control some aspects of it, i.e. creation of TLDs and some of the most common TLDs. IANA, IETF, IESG etc. are international bodies already.

    38. Re:Oh Boy... by toriver · · Score: 4, Informative

      South Korea? You mean the former military dictatorship that dabbles in democracy but is practically run by industry giants?

    39. Re:Oh Boy... by toriver · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Inventing something does not grant a right to control it later - otherwise, you would not need the FCC to allocate radio spectrum but leave that to Italy; and if Ford wanted to make changes to a car model they should ask Germany. And so on.

    40. Re:Oh Boy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly. It is well known that having connections with Samsung will get you many things you want in the way of government projects and money. It has a pretense of a democracy, but a very think one. OP is an idiot, throwing out names of countries he has no fucking idea about.

    41. Re:Oh Boy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thats how the USA exports democracy though....

    42. Re:Oh Boy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      All of the "smart indians" have left and taken citzenship in other countries..

      And they're known for being utter dicks wherever they settle

    43. Re:Oh Boy... by tg123 · · Score: 1

      Speaking as an Indian, I can safely say that we as a country don't deserve to have ANY control over the Internet......

      However if you think about it the Indian government, going by past experience with the commonwealth games, could runs things so badly it just might be a positive. Internet chaos might be good.

    44. Re:Oh Boy... by tg123 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      please mod parent post as informative . South Korea is run by Industry giants.

    45. Re:Oh Boy... by mvdwege · · Score: 1

      That's orthogonal to the body that controls the standards. After all, the fact that repressive regimes have a say in the ITU does not mean that they can arbitrarily tap your phone if you don't live in their country, now does it?

      Mart

      --
      "I know I will be modded down for this": where's the option '-1, Asking for it'?
    46. Re:Oh Boy... by Xest · · Score: 1

      The reasons international governance would be better is the same reason continuous coalition/minority governments give healthier democracies - the only legislation that can be passed is that which is common sense and not controversal. Legislation that is highly controversal like censorship ends up tied up in battles that last for eternity and so never reach agreement for implementation.

      It's not use arguing that we should just trust the US because the rest of the world wants to censor the net - the US and even private US corporations are already censoring the net. The US government with it's ICE seizures of legitimate foreign businesses such as Carribean based gambling sites which are completely legal internationally, and only the US takes offence to them, and privately because there have been a number of cases in the US where judges have ruled that sites the target of commercial litigants should indeed have their domains seized.

      We already have censorship thanks to the US, and with the onslaught of first the DMCA, then SOPA, PIPA, ACTA and so on and so forth it's only getting worse under US internet dicatorship. I would've agreed with the let the US keep running the show principle in the 90s when common carrier was an established principle, and it otherwise left it the hell alone, but now? There's no way the US can be trusted indefinitely with it anymore, something has to change.

    47. Re:Oh Boy... by darkstar019 · · Score: 1

      Then the government would promote porn to fill its coffers and extend corruption to internet as well.

      --
      Fuck Beta
    48. Re:Oh Boy... by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      Mapping fixed terms to IP addresses is easy enough, the problem is meaningfulness to humans.
      - If the terms are meaningful, then they will have value. Companies of similar name will dispute who gets one. There will be issues relating to names used for satire or protest. Some will be worth millions, which means lots of legal action. This is the situation with DNS. It works, it also leads to the plague of the cyber-squatters and the type of hugely expensive legal action that only lawyers benefit from.
      - If the terms are not meaningful, then there will be great impracticality. Apple wants to be found at 'apple.com' not '819329e4916977570ed5e9617f3049b41c1ec8fa87459a1eb8690bd7a80aa3d2'. How can you put that on a TV advert, or a radio ad? You could put it on a poster, but only in the form of a QR code.

    49. Re:Oh Boy... by Asic+Eng · · Score: 1

      Yeah, true with current or foreseeable future protocols.

      Protocols too, need to be agreed on.

    50. Re:Oh Boy... by Ash+Vince · · Score: 1

      We're talking about the same United Nations that has Libya on its Human Rights Council. What do you think is going to happen?

      How are we supposed to take your post seriously on a geek discussion site if you cant even post a link properly?

      The link you wanted to post was here:

      Libya

      And btw, why should they not be on the council again in 2013? They are no longer a dictatorship and are making great strives towards democracy now that Gadafi is gone.

      You did realise that was what it said on the link you posted didn't you? Here is the story stating they will be re-admitted:

      http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=40438&Cr=libya&Cr1

      They were kicked off the council for clamping down on their own citizens at the start of the arab spring.

      --
      I dont read /. to RTFA, I read /. to offend people in ignorance.
    51. Re:Oh Boy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And like India is going to be ANYONES choice to come up with a feasible idea.
      For a country of math heads, they sure are clueless about everything else.
      Cool music, splendid food, heartfelt pr0n and not a damned clue.....

    52. Re:Oh Boy... by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      Representative democracy? At the UN? Since when does a king or dictator represent the will of the people? I'm the one proposing democracy.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    53. Re:Oh Boy... by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      To measure political speech, I would use a list like this, which is much less subjective than your opinion. It looks to me like the dividing line is somewhere in the middle of that list, but that is obviously IMHO. The bottom of that list is straight out.

      To measure democracy, I'd try something like this (sorry about the PDF). They have a category called "Authoritarian regimes", and I think those countries should definitely be excluded.

      I'm not trying to rig the game in favor of the US, I'm trying to rig the game in favor of human rights.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    54. Re:Oh Boy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are so many ignorant statements in your comments, I don't know where to begin. I guess the first would be to point out you give absolutely no citations for any of your statements. And, frankly, I'm not going to waste any more of my time on debating an aluminum-foil-hat ignoramus.

    55. Re:Oh Boy... by Ash+Vince · · Score: 1

      Compared to N. Korea, China, Iran, Saudi Arabia?

      You had me up until that last one. Saudi Arabia is a staunch US ally.

      The US sells them vast amounts of US military hardware every year and if the US government had any sort of problem with the utter lack of any democracy there it could bankrupt them very quickly by not buying their oil. Of course that will never happen though as the US would rather Saudi stayed as friendly monarchy with a shit human rights record as most of the general populace are muslim and would probably elect a bunch extremist anti-american nutters if given half the chance.

      Also, when considering the wonderful US stance on human rights you might consider that that only applies to US citizens. The folks who have been held in Guantanamo bay might not have such a great opinion on the US and it's marvellous human rights record. Another group of people not exactly happy would be the families of children killed by Israel when they fired US made and paid for incendiary missiles at Gaza.

      That is not to say that other countries you quote are better, far from it. My point is only that often these things look very different depending on which people are fucking you over. The US has often been party to installing utterly non-democratic oppressive regimes in countries in recent history just to benefit US companies economically.

      This is maybe a reason to consider tempering a single countries control with some sort of body where no one country had absolute control. You might even use the model the US uses for it's own internal governance (constitutional democracy or whatever) where countries got a proportional vote depending on online presence. Big changes that went against certain core principles could even then be blocked by a certain percentage voting against. It make not make for a freer internet but at least might bog the governing body down in so much bureaucracy that it didn't get any less free at least.

      This might make it a little harder for RIAA and whoever to boot sites off the net for enabling piracy or whatever.

      --
      I dont read /. to RTFA, I read /. to offend people in ignorance.
    56. Re:Oh Boy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The same IANA that has ties to the US Chamber of Commerce and Department of Defence, right?

      Let's not forget that a lot of internet technologies arose from the US DoD...

      And they don't control 'The Internet', they just control the mainstream internet. The people who really control the Internet are the companies that own the backbone infrastructure. Anyone can create their own Internet, it's just the cost of infrastructure that stops most people.

    57. Re:Oh Boy... by tg123 · · Score: 2

      (joke [ducks] [hides] [begs for mercy]) Whoops I thought the internet's primary purpose is porn distribution ?

    58. Re:Oh Boy... by tg123 · · Score: 1

      And letting in the US is better ?

      Well I think it's , at least for westerners, a case of the devil ( USA) you know.

      USA is a very easy devil to deal with just throw money at it and it will let you do what ever you like.

      Cause it's gets a bit nasty if you don't have money but at least it's an honest devil.

    59. Re:Oh Boy... by heathen_01 · · Score: 0

      It only takes one shitty law to be passed before you're screwed. The odds are against you.

    60. Re:Oh Boy... by heathen_01 · · Score: 0

      India has its own problems with justice, and getting in front of a judge is no help if the judge is corrupt.

    61. Re:Oh Boy... by msobkow · · Score: 1

      There is one difference between US and Indian attempts to censor the internet. The USG is clearly in the pockets of big media and industry, targetting sites which distribute "pirated" materials and "fake" products.

      India, on the other hand wants Pre-screening of Internet content:

      On December 5, 2011, The New York Times' India Ink reported that the Indian government had asked several social media sites and internet companies, including Google, Facebook and Yahoo, to "prescreen user content from India and to remove disparaging, inflammatory or defamatory content before it goes online."[26] Top officials from the Indian units of Google, Microsoft, Yahoo and Facebook had several meetings with Kapil Sibal, India’s acting telecommunications minister to discuss the issue in recent months, India Ink reported. In one meeting, Mr. Sibal asked these companies "to use human beings to screen content, not technology," the article said.

      In other words, the US "censors" activities and sites that it considers to be illegal.

      India wants to censor all speech that some in their nation find "offensive."

      Worse, India doesn't seem to have any sane way of describing what "offensive" speech is, leaving the entire community of barn doors open for abuse, not just their own.

      Not that I'm at all impressed with US corporate/media run censorship, either. But at least the USG seems to have some rules about what they censor.

      --
      I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
    62. Re:Oh Boy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, my first thought was that India is the perfect vehicle for creating a governing body over the internet. By this time next year it will be so convoluted and bloated nobody will know what the heck it is or what it does. It will be such a tangle bureaucratic mess that it will be impotent under its own weight. Problem solved.

    63. Re:Oh Boy... by Samantha+Wright · · Score: 1

      Tokelau. Tokelau does! Or, at worst, an internet with a banner frame across the bottom and an option to remove it for $10.95 a month.

      --
      Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
    64. Re:Oh Boy... by cayenne8 · · Score: 1

      The folks who have been held in Guantanamo bay might not have such a great opinion on the US and it's marvellous human rights record.

      Hmm...so, what country are you in? Would you be willing to accept the package if we dropped off all these terrorist guys into your country? Would that solve things for you?

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    65. Re:Oh Boy... by stevew · · Score: 1

      Ah - that ain't so. I live/work in Silicon Valley. I've worked at two companies owned by Indians with the majority of employees being Indian. The owners of one company were jack-asses, the owners of the second company were good, kind people. I've got VERY close friends who are Indian. I've also know idiots who were Indian.

      Conclusion - they are just as diverse as any other group - whose personalities/qualities span the spectrum.

      --
      Have you compiled your kernel today??
    66. Re:Oh Boy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There should be no control over the Internet and thus far the U.S. has been quite benevolent, while any UN body certainly will not. If you really insist on giving countries like NK, Iran, Myanmar, Indonesia, Saudia Arabia a seat at the table, you'll get what you deserve when it comes to a free and independent Internet.

    67. Re:Oh Boy... by Anubis+IV · · Score: 1

      You are suggesting in all seriousness that North Korea, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and China are on par with the U.S. for free speech and civil rights?

      I'm sorry, but I can't take anything you say seriously after that. How the hell were you modded Insightful?

      If you want to talk about meaningful freedom of speech, how about starting with freedom of the press? Conveniently, Reporters Without Borders publishes an annual index of most nations regarding how free their presses are. Out of the 179 countries they ranked, the four you claim are "about equal" to the U.S. are ranked numbers 158, 174, 175, and 178. The U.S. is at #57 and has significantly improved its ranking in recent years.

      And if you want to talk civil liberties, the Freedom in the World index provides a good indication of those. Wikipedia has conveniently compiled the individual rankings from all of the different regions that the index uses into a single list (sort by "Freedom House 2011"). You'll see that all four of the countries "about equal" to the U.S. are listed with the worst possible ranking of "Not Free", while the U.S. has the best possible ranking in their scoring system. They also offer more detailed breakdowns that provide numerical scores for political and civil rights within those countries.

      Now, I'll certainly admit that the U.S. is by no means perfect, but to have someone seriously suggest that it's on par with those other four? Stop it with the hyperbole. Stick to facts. Nerds like facts. We're nerds. We don't need exaggeration and false information.

    68. Re:Oh Boy... by JustSomeProgrammer · · Score: 1

      would have been funny without the pretext

    69. Re:Oh Boy... by tg123 · · Score: 1

      :-) Yeah I know but It's slashdot . Some people take it seriously putting that in front stops the flames :-)

    70. Re:Oh Boy... by ultranova · · Score: 1

      Hmm...so, what country are you in? Would you be willing to accept the package if we dropped off all these terrorist guys into your country? Would that solve things for you?

      What, exactly speaking, needs to be "solved" for him? That he has a problem with holding people prisoner indefinitely without trial?

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    71. Re:Oh Boy... by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      The Indian government is not authoritarian. It's just...stupid and uninformed and clueless. Ditto for most of the population.

      So, same as any other country, then?

    72. Re:Oh Boy... by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      And btw, why should they not be on the council again in 2013? They are no longer a dictatorship and are making great strives towards democracy now that Gadafi is gone.

      They may be making strides towards democracy, but they are still engaging in massive human rights violations (yes, after ousting Gaddafi) such as ethnic cleansing of black Libyans.

    73. Re:Oh Boy... by Man+On+Pink+Corner · · Score: 1

      Look at the "Occupy" protests. They were massive, they were long-lasting, they were crushed through excessive violence and the political leaders responsible for that crushing have seen their poll numbers RISE as a result of using terror and intimidation on those who were asking only that the 1% pay fair dues

      Pro tip: If private appropriation of public resources is not OK when it's done by a multinational corporation, it's also not OK when it's done by a motley assortment of bums, drifters, and trust-fund anarchists. And it's not "speech," either way.

    74. Re:Oh Boy... by toriver · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I was mistaken about IANA - they are closer to ICANN in their U.S. dominance than the others are.

    75. Re:Oh Boy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But hey, I'm sure you're right. I'm sure the US is every bit as much of an authoritarian shithole with no respect for human rights as China and North Korea. Totally.

      Actually, this is true. The US is an authoritarian shithole wih no respect for human rights, hence why the USA infringes on the rights of every single passenger on its airlines.

      Here in New Zealand, we dislike Americans intensely - that's why we let Russian nuclear submarines into our waters, but enforce keeping the USA's nuclear warships out. I'd rather have an argument with fundamentalist Islamists than fundamentalist Christians. At least Muslims open their ears, listen, and present logical arguments without resorting to hand waving and nail biting. Americans haven't done that for decades.

    76. Re:Oh Boy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is true that the US is still nowhere near North Korea police state, yet, but it is running at a very good pace in that direction.

      There, fixed that for you.

    77. Re:Oh Boy... by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      There's no way the US can be trusted indefinitely with it anymore, something has to change.

      I agree that it is not ideal that the US has sole control, but handing it over to the UN General Assembly is something that I object to even more. In the interest of democracy and free speech, I think that something like the Reporters Without Borders list and the measure of democracy proposed by the Economist could be used to select members that are relatively free and democratic. Exclude countries that aren't in the top 50% of the Reporters Without Borders list and exclude countries that are in the "Authoritarian" category in the Economist rankings.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    78. Re:Oh Boy... by Ihmhi · · Score: 1

      The same can be said for, well, pretty much every country in the world.

    79. Re:Oh Boy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As an Indian, I absolutely agree - it will be a sad day when the Indian government gets more control over the Internet.

    80. Re:Oh Boy... by Xest · · Score: 1

      I think that would only make things much worse. The problem is that whilst yes many such nations wouldn't support out and out censorship of random political topics, they would support US attempts to censor stuff relating to IP infringement - effectively you'd run the risk of getting support for ICE that also hits gambling and such.

      To counter that you need countries like China, because they're important voices in counteracting over-reaching US IP policy. You need this sort of disagreement to ensure stalemate on controversal issues.

      This way you can guarantee the West will block moves by China to increase global censorship, whilst China and other African/Asian nations will block attempts at over-reaching IP enforcement related censorship from the US. You need your Chinas, Russias, Irans, Syrias, Venezuelas and so forth to stand up to Western corporate censorship just as much as you need the US, Europe etc. to stand up to Eastern political censorship.

      This stalemate caused by including even the most dispicable regimes is important, essential to ensure that the fringes don't get to push their policies, whilst ensuring the only areas of agreement are the areas that frankly everyone agrees on and make sense to implement anyway.

    81. Re:Oh Boy... by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      SOPA, PIPA, whatever.

      CISPA, that's where the game is at. It passed the house.

    82. Re:Oh Boy... by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      I see your point, but I regard political speech to be far more important than commercial speech. I'd hate to see political speech subjected to the same sorts of negotiations that commercial speech is currently subjected to. I also disagree with the premise that an unelected "leader" should have any legitimacy at all on issues of policy. I accept the UN General Assembly's existence on pragmatic grounds, but don't see the need to extend that model beyond where it is absolutely necessary.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    83. Re:Oh Boy... by Xest · · Score: 1

      There's not really such thing as commercial speech and political speech, commercial censorship can censor political discussion as well as political censorship can, the differentiator between the two is the source. In political censorship it is political bodies such as governments that censor, in commercial censorship it is corporations, what they actually censor will often overlap, so one is just as bad as the other.

      I've pointed it out before on Slashdot that the UN already handles things such as international telecomms, international post, international air and maritime standards and does so incredibly well, there's no reason the internet shouldn't be the same as these other core communication tools, and in fact, it's quite likely it would be the ITU that deals with it. Perhaps there's a bit of misunderstanding but when they say hand it to the general assembly I do not believe they mean let the general assembly manage it, but instead mean let the general assembly figure out what to do with it - i.e. create it it's own ITU style organisation, or hand it to the ITU for management. The problem the UN in general has is that it's negatively tarred with the brush of the security council, which is the most often in the news component in the UN, but only a tiny, tiny fragment of what the UN is or does. The UN has far, far more good bits, than it does bad bits.

    84. Re:Oh Boy... by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      In political censorship it is political bodies such as governments that censor, in commercial censorship it is corporations, what they actually censor will often overlap, so one is just as bad as the other.

      That's not really true - the government can (and does) also censor commercial speech (criminal penalties of copyright law), and corporations often censor political speech - a moderated message board being a simple example, but even choosing the callers on a radio program is a form of censorship.

      What I mean is that it is far more critical to a democracy to have a free press and the ability to speak one's opinion without risk of jail or bodily harm, especially at the hand of government forces (or a proxy of the same). When the "opposition" is in jail, or when dissidents are routinely beaten up and their families threatened, when "hostile" newspapers are shut down, when unfriendly radio and TV stations are shut down - that's a much more dangerous sign than the government yanking the DNS record of a site that links to copyrighted files. I'd rather the latter didn't happen as well, but I see a major distinction between the two kinds of censorship.

      The problem the UN in general has is that it's negatively tarred with the brush of the security council, which is the most often in the news component in the UN, but only a tiny, tiny fragment of what the UN is or does. The UN has far, far more good bits, than it does bad bits.

      I think it is negatively tarred with things like the human rights commission getting headed up by some of the biggest offenders. The UN is great for dry, relatively uncontroversial international matters and the security council so far has kept us out of another world war. Some of the hunger and health committees are also very well respected. But unless we are talking about dry architectural issues and such, the UN is not a good place for managing the more controversial aspects of the internet.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    85. Re:Oh Boy... by TaxDoktor · · Score: 1

      The irony is that the Indian people I know are by far the worst for downloading pirated movies. Many I know never pay for movies and end up watching pirated versions long before they even hit the theaters. I would comfortably assume (without hard facts, but based on the sample size I have dealt with) that India is one of the biggest pirate participants. If the Indian government manages to put a stop to internet piracy, I believe their own people will literally have a cow, lol. (sorry couldn't resist the pun) I don't live in the U.S. I live in the Vancouver area next to Surrey, which is a huge East Indian community. It is not called Surrey-Lanka for nothing ;-) If my understanding of the Indian political mindset is correct (i.e. Ferengi rules of acquisition ) the only reason they are proposing this idea is that there must be some profit in it for the people involved.

    86. Re:Oh Boy... by bhagwad · · Score: 1

      Oh don't discount ego. Indian people (and the government) are constantly looking for ways to feel "prestigious" and better about themselves. Didn't you know we aspire to be a "superpower"? :D

      But power in the hands of stupid, unhumorous, oversensitive, public pandering bigots? *shudder*

    87. Re:Oh Boy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Isn't that the entire purpose behind a patent? So, if you invent something... you have the rights... to control it... later???

    88. Re:Oh Boy... by toriver · · Score: 1

      Yes. The country you belong to? Not so much.

    89. Re:Oh Boy... by Xest · · Score: 1

      "That's not really true - the government can (and does) also censor commercial speech (criminal penalties of copyright law)"

      Copying content isn't speech. Criminal penalties only apply to the action of profiting from selling counterfeit goods, I'm not sure how you can possibly claim that is some kind of speech.

      "a moderated message board being a simple example, but even choosing the callers on a radio program is a form of censorship."

      No, you don't understand the concept of free speech at all. The concept of free speech isn't that corporations, political groups and citizens don't have the right to stop you saying what you want on their premises, or broadcast it using their equipment, it's that they don't have the right to stop you using other mechanisms to say what you want that are outside their control. It's censorship of free speech if some government organisation or individual or corporation stops you saying what you want where you do have permission to do so - i.e. a third party forum. It's not censorship of free speech if I kick someone out my house for saying something I don't like because they can go elsewhere and do it, it is censorship if I have them silenced over the issue everywhere somehow. It's not that you're wrong to suggest choosing callers on a radio show isn't censorship, it is, you're right about that, but it's not an infringement of free speech - because there are other shows, and other mediums where you can say what you believe where they can't stop you doing that.

      The problem regarding the internet is that some governments and corporations are attempting to block what can be said anywhere on the net - including on privately owned forums that are accepting of such topics, and this is a problem whether it's China's government doing it, or US corporations abusing corrupt courts/government officials etc.

      "What I mean is that it is far more critical to a democracy to have a free press and the ability to speak one's opinion without risk of jail or bodily harm, especially at the hand of government forces (or a proxy of the same). When the "opposition" is in jail, or when dissidents are routinely beaten up and their families threatened, when "hostile" newspapers are shut down, when unfriendly radio and TV stations are shut down - that's a much more dangerous sign than the government yanking the DNS record of a site that links to copyrighted files. I'd rather the latter didn't happen as well, but I see a major distinction between the two kinds of censorship."

      What about Wikileaks? That's about the most journalistic form of journalism we've seen in the West in decades, yet the West has worked very hard to censor it, and punish those responsible. Now the truth is finally coming out in the UK over News International it's become clear that Murdoch's empire and politicians have conspired in the UK to cover up all sorts of stories - it's no different elsewhere in the world, it's just that other Murdoch plagued countries haven't yet found the balls to face up to the problem.

      "I think it is negatively tarred with things like the human rights commission getting headed up by some of the biggest offenders."

      But it's another tiny facet of what the UN is and does, yes some members of the UN have managed to subvert some sections - the US managed to completely fuck over WIPO which worked exactly as it should until they did so - preventing overly restrictive US IP policy when the US suberted it with the WTO. In WIPO African nations, Asian nations were counteracting US' over the top IP laws and restrictions and the US didn't like it so it created the WTO and now forces everyone to join that to play by it's rules instead, but fundamentally these are only very small things compared to the IAEA, ICAO, IFAD, IMO, ITU, UNESCO, UPU, WFP, WHO, WMO, and much of what the general assembly does actually cover.

      The sad thing is your same argument was used for things like the ITU, ICAO, IMO etc. and yet it turns out such accusations were unfounded, further, whatever issues may ari

    90. Re:Oh Boy... by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      No, you don't understand the concept of free speech at all.

      I don't think that's true - I think you are using the terms "free speech" and "censorship" interchangeably. The quotes you took out of my post are referring to your discussion of "censorship", not free speech in general. I maintain that they are different, but related, concepts.

      Whatever valid arguments there were for not letting the UN take over, have now been trumped by the fact that the US is now guilty of all the things people have claimed the UN may (but most likely wouldn't) be guilty of.

      Well, I'm with you and against you :) I'm with you in that it would be helpful to have an international body take over administration of the internet. I'm still not convinced that the General Assembly is the right venue - even if all it is doing is setting up a committee. I believe the internet is a very important outlet of political speech in the modern world, and it would be too easy to silence it. I don't think it is laughable at all, since the number of countries without free speech protection outnumbers those that have it.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
  2. Hmm... by fullback · · Score: 1

    The problem with things like this is who "develops policies, oversees standards bodies and policies, and sits in judgment" of the UN General Assembly?

  3. UN by fnj · · Score: 2

    No. Just no.

    1. Re:UN by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Yeah lets leave control of the internet to the usa after all it would never interfere, censor or otherwise abuse the internets! The USA is a beacon of pure and god fearing FREEDOM for everyone*! USA! USA! USA!

      * Offer applicable only to white skinned, wealthy christian conservatives.

    2. Re:UN by InspectorGadget1964 · · Score: 1

      I love to see kindred spirits in this place. Congratulations!

    3. Re:UN by SteveFoerster · · Score: 1

      As warranted as your sarcasm is, it's still better than placing something so important in the hands of the anti-freedom bureaucrats at the UN.

      --
      Space game using normal deck of cards: http://BattleCards.org
    4. Re:UN by smelch · · Score: 1

      IP addresses and DNS servers are not the internet. It's the network. And you can build your network any way you like and avoid sending traffic through the US.

      --
      If I can just reach out with my words and touch a butthole, just one, it will all be worth it.
    5. Re:UN by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      UN is not going to have control over the Internet, anyway, because it lacks enforcement powers. Suppose the "anti-freedom bureaucrats" decide to block something; now what? The root servers are still hosted in certain specific countries, and said countries can always tell the UN to fuck off on that particular matter.

      By the way, this is also why UN as a whole is not a "world government" in any meaningful sense. UNSC is another story, but it doesn't deal with such mundane stuff.

    6. Re:UN by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not a choice of the UN or the USA. Neither should control it.

    7. Re:UN by bug1 · · Score: 1

      The point of moving it to the UN is that its harder for them to *try* to corrupt it to any one nations exclusive advantage (they have to fight each other).

      And it doesnt matter which overload is trying to oppress the internet, they wont succeed in the long run because the internet empowers individuals more than their masters, all they can do is escalate the arms race.

      Its just a matter of time until something better for the majority replaces DNS.

    8. Re:UN by Score+Whore · · Score: 1

      Control what? Control the actual fiber, cables and microwave links? Well the USA doesn't control those. Those are owned mostly by private companies generally subject to the laws and regulations of most every nation in the world. However the physical infrastructure isn't exactly The Internet. The internet is merely a bunch of networks passing traffic back and forth. The US DoC was smart enough to see that for this sort of thing to work there needs to be some point of coordination to allocate addresses and manage DNS servers. Guess what, you don't have to abide by the United States of America's rules on this. Feel free to use any DNS servers you want. Use any network addresses you desire. Just don't be shocked if nobody wants to talk to you once you start talking in -- what is effectively -- your own made up language. Why do you think you have the right to insist that everyone conforms to your preference of coordinating body?

      And yes you absolutely can turn that argument exactly around and I completely agree with it. 100%. The United States has no right to insist that other counties follow the our rules. But so what. We put our network out there and it turns out that most everyone wanted to be on it. When whatever agency or country you have an affection for is as culturally and economically significant as the Unites States of America, then they'll be able to call the dance.

    9. Re:UN by Shark · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure the UN works very hard and with some measure of success to grant itself enforcement powers in countries that matter and that typically, it suits the local government to enforce their resolutions. Using the US as an example, congress may be reluctant if enough people make a fuss about it, but would the executive even give them a say in it? It's been (sadly) demonstrated that executive orders bypass congress nowadays.

      --
      Mind the frickin' laser...
    10. Re:UN by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      Which just means that they would corrupt it to the advantage of whoever is in power in any given country and would implement controls which make it harder for people to develop workarounds to government control.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    11. Re:UN by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      The point is that, ultimately, it's still down to the countries. If you're worried that your government will do UN bidding to censor the Net, you should also be worried that they'll censor it for their own sake even without UN - so it doesn't really add anything to the picture.

  4. World government? by InspectorGadget1964 · · Score: 1

    Sounds a bit like Orwell's.....

  5. Re:Fuck Off We Invented It, Its Ours by InspectorGadget1964 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    By the same token, Mercedes-Benz invented the car, why should you have one?

  6. Not The World Governments! by Greyfox · · Score: 1

    Those guys are assholes!

    --

    I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

  7. Re:Fuck Off We Invented It, Its Ours by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    By the same token, Mercedes-Benz invented the car, why should you have one?

    Are you fucking high?! America invented the car!

    In fact you're lucky we even let you exist, America invented people!

  8. Who pays for the UN? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If it's to be funded by the UN, which tax paying factory worker foots the bill for this abortion of bureaucracy?

  9. Don't worry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When all is said and done, much will be said, and nothing will be done. The US will never give up control of the Internet. Isn't gonna happen. We allow the rabble to hold diplomatic conferences every year or two to "discuss" the issue. They'll complain and demand change. We'll politely listen to their pissing and moaning, and then do nothing.

  10. How it goes... by gman003 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    India: "Hey, has anybody thought we should try controlling the 'net more?"

    Korea: "Nah, that's a terrible idea. Maybe a law keeping ISPs from blocking stuff they don't like would be better."

    Germany: "Yeah, that sounds good."

    Sweden: "Add a clause telling the movie and music companies to stop suing people for more money than some of *us* have, and you'll get my vote!"

    Eritrea: "Hear, hear!"

    And then the law gets passed and nobody messed with the internet again and we all live happily ever after, the end. ...

    Hey, if *they* get to talk about *their* crazy future scenarios, I get to talk about mine.

    1. Re:How it goes... by jd · · Score: 1

      As crazy as it is, it's infinitely more believable than US' Congress saying that (and the Supreme Court has said the FCC can't regulate the Internet unless Congress DOES pass the law you describe).

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    2. Re:How it goes... by Shahv · · Score: 1

      Hope the freedom of speech is not curtailed. Some content on internet can be outrageous but hope government control does not mean political interference. That will be a disaster!

    3. Re:How it goes... by moon19th · · Score: 1

      We ourselves should control the net more!

    4. Re:How it goes... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In a sense that is a GOOD thing. The FCC is scared of boobs, butts, and sex. So 90% of the internet is gone if the FCC has their way.

      What we NEED is the Internet to be left alone. See where it goes.... it's worked so far... and with the US government clamoring for a "free and open" internet for the world... you'd be hard-pressed to square that idea with ANYTHING the government can come up with as far as regulation.

      It sucks, I know. But the politicians, no matter what country you pick, are bought and paid for. It's the people who get screwed. Thank FSM for the Constitution here in the US, because without it, we'd be entirely worse off than most dictatorships. (It's all relative, I suppose, but having a document that can't be ignored helps...)

  11. Re:Fuck Off We Invented It, Its Ours by InspectorGadget1964 · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    Such arrogance! Mercedes Benz produced the first car in 1886, when you Yanks were dragging carts with horses, and with your economy as it is right now, you will be begging to the world to be allowed to exist. If the Chineses stop buying US government bonds, your trembling economy will go to dust!

  12. Re:Fuck Off We Invented It, Its Ours by MightyYar · · Score: 3, Funny

    Is a European lecturing us on fiscal discipline? Let the flame wars begin!

    --
    W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
  13. Those who want to "rule" the Internet... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Amazing that the least free (democratically - yes, I know India is democratic - I mean other nations...keep reading) - the least free, the most authoritarian and the ones that allow the least economic mobility...are the ones that want to "rule the Internet." To all of them I say, "Fuk OFF!!!"

  14. Re:Fuck Off We Invented It, Its Ours by InspectorGadget1964 · · Score: 1

    Just check this link http://usdebtclock.org/

  15. Re:Fuck Off We Invented It, Its Ours by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    What the fuck are you talking about?

    The internet isn't controlled by the US.

    The internet is controlled by everyone that operates a network. Sure there are IANA and the DNS root servers,but it is only by consesus that we use addresses allocated by IANA and the root servers hosted by ?Verisign?. If they start instituting policies that network operators find unreasonable, they simply won't follow their guidelines. There is no legal mandate to conform with the IANA, nor to point your DNS servers at those root servers.

  16. Re:Fuck Off We Invented It, Its Ours by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Speaking as an American, I wish we could deport all these people who are still 13 year old boys in their heads, sitting in back of the classroom with their fellow losers and smoking weed afterwards, thus setting up the pattern for the rest of their lives.

    Better make room for immigrants who come here willing to work their butts off to achieve a better life for themselves and their families, just like your great grandparents did facing a similar cloud of discrimination.

  17. Who is the worst steward? by manu0601 · · Score: 2

    For now things are in the hand of ICANN (that is, USA), and it is illegitimate enough that it cannot make crazy moves, otherwise some states will start creating their alternative DNS roots. I wonder if a UN based organization would be more capable of wrecking the Internet without partionning it.

    Note that whatever the governing body is, we have no chance of having democratic oversight no it, anyway.

  18. consent? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why not discuss it in India with as much input from the public as possible and base the direction on public opinion?

    1. Re:consent? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sounds like something that would be about as big a waste of time as possible.

    2. Re:consent? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean to the people of India or to the people that enslave the people of India with govt?

  19. Re:Do **NOT** forget the Indian diaspora ! by khallow · · Score: 2

    There are a lot of Indians in very high places in many global technology companies. No matter what passport they are carrying, all of them are VERY VERY LOYAL to their homeland, India.

    And do what?

  20. No way no way no way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We don't need more "cooperation."

    What keeps the Internet free is the ability to pick up and move across jurisdictions.

    UN management is a synonym for nowhere to run and nowhere to hide.

    The Internet is among the best inventions in human history because it empowers people to communicate with people. We don't need moralizers, tyrants, bureaucrats, and corporate lobbyists screwing it all up.

    There would be limited upside to this and unlimited downside. A global Internet police could theoretically snuff out things like free speech hosting and even Tor.

  21. Internet routes around standard damage by tobiah · · Score: 1

    Internet routes around standard damage originating somewhere in Asia. News at 11

    --
    "The ability to delude yourself may be an important survival tool" - Jane Wagner -
  22. Re:Do **NOT** forget the Indian diaspora ! by GumphMaster · · Score: 1

    Spoken as if the US citizens spread widely across the world are not loyal to the US and its interests. In fact, insert any country you like, it's a vacuous accusation that can be levelled against the "other" anywhere.

    --
    Patent litigation: A doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction... in which everyone seems willing to push the button
  23. Re:Fuck Off We Invented It, Its Ours by GumphMaster · · Score: 1

    OMG, FlashBlock just had a hernia :)

    --
    Patent litigation: A doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction... in which everyone seems willing to push the button
  24. Re:Fuck Off We Invented It, Its Ours by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 0

    That's rather ignorant. The US economy, while not robust by historical standards is pretty much the only big one not in recession at this point. Look at the world currency markets. The USD has been gaining on most everything.

    http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/341754/20120516/euro-zone-greek-government-austerity-forex-dollar.htm

    The US stock market has been outperforming everything major this year as well.

    http://www.yardeni.com/pub/PEACOCKGLSTKYTD.pdf

    Oh, and FYI the Chinese stopped buying US bonds over a year ago and started reducing their holdings. Didn't have any effect.

    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-05-17/china-trims-u-s-bond-holdings-for-fifth-month-as-debt-approaches-ceiling.html

    And as far as the first car goes, Nicolas Joseph Cugnot of France built the first automobile in 1769.

    The REAL invention that made cars attractive was efficient production of gasoline, and that was due to an American, William Meriam Burton who invented thermal cracking.

  25. Re:Fuck Off We Invented It, Its Ours by MightyYar · · Score: 3, Funny

    What kind of a lunatic creates a web page consisting of 94 individual flash animations??? It's like Hamster Dance!!!

    --
    W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
  26. Look at it this way by jd · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The US has done far, far worse than expected, ICANN has shown that they really can't and the FCC has utterly destroyed any possibility of it doing anything by treating the Internet as not a communication system. The major ISPs are acting like gangsters, using extortion and running protection rackets via the death of network neutrality.

    Leaving it where it is WILL kill the Internet as we know it. You WILL lose what freedoms you still have, if power doesn't shift soon.

    I don't know if the UN will do any better, but they sure as hell can't do worse and there are no other international organizations capable of the task.

    --
    It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    1. Re:Look at it this way by tnk1 · · Score: 2

      I'm not seeing how some sort of UN group, particularly a GA based one, is going to favorably address any of the points you brought up at all.

      And hell yes, the UN can do worse, I mean, there's only one country that *has* controlled the Internet including the time that you think the Internet was any good. So your plan is to say, anyone *must* better than the people who ran it when it did have freedom? I really just don't think you can make a statement like that with any credibility.

      If you want to suggest a UN body might be better, by all means, list actual reasons. I'm guessing that when you do, you might actually notice that almost none of them would necessarily get any better under a body that is filled with member countries that are quite happy to set up nationwide filters, including some Western ones. It is certainly not going to stop ISPs from acting like gangsters if you give a vote in the Internet to countries run by actual gangsters and dictators.

    2. Re:Look at it this way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Meanwhile, the ITU---an international organization---came up with X.509 and OSI. *slow clap*

    3. Re:Look at it this way by jd · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Well, no, the US didn't control the Internet when it was any good, the NSF did. (No, the DARPA days weren't better, DARPA's screwball decisions are why the Internet protocols are as messed up as they are.) The NSF isn't run by Congress or Corporations. One option would be for the NSF to claim eminent domain, seize all fibre (lit and dark) in the US or owned by US organizations, and run the lot on rational principles.

      However, that would only cover the US. The Internet is very global. Even CERN is primarily European. We need a UN body for the global reach, but it would need to meet the following criteria to actually work:

      * It needs to be quasi-independent
      * Members should be elected purely on merit, not on grounds of money or territory covered
      * Officials should be 75% from the academic community and 25% from the InfoSec community, NOTHING from the political or corporate communities
      * The organization should be primarily concerned with research, collaborative projects and the information demands of science
      * The Internet should be a means to achieve the desired end results, not an end in itself
      * Since this limits direct law-enforcement options, it would need to have significant muscle (eg: veto powers in the IMF and WTO) to ensure nations complied

      However, let's assume the GA wants to take over and not create a meaningful NSF-like body. Actual gangsters and dictators hold onto power because they know what they can take and when not to push too hard. The KKK was well-known for charity work, not because they gave a crap but because it's by far the easiest way to manipulate the hearts and minds of those peons and fools they needed to be compliant. Corporations hold onto power through smoke, mirrors and legislation. They take it all and don't give a crap about pushing too hard because customers are expendable. I have zero faith in the mob, but that's still far more faith than I'll ever have in a megacorp.

      I'd also point to Japan where actual mobsters and criminal gangs ARE in charge of many areas of law enforcement -- the nation has better Internet than the US (eg: gigabit to the home), better medical care, lower levels of (unlicensed) crime, lower levels of overt violence and far better sushi. It's an actual real-life embodiment of Terry Pratchett's Thieves' Guild. (I would not be surprised if Terry Pratchett got the idea from them, since many of his books are sourced in real-world ideas.)

      That's far from ideal, and I repeat I have zero faith in it, but my faith in the current system is so far in the negative that zero is a definite improvement.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    4. Re:Look at it this way by jd · · Score: 3, Informative

      The ITU came up with a hell of a lot more than those. X.25 was the wire protocol used by Europe for a very long time - worked extremely well and was highly robust, compared to its US contemporary which was IPv0.

      X.400 was probably heavier than necessary, but 99% of all work to improve on the limitations of SMTP have basically been reinventions of features X.400 had from the start.

      X.500 exists today in the form of LDAP + ASN.1 + Digital Certificates + Federated methods of authentication. All these combined still don't cover the full spectrum of X.500 capabilities, but most of what's left wasn't really needed. However, there's nothing done today that wasn't in the standard. Not bad going.

      Their other work includes little-known standards like JPEG, MPEG-2, MPEG-4, H.323 and ISDN, along with developing and standardizing technology that you can't possibly have heard of like wavelength-division multiplexing for optic fibre and DSL (yes, it's an ITU product as well).

      Yes, they did the OSI model (which is still the basis for most networking) and SDL, but nobody's perfect.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    5. Re:Look at it this way by SuricouRaven · · Score: 2

      The OSI model is the basis for most *teaching* networking. When it comes to actual practicality, seven layers turned out to too awkward. TCP/IP uses four. Some applications add a bit more on top, but from the networking perspective they aren't too important to worry about.

    6. Re:Look at it this way by Hentes · · Score: 1

      The first rule of politics is that there is always worse. If the Indians ruled the net, any site could be turned off for insulting a cow.

    7. Re:Look at it this way by Hentes · · Score: 1

      There needs to be global body but it definitely shouldn't be a UN one. The UN is a bunch of corrupt politicians and third world dictators. I wouldn't trust the UN with anything. The Internet needs to be a separate political entity, independent of nationstates. The UN will never agree to your points, the only reason some of its members are pushing for global control is so they can censor sites outside of their borders. America has many problems, but at least it has strong free speech protections, which is essential for a working net.

    8. Re:Look at it this way by jd · · Score: 1

      Ok, agreed TCP/IP uses four and agreed that those four don't entirely agree with the OSI model (you have to talk of fractions of a level to line things up, bleagh!).

      Applications increasingly add more on top, and yes technically you are correct that from a purist network perspective they aren't important. However, there's generally 2-3 of them and that matches the OSI prediction on how many application-level layers are needed, so I'm going to say that the OSI model got the ratio of total level of functionality needed to total complexity affordable just about right even if experience tells us that the extra layers needed aren't really network at all. If you therefore re-state OSI as a 4+3 layer model (network+application-level), rather than as a 7 layer model (all network) it's an impressive fit for something that is absolutely ancient in computing terms.

      So, yes, in the technical sense you are absolutely correct. It is the basis for teaching about networks, rather than the reality of networks. No question about it. It is in the totality of modern applications and how they work -in the most abstract sense- that you find that a 4+3 design nicely balances flexibility with overhead.

      (On this basis, I would argue that those teaching OSI should not go on to say that it's not used in practice, but should actually say that the OSI model correctly describes network activities but incorrectly lumps all the complexity and functionality together into a single box, where it's the box that doesn't exist in practice.)

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    9. Re:Look at it this way by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      ...the FCC has utterly destroyed any possibility of it doing anything by treating the Internet as not a communication system.

      Please explain what you mean by that?

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    10. Re:Look at it this way by gstrickler · · Score: 1

      Having worked with X.25, it's nothing to be proud of. Takes too much configuration to get a connection established. Hundreds of parameters, many of those are very esoteric.

      --
      make imaginary.friends COUNT=100 VISIBLE=false
    11. Re:Look at it this way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why can't ISOC do this?

      Maybe they'd need restructuring to allow them to actually do it, but that's the sort of body that should be involved, no?

    12. Re:Look at it this way by couchslug · · Score: 1

      Central control is bad, and world government is a terrible idea since it must seek to please the lowest common denominator.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    13. Re:Look at it this way by usuallylost · · Score: 1

      The NSF isn't run by Congress or Corporations...

      The NSF is a federal agency of course they are run by congress. Sure they have an appointed board of imminent scientists but congress still pays the bills and still controls their charter. Should the urge ever appear congress could run the NSF just like any other agency.

      Also I remember having to deal with the NSF back when they ran the Internet and it wasn't the joy you seem to remember. They used to require signed affidavits saying any of your traffic that transited the NSF portions of the Internet were of a "non-commercial" nature. There was all sorts of bureaucratic nonsense that ended up requiring us to configure routing based on whether you where "NSF approved" or not. Getting the Internet out of the hands of the NSF was second in joy only to getting it out of DARPA's hands. I for one don't want to see them anywhere near the Internet again

    14. Re:Look at it this way by jd · · Score: 1

      Although I disagree with your sentiment on the UN, I have no problem with agreeing with the idea of a wholly independent political entity (as opposed to the quasi-independent one I suggested). There's no serious question that it needs a high level of independence and that it needs to be impervious to national or corporate pressures to manipulate things.

      My argument for quasi-independence is purely that it would be very hard to get any nation to sign up to such a body - the US especially and that's the one that's absolutely needed because it has near-totalitarian control right now. On the other hand, a UN Charter would not require all nations to agree. I think you need 2/3rds before something can become International Law, at which point non-signatories are out of luck. Their disagreement simply doesn't matter at that point.

      2/3rds of all nations is still a hell of a lot, it might well not be achievable, but it's a much smaller number than 100% of both nations and international ISPs combined and it'd be easier to persuade nations that currently have little-to-no say in things that no other nation should have a monopoly than to persuade the ISPs (who have control over their own links) that they should relinquish some of that control.

      However, that's just the means to the end. The end itself is for a group that is outside of the political power games that go on and independent of those who play them. Since we both seem to agree on the end, we can leave how to get there for some other time.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    15. Re:Look at it this way by jd · · Score: 1

      I've worked with X.25 myself. It's complicated, yes, but if you look at the rapidly increasing complexity of modern networks, X.25 is not as evil as it might first appear.

      The problem with formal specifications is that they have to handle future cases virtually seamlessly as formal approaches are not really amenable to gradual improvements and refinements. This leads to a specification either being too much of a special case to be generally useful (so you need lots of specs) or so general that it covers those future needs that can be realistically anticipated (which gives you one very complicated specification).

      X.25 seems to have gone for the latter, which in many respects is a sensible approach. If you were to say they missed the mark in some area, I'd agree. If you were to say that TCP/IP is better because you've loads of specs and myriads of specialist layer 4 protocols, I'd say that it depends on your definition of "better" but would agree that it has a lot of advantages.

      Hundreds of parameters, many esoteric - true, very true, but there's no shortage of socket options and other tweakables for TCP/IP. The Web100 (now Web10G) project exists purely because it isn't trivial to set them correctly. Linux also supports a vast number of TCP schemes and traffic engineering functions in order to allow you to do further manipulation of windowing, buffering and traffic shaping.

      If you could imagine every tweakable on a single control panel, it would be no better - and maybe a lot worse - than X.25. They aren't on a single control panel, they're in a multitude of different APIs, where no one API is that heavy. In other words, X.25 is probably lighter on the total number of parameters but TCP/IP in general (and Linux' implementation in particular) encapsulates these in a vastly more manageable way, uses more defaults and uses better defaults.

      If X.25 were revised today (not that anyone is going to), it would likely be segmented rather than trying to do everything in one place and would end up very similar to modern TCP/IP. Which, of course, is why nobody would revise X.25 - TCP/IP already exists so there's no need for what would be an incompatible substitute. It's why Infiniband is unlike either (but learns some from TCP/IP on proper segmenting).

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
  27. Re:Fuck Off We Invented It, Its Ours by rossdee · · Score: 1

    It wasn't called Mercedes back then, but Daimler and Benz did produce the first internal combustion "horseless carriages"

    However the first self propelled vehicle was made by a Frenchman, Cugenot (or something like that) a century earlier - it was steam powered and had 3 wheels. (I think it was a bit top heavy with its large boiler, and overturned and killed the driver, thus making the first fatal automobile accident.

  28. Your country is free to do their own thing by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Setup a different set of root servers. Start out by mirroring the ICANN root file to your root authority, and then passing that to your servers. Then maybe talk to ICANN about splitting authority over the root zone so your country/countries run the root for that part, ICANN for the rest.

    Oh what's that? It is expensive and you'd rather just tell the US how to run it shit? Screw you then.

    See the thing is right now the Internet doesn't have any global law over it, not even the US. It is all just a set of conventions. ICANN has the power because almost all DNS servers trust the root-servers.net roots, and they trust ICANN. However not only can you set up other roots, people have. Look at OpenNIC for one example. So while the US does have nominal de facto control, they have no de jure control and people can start ignoring them and building their own infrastructure any time they wish. It can even be an individual. You can run your very own root service, if you wish.

    However, you start making it international law, then it is the kind of thing countries have to enforce, the sort of thing you can't just go your own way on. The people with guns will be saying what goes on.

    So how about no, let's not have the UN in on it. Particularly since for all its faults, the US doesn't want to censor speech like China, Iran, and so on do and they all sit on the UN.

    1. Re:Your country is free to do their own thing by joshio · · Score: 2

      So many good comments here - but I still find it disturbing that some people truly believe that the US literally "controls" the Internet, and that having the "control" "turned over" to the UN would be a good thing. However, in reality, the US doesn't "control" the Internet. Yes, the US does "control" ICANN and IANA, but if another country wants to run their own versions of these services, there isn't anything stopping from doing so (other than money and control over their ISPs). That way, they could "control" their own Internet in the same way the United States does. Interoperability could be a challenge if they deviated too far from how things exist today, but my guess is that is something they wouldn't really care about anyway.

      What part of the Internet do people really feel like the US "controls"? IETF is somewhat US-oriented, so I guess you could argue that IPv4 and IPv6 (and all other Internet standards) are "controlled" by the US. But, there is still nothing (other than money and control over their ISPs) stopping a country from writing their own protocol stack, then having government backed companies produce the network equipment and software to work with it. Finally, they would be free from the tyranny of the United States!

      So far, the worst thing the US Government has done is seize/alter DNS records. Nothing an entry in the ole' hosts file (or alternate DNS service) doesn't fix. Yes, this is dumb, and as a US citizen I feel this is a ridiculous offense against free speech. However, comparatively speaking, what the US is doing is petty. The US version of free speech violation involves whatever the wealthiest corporations tell the government needs to be censored (i.e. RIAA/MPAA sponsored policies to "stop piracy"). Generally speaking, the government doesn't care what I say about it, so long as it isn't extreme enough to get myself labeled as a terrorist. The China/Iran/etc. version of free speech violation involves you going to jail if you say anything negative about the government. India has been struggling to find effective ways to censor their Internet for some time now, and what they are asking for goes far beyond meddling with DNS. Allow the UN to "develop internet policies" and "oversee all internet standards bodies and policy organizations"? Gee, that sounds like a great idea. What could possibly go wrong? Let me get in line to allow the UN to set policies to what I can access and not access on the Internet. While they are at it, they should stop the IETF from publishing RFCs such as 1149 - I'm concerned that could assist with overthrowing a militant regime somewhere.

      That sounds way better than what we have today! </sarchasm>

      My personal opinion is that India keeps failing to find effective ways to perform the censorship they want to, and this is their way of soliciting external help with "solving" the problem. Maybe someone should put them in touch with China and tell them to leave everyone else out of this. Once the UN solves all of the other world problems, like war, crime, hunger, disease, etc. then they can move on to more minor tasks like this one...

  29. Government fxxx off by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There aren't any problems or disputes that require the meddling of the government fxxks, independently of where they come from.
    And the UN, they're the worst. Defund the fuckers!

    1. Re:Government fxxx off by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You do realize, you can type "fuck" on this forum, right?

      fuck, fuck, fuck, fuckity, fuck fuck.

    2. Re:Government fxxx off by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      fuck off with your fuckin' fucks

  30. Predictable backlash to good idea is predictable by qirtaiba · · Score: 1

    The spin on this story is engineered to make you stop questionning the way that the Internet is run currently. And despite what you may have heard, it is not still run by Slashdot-friendly geeks. Sure, some of the underlying nuts and bolts are, and things are working at that level. But at the public policy level, geeks have no say. That level of Internet governance is controlled by big corporations and rich governments. The hardest thing is, they like to pretend that they are on our side. But they are not. These are the powers that brought forth SOPA/PIPA and ACTA. To put it simply, US and EU policies bought by big business now are the way that the Internet is controlled. This proposal aims for nothing more but to change that.

    Don't believe the FUD about the United Nations. Most of the things that Slashdotters hate about the US, are things on which the UN agrees with you about. ACTA could never have happened within the UN intellectual body, WIPO - why do you think that it was deliberately negotiated elsewhere? It is because at WIPO, civil society and developing countries actually have a reasonably good voice. We will speak out against unjust laws and enforcement practices (not always successfully - the WIPO Copyright Treaties still passed - but their US implementation is far worse than the much more reasonable WIPO baseline.) The UN is more reasonable precisely because rich governments and multinationals can't push through their agendas, as they can at the closed-door US trade meetings. They have to reach a compromise with developing country governments and civil society groups.

    Make no mistake. To move this level of Internet policy making outside of US control and into a multilateral forum in which the door is open to civil society (which, remember, means you and me) would not make things any worse, it could only make things much better, because it would have to become more transparent, more globally democratic and more inclusive of other viewpoints besides those paid for by big business. That's not to say that there aren't things that could be improved in India's proposal. There are, absolutely. But that's why we should welcome the opportunity to engage with them on it, rather than closing the door on future improvements to the unfair way in which Internet public poilcy is now made. For more reading...

  31. It very much would by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 2

    Most nations take International Treaties as something that has the highest force of law. In the US, that is specified in the Constitution and many other nations have similar provisions. So, if the nations get together and hammer out a treaty that says "Such and such UN body shall have ultimate authority over the 'net and we agree to do what they say," that is pretty binding. Other countries can go after them to enforce it.

    So right now if you make an anti-Iran website in the US, there is little Iran can do about it. They can whine but the US says "Sorry, that is free speech here," and that is that. However if there is UN authority and the UN group says "That's mean it has to go down," the US will need to listen to them and make you take it down.

    Likewise right now you have companies like Slysoft selling programs (AnyDVD HD) that the US media cartels and by extension the US government really don't like, but there's not much they can do about it because it is legal in Antigua and Barbuda which is where Slysoft is. However with international treaties covering it, the US could ask the UN body to take Slysoft offline.

    Remember that right now all the US can do in terms of shit outside their borders is take away domain names registered with US registrars. So if you register a .com domain, they can nab that because Verisign is the authority for .com and they are a US company. They can't take away your IP or server, unless the country they are in cooperates, they can't even take away domain names run by other countries unless that country cooperates, or they were willing to go scorched earth and have ICANN remove the whole TLD from the roots, and even then some of the roots might decide not to listen to ICANN (they aren't all US based).

    Sure it is more power than any other country, but it is pretty piddly shit overall. Someone could host something in China on a .cn name that the US didn't like and there is fuck all they could do so long as China was happy with it.

    However a UN body that had authority by international treaty? They could do, well, whatever the treaty gave them authority to do.

  32. Re:Fuck Off We Invented It, Its Ours by Luckyo · · Score: 1

    Germany is trotting along quite nicely. Much better then US in fact, and would've been fucked on currency value if not for PIIGS dragging euro down.

    Why do you think they keep funding the entire mess? Without it their exports would be much lower due to potential new DM exploding in value.

  33. No it doesn't! by BitterOak · · Score: 1

    which effectively means the control of the internet passes on to World Governments directly.

    No it doesn't. Only if the US gives up control of assigned IP addresses and DNS tlds that it controls. Already each country controls their own two letter tld.

    --
    If I can be modded down for being a troll, can I be modded up for being an orc, or a balrog?
  34. Re:But the Internet already has a king by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nope.

  35. Re:Fuck Off We Invented It, Its Ours by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Such arrogance! Mercedes Benz produced the first car in 1886, when you Yanks were dragging carts with horses, and with your economy as it is right now, you will be begging to the world to be allowed to exist. If the Chineses stop buying US government bonds, your trembling economy will go to dust!

    Wow...someone missed that by a mile (or approximately 1.61 kilometres if you prefer), I tried to make it obvious with that jab at the end but you didn't even dispute the comment about inventing people. I don't know where you're from but sincerely i hope you're not considered anywhere near the best of the breed.

    FYI I'm not American, and just to spell it out for you...I was kidding. (about both the cars and the people)

  36. I propose that we don't by __aaltlg1547 · · Score: 1

    Who needs the UN in everybody's shorts?

    1. Re:I propose that we don't by Qubit · · Score: 1

      Who needs the UN in everybody's shorts?

      1) Who the heck wears Internet-connected shorts?

      2) Do the shorts run Java?

      3) Where can I buy a pair?

      4) The UN? In my shorts? It's more likely than you think!

      --

      coding is life /* the rest is */
    2. Re:I propose that we don't by __aaltlg1547 · · Score: 1

      Who needs the UN in everybody's shorts?

      1) Who the heck wears Internet-connected shorts?

      Where do you think I keep my Android phone?

      2) Do the shorts run Java?

      3) Where can I buy a pair?

      4) The UN? In my shorts? It's more likely than you think!

  37. Re:Predictable backlash to good idea is predictabl by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I am an Indian and believe me, the government here has no good feelings for the Internet. If you want control of the internet to go out of US hands start supporting alternative DNS systems like opennic, etc.

  38. Reclassification of RFC 1984 to historic by WaffleMonster · · Score: 2

    Just WTF do they think they are going to when all Internet standards bodies unanimously refuse to be overseen? Shut down their mailing lists and brand all members terrorists?

    1. Re:Reclassification of RFC 1984 to historic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They'll put them all in prison.

      I'll be here all week, folks.

    2. Re:Reclassification of RFC 1984 to historic by Qubit · · Score: 1

      Just WTF do they think they are going to when all Internet standards bodies unanimously refuse to be overseen? Shut down their mailing lists and brand all members terrorists?

      Were you under the common yet critically dangerous assumption that any person in political office had the slightest chance of maintaining ownership of his own soul?

      As long as the tv shows keep on bellowing forth from the screen and the coca-cola (original recipe, natch) keeps on flowing like sweet, syrupy soma, the proletariat will be satisfied. Dear IETF members: May the odds be ever in your favor!

      --

      coding is life /* the rest is */
  39. Re:Fuck Off We Invented It, Its Ours by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes, that's it! The typical American stance.

  40. Re:Fuck Off We Invented It, Its Ours by InspectorGadget1964 · · Score: 1

    The German economy is doing very well, so is the Chinese economy. As for the US economy, the GDP is about 10% of the value of the total debt plus the unfunded liabilities. As for the first car, I was talking about petrol engines. The French one was just a steam engine.

  41. Re:Fuck Off We Invented It, Its Ours by GumphMaster · · Score: 1

    The REAL invention that made cars attractive was efficient production of gasoline, and that was due to an American, William Meriam Burton who invented thermal cracking.

    ... and that was due to a Russian Vladimir Shukhov who invented thermal cracking and patented it in the Russian empire (No. 12926, November 27, 1891). The American input was to tweak the technique and patent it in the United States. FTFY.

    In this day and age that is called 'theft' but in reality there are precious few, if any ideas, that are not built on those of others whether in the US or elsewhere.

    --
    Patent litigation: A doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction... in which everyone seems willing to push the button
  42. Re:Fuck Off We Invented It, Its Ours --Nope, Brits by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Such arrogance!
    Mercedes Benz produced the first car in 1886, when you Yanks were dragging carts with horses, and with your economy as it is right now, you will be begging to the world to be allowed to exist. If the Chineses stop buying US government bonds, your trembling economy will go to dust!

    Um, no. Actually is was Brittan,( and I am an American thank you) They invented the first Steam powered cars and buses in the 1840's-50's. Benz made the first vehicle power by gas in 1886. And what many of my lesser educated countrymen get confused on is the Ford Modle A. It was not the first car but the fist MASS produced car. Ford invented the assembly line. Not the car.

  43. Re:Do **NOT** forget the Indian diaspora ! by Ihmhi · · Score: 3, Funny

    There are a lot of Indians in very high places in many global technology companies. No matter what passport they are carrying, all of them are VERY VERY LOYAL to their homeland, India.

    The influential Indian diaspora might just be the key for India to push its _Gag-the-Net_ agenda across the proposed global meeting in Geneva.

    Solution: we employ guard cows in every server room. The Indians won't dare upset their sacred beasts. Problem solved!

    Moreover, we hire people Dalits (Indian untouchable caste) as security. Now they can't even get into the building!

    Hey, ain't nothin' wrong with using a country's ignorance against itself.

  44. Re:Do **NOT** forget the Indian diaspora ! by Sperbels · · Score: 1

    So... there's an Indian conspiracy to place their people in places of influence and power? And then--when we least expect it--pow! India conquers the internets!

  45. Re:Do **NOT** forget the Indian diaspora ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Err...

    Are you trolling us? I can't believe for a second that you think what they're proposing is anything like remotely possible, let alone plausible. Ethnicity has fuck all to do with computer science.

  46. Re:Do **NOT** forget the Indian diaspora ! by qu33ksilver · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Now now, we are getting a bit ahead of the line, aren't we ? "Guard cows", "Dalits", and most importantly your entire last line. I don't know where you get your ideas from, but you see India is an extremely diverse country. Yes, there are some places where cows are considered sacred and some people considered as untouchables, heck, people even kill their daughters for loving a boy of a "lower caste" But that's not the whole picture. Its just a common stereotype that the world has made of us. The rest of India is as "civilized" and modern with any other place. Now if we come to the topic at hand, there are talks going on to block some sites. In fact some service providers have already started blocking torrentz, piratebay, torrenthound etc. But again, a weak attempt. You can get the IP by pinging the site and the IP works ! Just a simple DNS block won't stop people from accessing websites. I only hope that the people trying to set the policies regain their senses, otherwise its the dark age all over again for us.

  47. Let's be realistic ... by MacTO · · Score: 1

    The Internet is an international medium that needs international agreements in order to operate. Just because there are international agreements in place doesn't mean that it will be reduced to the lowest common denominator either. Radio and telephone systems are prime examples of this. (The governance isn't perfect, but it works.)

    1. Re:Let's be realistic ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Internet is an international medium that needs international agreements in order to operate. Just because there are international agreements in place doesn't mean that it will be reduced to the lowest common denominator either. Radio and telephone systems are prime examples of this. (The governance isn't perfect, but it works.)

      OK. But, what are India's top concerns about the Internet? They are trying to be able to censor stuff better.

      http://mashable.com/2012/02/06/google-facebook-india/

    2. Re:Let's be realistic ... by MacTO · · Score: 1

      Plenty of countries were interested in censorship while regulating the RF spectrum, particularly things like internationl broadcast bands. Yet even short range transmissions can be an issue. Remember the iron curtain? Often times the only thing separating the laws of one country was a line on a map.

      Part of the reason to take this to an international body is to hash things out in a way that is acceptable to member nations. Note, acceptable doesn't mean it mirrors the interests of those nations. It simply means that it is something they can live with.

  48. Re:Fuck Off We Invented It, Its Ours by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I have a hernia :(

  49. Don't do it! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The UN is the most corrupt organization in the woprld with no checks and balances!!!

  50. Re:Fuck Off We Invented It, Its Ours by aergern · · Score: 1

    So the typical American stance is to tell kids who are born here to get off their asses and produce something or someone else will? Oh fuck off. I mean seriously FUCK OFF .. kids born here do not deserve a free ride and importing folks to do the work IS A BAD idea. So seriously .. fuck right off..

    --
    Tell me what you believe...I'll tell you what you should see.
  51. Use the "Fragmentation" feature of the Internet by jfalcon · · Score: 1

    The Internet was designed to be a network where it can grow and *shrink* as needed. If they want to "control" the Internet, let them be like Iran or China and control their own little sandbox. If people want to "join" them, let it be a opt-in decision. If not, leave the rest of us alone. Personally, I think there is a lot of benefit to Internet fragmentation. Yes, it creates bottlenecks (we already have that). But it also strengthens the members within those networks by allowing them to focus resources.

    --
    boom goes the dynamite....
    1. Re:Use the "Fragmentation" feature of the Internet by tqk · · Score: 1

      The Internet was designed to be a network where it can grow and *shrink* as needed. If they want to "control" the Internet, let them be like Iran or China and control their own little sandbox. If people want to "join" them, let it be a opt-in decision.

      Yup. Too bad for the Indian IT industry when no-one on the rest of the net can connect to India's (or Iran's or China's) net. Go ahead and take your ball and go home. Enjoy the peace and quiet.

      I urge everyone to try out OpenNic. I just did and couldn't believe it was that easy and just works. Go ahead and diddle with DNS, ICANN. I'm not listening to you anymore.

      --
      "Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit ..." -- Pink Floyd.
  52. Re:Fuck Off We Invented It, Its Ours by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    (Enable flame units...ready...)

    Hahahhahahhah.... Scheisskopf... I like how you imply superiority because one of "you" (like you're connected to it somehow) invented the car first (by what, a week?) that over a hundred years later, it fucking matters. What a talking dildo. Hey, WE invented the airplane, when all YOU... whatever the fuck you are's... were walking around on the ground, along with all the couple of dozen cars you had at the time... a much more impressive feat, by the way... a car is just a carriage with the horse replaced by an ICE... an airplane on the other hand, FUCKING FLIES!

    Oh, BTW, as for your suggestion "we Yanks" were dragging carts with horses, let me point out that even after the invention of the car, it's not like you instantly had tens of thousands of miles of roads to drive them on, and millions of cars with which to drive on these roads that didn't exist yet... most of YOU were ALSO still dragging carts with horses, so on behalf of all the people you just stupidly insulted...

    FUCK YOU!

    Or am I being "arrogant"?

  53. Re:Predictable backlash to good idea is predictabl by qirtaiba · · Score: 1

    DNS is the smallest part of what this is about. It is about privacy, intellectual property, consumer protection online, spam, security, freedom of expression, multilingualism, ecommerce, and half a dozen other issues just off the top of my head. The misconception that this is just about what ICANN and the IETF do is probably the biggest reason why people react badly to the idea of the UN stepping in. Granted, the UN would suck at stuff like that. Its value add would be in providing a more open and inclusive forum (than what we have now) for other Internet policy issues to be worked out.

    Also, the fact that India was first to put this proposal forward is not that relevant. Brazil and South Africa are amongst the other countries that have been talking along the same lines.

  54. ICANN by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    People are acting like the US isn't doing this exact thing already.

  55. Yes, and it will run on ISO OSI instead of TCP/IP by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 1

    They couldn't even get a basis protocol for an Internet running. How will the same folks be able to manage an Internet?

    First agenda item, due 2037: "Defining the method and process for the selection of committee oversight executive members, for the selection of sub-committee oversight members, for the definition of a framework of work the work defining co-interdependent entities of interested parties for the formations governing orthogonal autonomous regulating non-spatial, non temporal beings."

    Not valid on Tuesdays.

    Public: "Um, so how does this new UN-governed Internet work . . . ?"

    UN: "We are currently implementing plans to size the effort."

    If the UN tries to regulate the Internet, it will be either,

    • Be ignored, because they never get around to actually doing anything anyway, because of squabbling
    • Be circumvented, because everyone will just route around UN Blue Helmet zones.
    --
    Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
  56. Re:Do **NOT** forget the Indian diaspora ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And do what?

    Force us to watch Bollywood musicals instead of cat videos.

  57. Re:Do **NOT** forget the Indian diaspora ! by toriver · · Score: 1

    Yeah, I know: Just like we keep out Americans by strategically placing spinach around, since they abhor healthy food.

  58. Re:Fuck Off We Invented It, Its Ours by toriver · · Score: 1

    No, the Wright brothers didn't invent the airplane, what they did was to build the first one that could carry a person. Innovation based on earlier designs.

  59. A simple three letter word comes to mind by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "TRY"

    1. Re:A simple three letter word comes to mind by MLease · · Score: 1

      No! Do or do not! There IS no try!

      --
      I'm sorry; I don't know what I was thinking!
  60. Re:Fuck Off We Invented It, Its Ours by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    YOU... whatever the fuck you are's...

    FUCK YOU!

    He's presumably European. Therefore most likely descended from peasant stock. Or possibly the bastard spawn of royalty (those royals did like to stick their dicks in whatever took their fancy) so still no better than a peasant, nor much smarter than a peasant, if at all.

    Or am I being "arrogant"?

    As an American freeman you can be as arrogant as you like. After all, you're descended from free men. Who's going to say you can't be arrogant? Some Euro-trash peasant? That would be mighty presumptuous of them to do so from their lowly station in life.

  61. Re:Do **NOT** forget the Indian diaspora ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How about a Bollywood musical about cats? Oh, wait, that could be even worse than Andrew Lloyd Webber's.

  62. Re:Do **NOT** forget the Indian diaspora ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    That won't work, the cows will eat the spinach, and then the Americans will eat the cows.

  63. Re:Fuck Off We Invented It, Its Ours by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So a Brit invented WWW so stop using slashdot, its ours.

  64. Re:Fuck Off We Invented It, Its Ours by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    actually the Germany economy owes it's health to the state of the PIIGS, the Euro has favoured the Germans since day one, and allowed the Germans to remain competitive and the PIIGS not through an imbalance in the value of the Euro. In the whole Euro debacle , Germany as the most to lose through more competitive wages across the Eurozone, and a re-adjustment of the Euro. So Germany should thank the PIIGS for there suffering and well the party days are over for Germany

  65. The proposal is more around controlling content by clay_shooter · · Score: 1

    Nothing in your posting addresses the fact that these countries want to move "control of the internet" to the UN so that content can be restricted. People can complain all they want about corporate influence but it's countries that demand wide scale filtering of search results. The "great firewall of china" wasn't created at corporate behest. It was created because governments fear a loss of power and control.

    1. Re:The proposal is more around controlling content by qirtaiba · · Score: 1

      What basis do you have to state this supposed "fact"? Last year UNESCO strongly warned about Internet filtering, and in the same year the UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression has did the same. There is no need for control to be moved to the UN in order to restrict access to content. Countries around the world are doing a fine job of that on their own (and not just the most repressive ones - France, Germany, South Korea and others are amongst them). The only reason to move an issue to the UN is because it has border-crossing implications. National censorship or content regulation policies generally don't.

  66. Re:Do **NOT** forget the Indian diaspora ! by OeLeWaPpErKe · · Score: 2

    Simple : he assumes that indian ideology is pro-blocking the internet (which it on average clearly is, no matter the local situation), and then attempts to show that his own ideology is more advanced than this mythical average indian ideology. Which is partially true, if a gross generalization.

    He is wrong in the way you say. But you also paint the situation much nicer than it really is : India is in an long-winded war with Pakistan (heh non-muslim vs muslim ... I wonder who attacked first). The large majority of Indians are not very progressive, only a very vocal minority (at least on the internet) is.

    As for the topic at hand, you know perfectly well this is not about blocking a few sites. This is about a challenge to the power of the government to dictate reality to it's peoples. If they wanted 2 or 3 sites they'd ask for just that. But they're asking for a process that will essentially guarantee them any blocks they want in the future.

  67. Re:Fuck Off We Invented It, Its Ours --Nope, Brits by Teancum · · Score: 1

    Um, no. Actually is was Brittan,( and I am an American thank you) They invented the first Steam powered cars and buses in the 1840's-50's. Benz made the first vehicle power by gas in 1886. And what many of my lesser educated countrymen get confused on is the Ford Modle A. It was not the first car but the fist MASS produced car. Ford invented the assembly line. Not the car.

    Ford really didn't invent the assembly line, but rather was the first person to apply that to automotive assembly. Ford got the idea for the assembly line from the Chicago meat packing plants which had cows come in one side and cuts of meat coming out the other with semi-skilled laborers running the plant in between where they would only have to perform a limited number of actions that were each easily taught rather than having skilled butchers being required to completely dress and butcher a cow. Ford's reasoning was that putting together an automobile was even easier to do than dressing a cow, which turned out in practice to be the case as well.

  68. Re:Fuck Off We Invented It, Its Ours by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Germany's losing population... they'd better figure out a way to keep up with the rest of the world or their moment in the sun (so to speak) will be as short lived as that whole 3rd Reich thing...

  69. Re:Do **NOT** forget the Indian diaspora ! by qu33ksilver · · Score: 1

    You sir, are very mistaken. First of all, you think I am giving some ideology about Indian culture, and then compare it with the so called "mythical" Indian ideology and try to achieve something. Well, I just wrote the present scenario for all to understand, it is in no way some ideology or prejudice. Also you think India is in a war with Pakistan !! Whoa ... and you think its Muslims vs non-muslims, and you don't even know who attacked first. You couldn't be more wrong. India was in war with Pakistan but that was a long way back. And there is no muslim vs non-muslim thing going on here. And whoever the hell told you that the "large majority of Indians are not progressive" ??? Is there any statistic that reports this? You have a lot of gross misconceptions in your mind. Do clear them. And you know what, I am going to show your comment to my friends. We are going to have a good laugh about what people thinks of us.

  70. What "meritocratic" groups are you talking about? by msobkow · · Score: 1

    I can't think of any "meritocratic" groups in existence that don't have the US and sometimes Russia or Canada with a veto over the decisions of the body, ala the UN. We don't know if a meritocratic group could or would function, because we've never had one. The US and others have always insisted on having a "final say" through a veto, as if their form of "democracy" is inherently better than others despite the wide spread and blatant corruption caused by lobbying and well-heeled lobbyists.

    --
    I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
  71. Re:Do **NOT** forget the Indian diaspora ! by ulzeraj · · Score: 1

    Relax. That was a joke. And as a joke you should not take it seriously or assume someone has deep misconceptions about your people and culture. Its just the internet. Heck I laugh along every time someone throws me a "BR? GIBE MONI PLIS HUEHUE" comment.

    Now, I should be more concerned about this simple DNS block. That might just be the beginning because when the government realize it is not effective they may improve the blocks and that can result as a great firewall for your country. I just don't agree with your "hey it won't affect me because I know how the internet works" attitude.

  72. Re:Do **NOT** forget the Indian diaspora ! by OeLeWaPpErKe · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If wishing something happened made it so, then why didn't Obama change the US into a heaven on earth ? Frankly, I hope you're right. I just think you're wrong.

    In India > 800 million people live on 2$ per day. Are you seriously suggesting they are progressive thinkers ? I'm not saying it's their doing or their fault or anything like that. I just find it really hard to believe it is any other way.

  73. Re:Fuck Off We Invented It, Its Ours by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 1

    The German economy is not growing as fast as the US economy, and while it has slightly lower unemployment, it's rate of unemployment has been increasing.

    That is not better than the current US situation.

  74. Re:Fuck Off We Invented It, Its Ours by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 1

    Shukov may have been Russian but he was educated in the United States.

  75. I liked it better... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I liked it better when the ITU was in charge, or a mix of ITU and ICANN +a few other national registrars. India is getting a bit 'grabby' when it wants to control all of the internet, something it didn't fund, doesn't own and didn't conceive or create. In reality, my little piece of the internet (my local lan+routers) is mine, and India can't have it. There are others who have bigger pieces than mine, and I'm sure they feel the same way about what they own.

  76. Re:Fuck Off We Invented It, Its Ours by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I agree in some sense. We invented it (I'm taking too much credit in that statement, but anyways) and should maintain control over how we wish it to operate. Other users/countries/bodies are free to tie in with their own rules, create their own networks (interwebs!) with their own protocols, policies, etc. This of course would be detrimental to the current system, but may evolve a better one that we would later adopt instead! I see no reason we would want to relinquish control over the system we developed. I think most people would trust their own organization/government/body of trust over others...which is the reason they want to get it outside of US control. Which is the same reason those in the US would want to keep it under US control. There is no good/bad in a philosophical sense, but the fact is the US has control because that is where it started. You want control, start your own (it actually isn't that hard, and many have). It is that simple from my point of view.

    Personally I feel that the US is giving away too much to the rest of world, and I mean that in every type of resource you can imagine. We are not unique to this in history. I bet the French would love to take back the Louisiana Purchase. Seen the resources Alaska has? I bet Russia wishes they never let it go. We're going to be in the same boat with off shore resources soon. We even let other countries manage part of our military, and use our men instead of their own. We borrow from China to fund crap that we give away to other countries all the time. It boggles the mind. Chrysler is just one example. Or even worse, borrow from China to fund oil operations in Brazil, so they can sell us back the oil, with money borrowed from China (again). At least in this case Brazil is actually doing something for getting payed twice. The US is just amassing huge debts, giving technology, funds, and control to other people. The crisis will be when China's economy dumps and not only will they not buy any more bonds, but they will start collecting on their debts. We'll default, and China will only get their money via force...now that sounds like a winner. Either way there is a global economic collapse like we've never seen before, and possibly military action like we haven't seen in almost a century.

    Man I got off topic, sorry for the rant. That's what happens when you get 20 interruptions by clients actually wanting you to do your job.

  77. Re:Do **NOT** forget the Indian diaspora ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    India is in an long-winded war with Pakistan (heh non-muslim vs muslim ... I wonder who attacked first). The large majority of Indians are not very progressive, only a very vocal minority (at least on the internet) is.

    India has a Muslim population of 170 million which is the same as the entire population of Pakistan.
    The prime minister of India Manmohan Singh is a Sikh.The chairperson of the ruling party, United Progressive Alliance, Sonia Gandhi is a Christian. President Abdul kalam,probably the most respected politician in India is a Muslim(He started out as an Engineer btw.) and the country has a 80% Hindu population.
    There are 28 states and 30 prominent languages(having more than a million speakers) which implies that the language,culture,cuisine,arts,history would change every 100 miles.

    Of course i am not saying everything is hunky-dory.India definitely has its own challenges and it is working on it slowly but surely. At the time of partition,Pakistan was a country with a single religion, Islam and a single major language Urdu.Its leaders scoffed at the very idea of a country like India whose people had very less in common and predicted it would split up into minor states very soon.

    Ironically Pakistan was the first to split up in a mere 20 years (Bangladesh) because unity is not achieved by eliminating differences but by respecting them and every Indian grows up learning to be tolerant which wouldn't be possible if the large majority were not very progressive.

  78. When the Internet is illegal, only criminals ... by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

    "What they don't realize..."

    What you don't realize is how quickly governments can destroy the Internet and replace it with a pitiful shadow of its former glory.

    I think only a tiny fraction of the people here would be willing to become outlaws in order to maintain the Internet.

    --
    “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
  79. ORLY?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "...and sit in judgment when internet-related disputes come up."

    So does this mean they're going to solve disputes and flame wars on message boards? :P

  80. Re:Fuck Off We Invented It, Its Ours by InspectorGadget1964 · · Score: 1

    You sound like a person that could well say that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction knowing the statement to be false, just to start an invasion with the sole purpose of stealing petrol without any regard for the women and children that will die as consequence of those actions. I find you ignorant, arrogant and selfish. If that were not enough, you don't dare to show your face and post as an anonymous coward. Should I really take you seriously?

  81. Re:Fuck Off We Invented It, Its Ours by InspectorGadget1964 · · Score: 1

    Yes, you are being arrogant, not to mention vulgar and ignorant. Please learn to speak and write before you address me again

  82. Re:Fuck Off We Invented It, Its Ours by Luckyo · · Score: 1

    You mean like Japan, Russia and many other big (near and over 100mil population) industrialized countries?

  83. Re:Fuck Off We Invented It, Its Ours by Luckyo · · Score: 1

    It's a global economy. When several players have their economy in the shitter, the rest will feel it. That's the reality of things.

    Feeling it to a much lesser degree is in fact a direct indicator of a better situation.

  84. Re:Do **NOT** forget the Indian diaspora ! by zlives · · Score: 1

    please drink the cool aid provided, and leave with your 2$ :)

  85. Re:Do **NOT** forget the Indian diaspora ! by zlives · · Score: 1

    damn it and here i thought it was the Chinese

  86. Re:Do **NOT** forget the Indian diaspora ! by Ihmhi · · Score: 1

    It's true. Honestly we can't get enough of those fantastic bovines.

    I heard in 2015 MIT will invent cow-based bacon, and 94% of our population will die by 2041 as a result.

  87. Are they saying... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That India is going to be the judge of the internet? Or the UN? Either way, it's the internet, it's the peoples' "country". Not a government ruled one. And the UN has better things to worry about...

  88. When are the next elections in India? by hardeep1singh · · Score: 1

    This Government has completely lost its mind. They know fairly well they're going out in the next elections but at the speed they're ruining everything 2013 looks so far.