Slashdot Mirror
UN Takeover of Internet Must Be Stopped, US Warns
benfrog writes "In a rare show of bipartisan agreement, lawmakers from both sides of the aisle warned this morning that a United Nations summit in December will lead to a virtual takeover of the Internet if proposals from China, Russia, Iran, and Saudi Arabia are adopted. Called the World Conference on International Telecommunications, the summit would consider proposals including '[using] international mandates to charge certain Web destinations on a "per-click" basis to fund the build-out of broadband infrastructure across the globe' and allowing 'governments to monitor and restrict content or impose economic costs upon international data flows.' Concerns regarding the possible proposals were both aired at a congressional hearing this morning and drafted in a congressional resolution (PDF)."
The only thing they are worried about is that the US would not control it.
I am not a robot. I am a unicorn.
If America cannot own the Internet NOBODY CAN. The UN Summit is most likely to stop the fractioning of the Internet and provide stability and equal sharing. Sorry America- you had your chance to be "for the people... [of the world]" You can complain all you want about "takeovers must be stopped" but when you try it its ok because you are America.
Unfortunately, people will mod you "funny" and not insightful.
The US is not great. The US does things like seizing domain names based on minimal cause and then spending years before they give them back. A lot of those seized have been over copyright issues and in some cases they haven't even been clearly infringing. This is similar to how many states in the US have assert forfeiture laws which allow police to confiscate large sums of money or cars under minimal suspicion of involvement with illegal drug dealing, and getting them back is difficult.
But the UN would be worse. The UN contains many countries with little conception of free speech. Even allies of the US like Canada and Britain have substantially less free speech than the US does. In the case of Britain libel although being reformed is still very much a danger. In Canada, speech which specifically targets minorities or criticizes religions can be labeled as hate speech with fines given. And most of the world, is much much worse. Consistently a large fraction of the Islamic countries have tried to push through anti-blasphemy regulations in the UN. So far they've failed. But it is easy to imagine what would happen if they could actually block pictures of Muhammad. Similarly. China would slaver at the thought of not having to do its own censorship but simply have no websites discussing Tiananmen Square at all. Letting even weak internet control get in the hands of the UN is a recipe for disaster. Maybe in 20 or 30 years when the free speech situation has improved. But not right now.
I think the question lies in what you consider worse. Do you fear unlimited, unaccountable, and unbridled surveillance, like the kind that's being proposed in the US, that effectively covers the entire world... or are you more worried about censorship, virtual toll roads that make the doing business more expensive, and totally unrepresented taxation? Not to mention regional fragmentation, which you'll see in some of the proposals. Neither agenda is good, but which is worse? Personally, I don't think either side of this debate understands the internet at all. If the internet is going to be controlled by anyone, it should be the people who work and live in it. It's mine, damn it.
This signature intentionally left blank.
Given that the cast of characters demanding control of the internet I would have to agree. Every country named has sought to filter internet content to restrict speech. If they take over I'd say the open internet would be effectively dead.
The internet was designed to be open and free. Leave it be.
The internet was designed to be unregulated. Leave it be.
The internet was designed with open access for everyone in mind. Leave it be.
The internet was designed to be unhindered, unfettered, unfiltered, uncapped. Leave it be.
For those bastards who think they have the right and the need to control it, regulate it, tax it, reroute it, filter it, cap it, limit it, contain it - leave it be.
Information wants to be free, it will find a way. The internet, like nature will evolve until it does so.
It's pretty common to believe that no central source can control the internet - and it's true for the most part - with one major exception: IANA ultimately answers to the US Department of Commerce.
In order for the internet to function, there has to be a central authority who determines who gets what IP addresses and domain names. That authority is under the control of the US. Sure you could create your own internets (yes, plural) with your own name and number rules, however if you can't all agree upon who gets what IP address blocks and domain names, you aren't going to have a very cohesive and universal network like the one we have today.
Honestly, I am perfectly fine with the US having control over that, and in fact would much rather they hold the keys rather than the UN. If the UN had their way, that would mean countries who have heavy influence of the UN (e.g. China) would have their way.
So far, the US has done a great job. Sure, we've had talks about filtering the internet (e.g. SOPA) many times, but unlike 90% of the other countries out there (Australia, UK, Germany, China, Iran, just to name a few,) we haven't acted upon any of them. Granted, we have taken extraordinary and unnecessary if not unethical measures, such as taking down megaupload, we didn't do so by ordering IANA to break the infrastructure.
The best thing about the US having control, is that we've never done anything to dismantle the infrastructure in the name of politics. The UN wants control because they plan on doing exactly that.
Careful with names containing L slashdot.org/~AiphaWolf_HK slashdot.org/~AlphaWoif_HK slashdot.org/~AiphaWoif_HK
This is all a bit rich, reading the resolution, considering that is is coming from the country which unilaterally seizes domains at will.
Don't forget as well that this is coming from the same government that proposed a kill switch for the Internet. Sounds more like "nobody should control the Internet, unless it is us" (well, this arguably applies to the US part of the Internet).
The resolution also says: "Whereas the world deserves the access to knowledge, ... and the informed discussion that is the bedrock of democratic self-government that the Internet provides;"
I thought that WikiLeaks and cablegate were exactly the kind of things which promote a healthy discussion in a democracy, but I doubt that that's what they had in mind when they drafted this resolution, free access to knowledge and all.
This all seems more like a bit of patriotic posturing. Blah blah land of the free blah blah cannot trust anybody else to be as free as we are blah blah. Seriously, it does not matter one bit what will be proposed at this conference; how exactly are you going to *force* the US to relinquish control? Not going to happen.
Who cares if anyone can surveil was is sent across the internet. That is rather the point of a public network, and if you don't want others to snoop then you encrypt.
ANY of the other stuff inherently breaks the internet or at least seals it off to a huge portion of the planet.
It's not even close which is why even in the middle of an election season two diametrically opposed parties are dead set against it, in unison.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
How about US censorship of porn and gambling? Or do you think the .xxx domain will not be used by republicans to make a push in the future to force all porn on to that new domain and then block it everywhere?
How about the DMCA which has been used to censor material considered undesirable by both parties funders?
Censorship comes in many forms. Frankly it is no issue to me if Iranians can't see some stuff, but the DMCA hits everyone in the whole world. The US dictating its laws world wide is far worse then a country dictating its laws to its own people. Let the Iranians get rid of their government if they want an uncensored net. It can be done. But the Iranians can never be rid of the US government and its corporate masters.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
Why can't they just leave us alone?
I mean, why do the governments want to interfere with the Net, a medium whereby people from all corners of the world can share information, and discuss, and plan, and scheme?
Oh, wai ...
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
It's worse than that. It like claiming that Germany invented GPS because they created the V2 rocket.
What I miss in both the summary and the linked articles are two things:
Frankly, all I see right now is the usual anti-UN hit piece written by a lazy American journalist, and a Slashdot audience of complete chumps who fall for it.
"I know I will be modded down for this": where's the option '-1, Asking for it'?
"It is at first denied that any radical new plan exists; it is then conceded that it exists but ministers swear blind that it is not even on the political agenda; it is then noted that it might well be on the agenda but is not a serious proposition; it is later conceded that it is a serious proposition but that it will never be implemented; after that it is acknowledged that it will be implemented but in such a diluted form that it will make no difference to the lives of ordinary people; at some point it is finally recognised that it has made such a difference, but it was always known that it would and voters were told so from the outset."
-- Times editorial, published on August 28, 2002
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
If the UN gets control of the Internet, there is a real risk that you won't get to see what Muslim clerics and conservative Christians deem offensive, because together, they control a large number of powerful governments.
Porn and gambling are highly restricted in most places around the world, including parts of Europe. When you compare free speech rights around the world, the US is still better than almost all other places.
Bad as the DMCA is, it is still better than the legal situation that exists in many European countries. Look at France's HADOPI or the ability of Germany's GEMA to restrict music distribution in Germany.