Slashdot Mirror
Following Huawei Report, US Rejects UN Telecom Proposals
jjp9999 writes "The Epoch Times reports that on Monday, the same day the Intelligence Committee released its report cautioning against Chinese telecom companies Huawei and ZTE, the U.S. said it will reject major changes to telecom at the World Administrative Telegraph and Telephone Conference in Dubai this December. The UN conference will be the first of its kind since 1988, and its members are pressing the U.S. to hand control of governing the Internet over to the International Telecommunication Union (ITU). Huawei and ZTE are both members of the ITU. Terry Kramer, the U.S. special envoy to the conference, said the US opposes proposals from some of the 'nondemocratic nations' that include tracking and monitoring content and user information, which 'makes it very easy for nations to monitor traffic.'"
Terry Kramer, the U.S. special envoy to the conference, said the US opposes proposals from some of the 'nondemocratic nations' that include tracking and monitoring content and user information, which 'makes it very easy for nations to monitor traffic.'"
This quote is so rife with arrogance that it makes me vomit, coming from a
government that does nothing but blatantly spend money and spy on it's people.
The internet isn't governed by anyone, you fucking parasites. It can't be "handed over" to anyone, because it's just autonomous networks choosing to cooperate. If you do something with DNS or BGP that I don't like, I can IGNORE you and keep my network connected to other networks that IGNORE you. FFS, can't politicians keep their grubby hands off anything?
So let me get this straight. The US is only against NONDEMOCRATIC countries that officially and openly spy on their citizens. If you give your citizens what appears to be a choice every four years, then it's OK to spy on them.
yeah, because the US would never do that.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
They can go suck eggs. Or create their own alternate internet.
Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
What... sheer... motherfucking... hypocrisy...
IOIIITUSA : It's OK if it's the USA
Comment removed based on user account deletion
"makes it very easy for nations to monitor traffic."
Mr. Kettle, you are black. Sincerely,
Mr. Pot.
P.S. We need all you nations that are worried about dissent to worry about copyright infringement instead.
woosh!
"the UN countries"?
Isn't that, like, almost every country? Including the US?
Terry Kramer, the U.S. special envoy to the conference, said the US opposes proposals from some of the 'nondemocratic nations' that include tracking and monitoring content and user information, which 'makes it very easy for nations to monitor traffic.'"
This quote is so rife with arrogance that it makes me vomit, coming from a government that does nothing but blatantly spend money and spy on it's people.
Well, maybe you should read this proposal by China Mobile to split up the internet via "DNS Extension." Aside from the obvious criticisms and assuming we just blindly said "yeah, sure, China, whatever you want" let me ask you this: Will the situation improve for US citizens? Will the situation get worse for Chinese citizens? I think you have to agree that the answers to those questions are no and yes. Whether or not the United States spies on its own citizens is nothing more than an ad hominem attack to ruin this discussion about putting control of the internet into the hands of other nations that do not have laws against spying on its own citizens and, in fact, are places where unannounced and confusing censorship seems to be the norm.
My work here is dung.
I'm still trying to understand this "hand over" thing. How do you hand over an abstract? DO all server farms and cloud services have to move to Switzerland?
Thank goodness those US telecoms stand up for their customers' constitutional rights! They'd never stand for unconstitutional surveillance on their networks!
(-1, Raw and Uncut is the only way to read)
They can go suck eggs. Or create their own alternate internet.
Seriously the fact that they might do this is one reason why you want a generally accepted governance. At the moment you remove piratebay from a DNS server and everyone is affected. If each company has its own DNS servers then you just remove it from one country and have to get court orders all over the place. Your email to sheila@hotgirls.com might get to one person if you are in the USA but someone entirely different in Europe if the web is fragmented.
Dear U.S, UN and the ITU.
We, the rest of the world, are tired of you screwing with us, so we are moving everything over to Bitcoin and Namecoin.
Instead monitoring traffic on behalf of corporations to find out who's watching the latest 30 Rock without paying Hulu is perfectly acceptable.
I haven't seen or heard of any instances where America has harassed, persecuted, censored, or arrested ANYBODY because of the opinions they expressed online, or the information they spread. This is not the case in China: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship_in_the_People's_Republic_of_China#Arrests [wikipedia]. Why would anybody in their right mind want to give even the smallest bit of control to those whose track records have a history of abuse of power?
OK, I am far from a supporter of many things the U.S. government does or wants to do online. That said, the level of democracy that does exist, combined with public pressure in the U.S., and in the European Union, for that matter, has made it possible to block things like SOPA. Things don't work that way in countries like Russia and China, and there's no way I want the governments of those two countries to have the power to decide how the Internet works for everyone else. It's a non-starter. So what's your alternative? Yeah, you can say things like, "Turn it over to something like the FSF." That ain't gonna happen. So, again, what alternative to U.S. governance that stands a chance of happening does anyone here propose?
Good thing everyone accepts UN governance. That's why we've never needed embargo, security actions, etc etc. Not to mention that the UN seems to go out of its weigh to be fair to everyone by picking the worst leaders available. Syria on Human Rights? Azerbaijan on Security? Why not give China control of the internet?
The internet is under US control because the US invented it. Geez. If other countries don't like the fact that the US controls DNS, they should invent their own internet. This is sort of like how the Europeans are creating Galileo as they don't like the US control of GPS. Good for them.
I'm speaking as a non-American, but it seems to me that it's the Americans' right to keep control of DNS, as it's theirs.
www.clarke.ca
"'makes it very easy for nations to monitor traffic"
This is already easy in the U.S. Just ask the carrier(s) to give you some closet (literally) space, and you're in business.
Sadly, we now live in a technologically enabled world. where if it's possible, it is considered both acceptable and dutiful to do so. Kinda like the earlier days of the Internet when courts started posting documets online. These were always poubic records, but the hassle of going to the court office and the gatekeepers there kept much of this out of easy view. There are a few sites out there that make a living exposing this public but obscure data. And sometimes, someone gets all wee-wee'd up that this 'got posted'.
Then again, our police are engaged in a massive expansion of surrveilance, just because it got affordable and relatively innocuous.
We are going to have to limit that, somehow.
Most of the rest of the world has little if any options for addressing such grievances. I'm not inclined to give them the pwoer to make policy worldwide. Bad enough they do it to their people.
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
the government put Mehanna away for ... translating a book (a 2003 Saudi text, 39 Ways to Serve and Participate in Jihad, that was "intended to incite people to engage in violent jihad"); distributing a video showing the brutal treatment of dead U.S. military personnel in retaliation for a rape in Iraq; and giving a friend a film about jihadi fighters...
Sentenced to 17.5 years in prison for spreading information. Sorry for bursting your bubble, but it had to be done. The US of A you think about it doesn't exist anymore.
I don't have a sig.
As if the UN was shackled at the feet of China or Saudi Arabia. When in reality the shackling is by the security council... Which can pretty much overrule everything. And who is on the SC ? Yeah the USA (among other). OTOH small group like ITU are not being "overruled" by China or whatever.
This is pure BS american political fear mongering.
Go on, show your evidence that "the Internet is still safer in American hands than being handed over lock, stock and barrel to the UN".
Or is this yet more pleading bollocks because USA FUCK YEAH!
Where is the proposal that CHINA gets control of the internet? Where?
NOWHERE.
What about Russia.
Nope, still not.
Saudi Arabia? No.
And one other whiny shitbag proclaims with true unthinking idiocy: "Why would anybody in their right mind want to give even the smallest bit of control to those whose track records have a history of abuse of power?"
Uh, it already IS in the control and entire control of those who have a history of abuse of power. THE USA.
The USA get more say in the ITU than Saudi Arabia does. Probably more than Russia now too. About only China would have a similar level of say in the ITU's processes.
But I guess the USA doesn't believe that anyone else is allowed democracy. They aren't allowed a say in the taxation of the root DNS. No representation of their views, despite the taxes levvied.
The USA is a known problem. And a bigger-than-average problem to boot.
ITU isn't and therefore there's no reason to expect it to be any worse than the average and that is better than the USA.
So go along with all the posts expressing suprise that the United States' Government would be on the side of privacy in a debate. I have found the way to manipulate politicians into protecting internet privacy. Just say China and Russia are against privacy... ARE YOU?
I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
Ask Wikileaks, Assange, and anyone who supported them financially about how much better it is. "Better" depends entirely on whether or not you are fucking with American power.
Really?
Unlike fucking with Isreali power
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mordechai_Vanunu
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mossad#Belgium
http://www.axisoflogic.com/artman/publish/Article_21935.shtml (wtf?)
or fucking with Russian power (and ignoring pre-2000 years),
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Litvinenko_poisoning
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikhail_Khodorkovsky
or fucking with Chinese power (widespread, mostly internal),
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Re-education_through_labor#Statistics
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I8Mg1hG16c0
so yes, Assange is "better" off than if he fucked with any of the above. He would be dead already, not simply having some pressure exerted on him.
nah, we're good. you all work amongst yourselves 'rest-of-the-world'. we'll keep the keys to THIS 'car' so you wont go stealing it when we aren't looking.
I insist my hypocrisy be labeled 'Made in the USA'!
Taiwan, Kosovo, and the Vatican are not members of the UN.
every country in the world does bad things. you have to quantify
legal and social status of political expression is dramatically freer in the US than in china
legal and social status of sexual expression is definitely freer in the US than in china
perfect in the USA? absolutely not. are there some countries that do better than the USA? yes. on some kinds of expression, not all
such that keeping control of the internet in the USA is a good option if you are concerned with internet freedoms. the best option? maybe not. but certainly better than handing over the keys to a power structure where countries with much more repressive policies have influence
such that if you are honestly interested in freedom in the internet, you want control retained in the USA, for now. is it the ideal option? no. and it is not an ideal world
you want control retained in the USA, for now, if you are an honest advocate for freedom on the internet rather than some cotton headed idealist who wants perfect right now even though there is no realistic way to get exactly what you want in today's world
you work with what you have, rather than demand perfect and stomp your foot like a pouty child if you only get 90% or 99%. it doesn't mean you lose your idealism, it means you understand it takes work to get to a better place, and, wisely, you go with the least worst option rather than demand the perfect option that does not exist
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
And on the world freedom ranking chart, the USA are pretty low down on the list.
So if it's all about how democratic and free the controlling country is, then maybe Norway should get control of the internet.
Russia: Fading power, unable to stand up to the EU, never mind the USA. No extraordinary rendition.
China: Have not blown up anyone with atomic bombs, nor do they have extraordinary rendition.
Iran: Tiny. No world power. No extraordinary rendition, no GITMO.
North Korea: If you thought Iran was tiny, this is miniscule. And no extraordinary rendition, no GITMO.
And when was the last time any of then invaded another country to execute their ex-pal and dictator?
Nope, the USA still #1 in the world worst power.
Not to 'merkins, obviously. But most of the world isn't in 'merka.
Then google Brandon J. Raub.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
People, you are missing the main point: it is not about privacy, it's about keeping ITU's telephony world-view and business practices out of the internet and keeping it in the hands of the IETF. The privacy issue will be a consequence of ITU's practices.
Are you saying that the USA is completely powerless on the world stage and can only compete if they exclude everyone else?
" I don't think any information or expression should be subject to censorship ever"
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/the-brennan-center-for-justice/tarek-mehanna_b_1518604.html
Therefore you're against the USA being in charge, right?
Now you no longer have WWW, you have no www.apple.com. No www.foxnews.com. No www.*.
What will you be using your internet for?
Torrents and icq?
Where does it say that China or Russia or Saudi Arabia (or Iran or North Korea) are going to be owning the Internet.
Last time I looked, there were nearly 200 sovereign countries in the world.
Apparently it's only Russia China, Saud, Iran and NK along with the USA.
And another one to say "Oh, and retroactively, too!". Seems like the USA don't need to pass such laws, they just get the president to say it's fine to break the law.
When was the last time you were oppressed by the Chinese government?
SOPA was pushed by the USA. No xxx domain, USA. DMCA pushed by the USA. Extraordinary rendition. They keep opressing people outside the USA and you inside the USA have the TSA and AT&T by government fiat spying on you.
When was the last time you were oppressed by the Chinese government?
By the USA one?
So when you bug Boeing jets and put backdoors into Microsoft Windows, it's all well and good and DEFENDING GLORIOUS FREEDOM AND DEMOCRACY because it's your side doing it?
I hate to break it to you but you can't take over something you invented and were the primary driver of. ... Given all the options, and much like democracy as a form of government, US control seems like the "least worst".
You're close, but the generalizing hides some important internal distinctions. The Internet was used in the early years by US universities for research (basic science and technology, some of it military related), governed by an attitude of sharing that is fundamental to science. However, that has since shifted to include significant usage and governing by politics and business. Politicians and businesses do not operate on the free sharing that science does. Thus "US control" means different things to different people, depending on their interests and knowledge of history.
Perhaps better would be an Internet governed by evidence-based international scientists, knowing how argumentative that would be. Still, it beats (copyright, patent, profit, and security state influences of) the US government; and would likely even be better than UN oversight.
and Taiwan isn't a member because the US caved into China.
Yes, the US has regulations in place that require carriers provide "lawful intercept", which the government can use for pretty much anything whether it's actually lawful or not. But, guess what? This still requires carrier interaction, so the US can't spy on anyone and everyone around the globe just because they "own" the Internet. We can probably still spy on our Allies, assuming those countries ask their carriers to comply with US government regulations.
On the other hand, if Hauwei or ZTE are actually building backdoors (which hasn't actually been proven to my knowledge) in equipment so that the Chinese government can gain access to any traffic, anywhere in the world, regardless of carrier collusion (other than them purchasing the hardware itself), then we are no longer talking about an apples to apples comparison here.
Your email to sheila@hotgirls.com might get to one person if you are in the USA but someone entirely different in Europe if the web is fragmented.
It wouldn't be the end of the world. In the US it will go to sheila@hotgirls.com.us and in Italy to sheila@hotgirls.com.it (or sheila@hotgirls.com.eu if they can get their act together), with sheila@hotgirls.com being nothing more than a (local) shortcut that refers to whatever country your in. Kind of like leaving off the domainname on intranet.
But since none of the Sheilas will be female, it doesn't really matter.
If US doesn't want to relinquish their control of the internet. Why the UN doesn't made it's own TLD managers and setup/point to another root server manage by its members? Those who doesn't want US TLD can use alternates from UN?
Hence, following this thread to it's logical conclusion, the internet was invented and deployed by one of, or a combination of Taiwan, Kosovo, and the Vatican City?
Moral of the story? Never try and follow any argument on Slashdot to it's logical conclusion and cite that conclusion in future. People will look at you funny.
Hi.
Have you heard of Julian Assange?
Kim Dotcom?
Any of The Pirate Bay folks?
Any of the muslims who have just been extradited to the US despite breaking no UK law for exactly the reasons you cite?
Unfortunately, just because you haven't heard of such things in your little world, doesn't mean they don't happen.