Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Following Huawei Report, US Rejects UN Telecom Proposals

Posted by Unknown on from the doubleplus-good-for-freedom dept.

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.'"

98 of 150 comments (clear)

  1. How dare you! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:How dare you! by MightyMartian · · Score: 5, Insightful

      And yet the Internet is still safer in American hands than being handed over lock, stock and barrel to the UN. As bad as the US may be on occasion, it's still better than handing the keys over to the likes of China and Saudi Arabia.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    2. Re:How dare you! by damaki · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Why? Is my data safer when monitored by NSA made backdoors than by Chinese ones? Are the American ones of higher quality?

      --
      Stupidity is the root of all evil.
    3. Re:How dare you! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      And yet the Internet is still safer in American hands than being handed over lock, stock and barrel to the UN. As bad as the US may be on occasion, it's still better than handing the keys over to the likes of China and Saudi Arabia.

      I am European (Greek) and i trust USA way more than China and Saudi Arabia, but i also trust some European countries, some of them more than the USA - so i think the internet will be safer in American AND European hands.

    4. Re:How dare you! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      well, yes.

    5. Re:How dare you! by Catbeller · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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. The Chinese do the same with whomever fucks with their power. This is about an empire taking over the internet at its core. DNS and so many other things should be decentralized and encrypted. No power base in the world will let that happen - they need to monitor us to maintain power.

    6. Re:How dare you! by macraig · · Score: 3, Informative

      Why is this marked as Troll, when the Congress of the United States passed a law, which the President then signed, that granted legal immunity to American telecom corporations for illegally conspiring with the NSA and other agencies to monitor and collect the communications of the entire nation? How exactly is that so very different from what is alleged that Huawei and ZTE are or might be doing?

      The not so implicit point of the parent comment is that the United States would like to maintain its "right" to monitor and track and control and deny the ability to any other government that it perceives as hostile. Isn't that quite hypocritical of this government to consider other governments as hostile when it is repeatedly treating its own citizens as hostile with excessive secrecy, acts of Congress, Presidential orders, creation of whole new intelligence bureaucracies, legitimization of wiretapping, and more?

    7. Re:How dare you! by Samantha+Wright · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Given that they cost somewhere in the vicinity of a billion dollars, I hope so?

      --
      Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
    8. Re:How dare you! by poetmatt · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The second the internet leaves US control (as much as spying is idiotic and unacceptable), even the concept of free speech is over. Instantly.

      So think about how internet is in russia, china? If they hand control over you get that globally. So basically the US needs to stop doing a shit job managing the internet - but giving it up to the UN will make things worse.

    9. Re:How dare you! by Catbeller · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That is an article of faith. However, it is baldly evident that it no longer is uncontrolled. The internet has been brought to heel, and will soon be locked down to the atomic level.

      Quantum computing will come after that, and there will no longer be Too Many Secrets, Marty, because they will be able to crack any key-based encryption. This is a long game.

      There will be encrypted comm, of course, using quantum-entangled computers, but WE will never see that. It will, by the mechanics of power, be reserved for the government and associated corporations to use. One law for me, and another for thee.

      The end result will be a prison for us, with guarded, monitored, recorded internet services, and a closed secret world for our, let's just say it, masters. We've the social and governmental DNA for it already; we've already accepted secret wars and blacked-out war zones. We're okay with phone and car tracking. There's nothing to stop this.

    10. Re:How dare you! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      There is a gradient here--and it's unfortunately slippery at both ends.

      What, are you saying that sliding/falling towards freedom is a bad thing? Screw that! And screw the Chinese, and anybody else who thinks censorship is a good thing. We must never let people like that ever have any control over any communication system. I don't care if they have a 99.999% of the majority. Censorship is bad, no matter what anybody thinks. We have to make the internet technically uncontrolable. No matter what it takes, and no matter what it costs. Freedom is paramount over all else.

    11. Re:How dare you! by Reeznarch · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If you don't like our internet, you are perfectly free to implement your own. Don't let the backdoor hit you on the way out.

    12. Re:How dare you! by Samantha+Wright · · Score: 1

      The best part about Trailblazer is that it doesn't care who or where you are—it knows anyway!

      --
      Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
    13. Re:How dare you! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      They have an interest in making sure your data is safe and not using it unless there are lives on the line, there is a diplomatic cost to using the data in any other case, so unless you are a terrorist they may gather but will not steal so obviously. Remember if you live in a democracy leaking the fact that they have been getting and using such data, except in the most vital cases, will hurt the American government, but not the Chinese ect. This does not mean that your data is safe with them, if you are going to do something that will for instance damage America commercially, but it is much more safe than it would be with others because there is a cost to using it.

    14. Re:How dare you! by bigtomrodney · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Okay, enjoy our World Wide Web.

      Yours sincerely,
      Europe.

      --
      I never get used to these constant resurrections
    15. Re:How dare you! by Catbeller · · Score: 1

      "OUR" internet? Are you under the impression that the US owns the internet?

    16. Re:How dare you! by felipekk · · Score: 3, Insightful

      So think about how internet is in russia, china? If they hand control over you get that globally.

      Well, that escalated quickly... Why do you think that? We're closer to having that right now where is the government of one country that controls everything than if it is given to the UN, where they'd go through a voting involving several nations...

    17. Re:How dare you! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      [Citation needed]

      To be fair, as a European, I'd much rather live in the US than in say China or Saudi Arabia, but that comment the parent quoted really does make me vomit just a little as well. It seems all our governments are very much into spying on their citizens (and everyone else, really), and while I have no doubt the US' reasons for it are far less sinister than China's, but I still feel like it's a false argument. Also, the UN doesn't exactly equate to "the likes of China and Saudi Arabia".

    18. Re:How dare you! by Catbeller · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Chinese companies make almost every circuit board, CPU, and radio comm chip in the world. They've had backdoors in "your" internet for over a decade. This happened in the name of reducing labor costs and breaking unions, and increasing profits for American companies. Now we really don't "control" anything with electrons flipping about anymore. You don't ever know what hidden capabilities are built into devices; they could lie hidden, sleepers, until needed. So who controls what is moot. We gave up control a long time ago.

    19. Re:How dare you! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Yes, your data is safer when monitored by the NSA. Because if the Internet is handed over to the UN, you will be monitored by the Russian government, the Chinese government, the Iranian government, the North Korean government, the Australian government, and any other government that wants to monitor you, i.e. all of them. And by the way, IT WILL STILL BE MONITORED BY THE NSA!

      I sure hope you weren't planning on saying anything bad about Mohammed. Or saying anything good about Nazis. Or mentioning Tiananmen Square. Or calling Taiwan a country. Or browsing for porn. Because these would all be illegal once the UN took control.

      I don't like what the US has done with its stewardship over the Internet, but I see it as the lesser of far more than two evils.

    20. Re:How dare you! by Reeznarch · · Score: 1

      No more so than Stephen King owns 'his' books.

    21. Re:How dare you! by rtb61 · · Score: 2

      Oh crap and bullshit, it's all about who gets to profit from the core domain names and not just locally within individual markets but upon a global basis. No matter the delusions, the US will not retain control over the core domain names in other countries, that will inevitably come to an end. Not to forget any country that tortures, murders by remote control, ignores justice when even it suits and, enters into war based upon corporate greed can lay claim to freedom of anything. For the last forty years the US has year after year sunk to new lows in selling out it's own populace, in abandoning democracy for campaign dollars and kick backs, in exercises of homicidal mania across the whole face of the planet, in the global corruption of democracy and free speech in favour of corporate for profit mass media control. Name the country who has killed more people than the US in the last decade or even 1 tenth that number.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    22. Re:How dare you! by scamper_22 · · Score: 2

      All true... and back to the question that matters.

      What power would you rather be ruled by?
      The Americans, The Chinese, The Russians, The Arabs?

      Yeah, sorry... I'm still going with the Americans.
      Perhaps there is a utopia out there somewhere where power is distributed and no one rules. Until that time, the best we as people can do is keep perspective to choose the best power to rule us.

      Heck, I'd even choose the Americans over the EU. The Americans value free speech more than than EU who'd probably move quickly to ban offensive speech.

    23. Re:How dare you! by Hentes · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Simple monitoring can be circumvented by encryption, and opensource software is safe from backdoors. It's much easier to defend against spying than censorship.

    24. Re:How dare you! by rabtech · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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. The Chinese do the same with whomever fucks with their power. This is about an empire taking over the internet at its core. DNS and so many other things should be decentralized and encrypted. No power base in the world will let that happen - they need to monitor us to maintain power.

      I hate to break it to you but you can't take over something you invented and were the primary driver of. Many other countries have made huge contributions but the Internet was invented in the USA and it was US universities, companies, etc that made it what it is today.

      The open nature of the Internet is due to the open nature of US and other western universities, along with some of the strongest free-speech protections to be found in any country of similar size or position.

      Given all the options, and much like democracy as a form of government, US control seems like the "least worst".

      --
      Natural != (nontoxic || beneficial)
    25. Re:How dare you! by oic0 · · Score: 1

      In China when someone smiles and asks for your honest opinion on anything government related, you smile and agree. Its trained in to them in a country where anyone who sticks out gets nailed.

    26. Re:How dare you! by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      Quantum isn't the end of encryption. It's the end of a lot of existing encryption, but there are other mathematics that can be used. Symmetric key is less vulnerable than assymetric, so if you have a way of establishing initial trust it becomes almost easy.

    27. Re:How dare you! by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      DNS is centralised by nature. It has to be. Someone has to be in charge to decide who owns what domain. That is why it should go. The concept of domain names is wonderfully useful, but also far too controllable. There are other ways to run a network. Copy-paste is a useful thing.

    28. Re:How dare you! by DarkOx · · Score: 1

      No there is no gradient here. I don't think any information or expression should be subject to censorship ever. Which is not to suggest the government can't or should not try and keep some state secrets.

      Even things like CP should not be restricted. Now the production of it should be illegal. It should constitute "rape of child" and it should probably be a capital crime; but the mere possession of a photo should not be.

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    29. Re:How dare you! by DarkOx · · Score: 1

      voting involving several nations..

      and that would be far less democratic (at least for us in the USA) than it is now. Just look at what happens with the EC.

      Trust me Washing politicians would love nothing more than to be able to shield themselves from accountability to their electorate, by hiding behind the actions of some politician appointee at the UN, they can pretend to disagree with later.

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    30. Re:How dare you! by FireFury03 · · Score: 1

      Yes, your data is safer when monitored by the NSA. Because if the Internet is handed over to the UN, you will be monitored by the Russian government, the Chinese government, the Iranian government, the North Korean government, the Australian government, and any other government that wants to monitor you, i.e. all of them. And by the way, IT WILL STILL BE MONITORED BY THE NSA!

      I sure hope you weren't planning on saying anything bad about Mohammed. Or saying anything good about Nazis. Or mentioning Tiananmen Square. Or calling Taiwan a country. Or browsing for porn. Because these would all be illegal once the UN took control.

      I don't like what the US has done with its stewardship over the Internet, but I see it as the lesser of far more than two evils.

      Whilst I hate the idea of being monitored, if we're going to assume that we're going to be monitored whatever we do, I would prefer the playing field to be levelled - if the US gets to monitor everyone then so should everyone else.

      --
      http://blog.nexusuk.org
    31. Re:How dare you! by FireFury03 · · Score: 1

      What confuses me to a certain extent is that these countries that we don't want influencing our internet typically try to push their own version.

      The countries that we don't want controlling our internet, are typically those who already do (US, UK, etc.)

      --
      http://blog.nexusuk.org
    32. Re:How dare you! by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

      the day after quantum computing renders traditional crypto obsolete, you will see the rise of quantum crypto

      it's an arms race. same as it ever was, same as it ever will be

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    33. Re:How dare you! by cayenne8 · · Score: 1

      Name the country who has killed more people than the US in the last decade or even 1 tenth that number.

      Yeah...but most of them had it coming.

      And not that they will be missed all that badly....

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    34. Re:How dare you! by Shatrat · · Score: 2

      Don't believe everything you see on TV. If there are secret easy-button crypto-breaking computers out there, why is cryptography illegal for export?

      --
      09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
    35. Re:How dare you! by zlives · · Score: 1

      since al gore built it, yes

    36. Re:How dare you! by cayenne8 · · Score: 2

      That's because everything that you post online is on someone else's private server. Corporations, ISPs etc... don't give a flying fuck about freedom of speech.

      Well, still, you are free to set up your own computers as peers on the internet today...your own servers with your own rules.

      Create your own email servers, ssh servers, news servers, chatrooms, irc, hell...create your own private social network with your rules.

      You might have to pay a bit more and get a business connection so the ports aren't blocked, but hell, I have one of those for only $69/mo....no caps, all ports open, all the servers I want to run...all from home.

      If the UN gets control of things...I'd have to guess one of the basic tenets of the internet about every computer on it being a peer...would likely be done away with. You'd likely have to register and get a license.

      Hell, if you want..create and run a freenet node or the likes....nym servers, or be a tor node....if you want to keep private and prevent snooping of everything.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    37. Re:How dare you! by zlives · · Score: 1

      Tyranny exists because the weak and fearful crave it.

    38. Re:How dare you! by felipekk · · Score: 1

      I don't see a way to be less democratic than now, where one country "controls" something used by more than half the world's population.

    39. Re:How dare you! by Bill_the_Engineer · · Score: 1

      BTW that was sarcasm.

      --
      These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
    40. Re:How dare you! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The US only has control because everyone else wants to use the US's system. Any country could choose to replace DNS within their country. Look at China. They don't want to because that is work. They'd rather just take the existing system than build their own.

    41. Re:How dare you! by AlphaWolf_HK · · Score: 1

      Decentralized DNS would inevitably bring back the late 90's market of snatching up and hoarding domain names and hawking them on ebay for millions. Want to pick up a new domain name for your business, but somebody else already has it with just a website that says "this domain is for sale"? I hope you have really good financing.

      Or worse, when somebody loses their domain key, then nobody gets that domain. And when computers get fast enough to forge those keys in short order (maybe not at the time of their creation, but 20 years from then...)

      --
      Careful with names containing L slashdot.org/~AiphaWolf_HK slashdot.org/~AlphaWoif_HK slashdot.org/~AiphaWoif_HK
    42. Re:How dare you! by BenoitRen · · Score: 1

      Heck, I'd even choose the Americans over the EU. The Americans value free speech more than than EU who'd probably move quickly to ban offensive speech.

      What world are you living in? The EU isn't China.

    43. Re:How dare you! by happy_place · · Score: 1

      Generally, in the US you're free as long as you're not into the sexual exploitation of children or not going to try to kill a bunch of people as a terrorist.

      --
      http://www.beanleafpress.com
    44. Re:How dare you! by fikx · · Score: 1

      The UN is an organization that lets governments of countries work out how to get along in the world...not the people of those countries, the governments. To me that's the import point and problem. The UN deals with the governments, not the people...so letting the UN make decisions is letting the governments (elected , tyrant, whatever) decide how the internet would work, not the people who actually want to use and benefit from it.
      the US may have a lot of problems (and getting worse) but at least it tries to put a face forward locally and globally that it's people have control and other countries people should have control. That is becoming more and more PR than reality, but many countries who are pushing for UN control do not even try to look like that...
      to me, the better solution than the UN is find the country with the best record at not putting the governments needs and wants in front of it's people...that may or may not be the US, but the US at least lets it work for now. Maybe just move ownership of internet operations between several countries who fit the bill on a rota? The UN just doesn't seem like the way to preserve the freedom of use we have now...

      --
      AB HOC POSSUM VIDERE DOMUM TUUM
    45. Re:How dare you! by fikx · · Score: 1

      This comment I see a lot and don't understand. Why is that bad in and of itself? a committee or other kind of group of people is better how exactly? What makes a country so special?

      --
      AB HOC POSSUM VIDERE DOMUM TUUM
    46. Re:How dare you! by luis_a_espinal · · Score: 1

      I don't see a way to be less democratic than now, where one country "controls" something used by more than half the world's population.

      They can build their own. Considering the immense US-based public and private investment that has been made on everything Internet (from R&D to commercialization), I would say the US has every right to keep it under control.

      You don't want it? Build your own interweebz infrastructure.

    47. Re:How dare you! by felipekk · · Score: 1

      Sure, let's do our own and keep the US off from it.

      I'm pretty sure it would do more harm to you than us...

    48. Re:How dare you! by lsatenstein · · Score: 1

      And yet the Internet is still safer in American hands than being handed over lock, stock and barrel to the UN. As bad as the US may be on occasion, it's still better than handing the keys over to the likes of China and Saudi Arabia.

      =======
      Lets hope that the Clandestine monitoring will not be discovered. After the election, we could hear about a reversal in the monitoring, to where it will be deemed as open.

      --
      Leslie Satenstein Montreal Quebec Canada
    49. Re:How dare you! by poetmatt · · Score: 1

      That's not giving up control. that's giving up privacy. They are not the same. Even if they have backdoors into everything we still maintain control of the actual devices.

    50. Re:How dare you! by kenorland · · Score: 1

      Offensive speech is already banned in many European nations. Germany, for example, has penalties of up to a year in jail for insulting someone, and up to three years in jail for insulting religions like Christianity and Islam. And, yes, these laws are being enforced.

    51. Re:How dare you! by BenoitRen · · Score: 1

      What are you talking about? Please provide sources and citations because it sounds like you're talking out of your ass, just like when you talked about European democracy.

    52. Re:How dare you! by kenorland · · Score: 1

      What are you talking about? Please provide sources and citations because it sounds like you're talking out of your ass

      http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beleidigung

      http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beschimpfung_von_Bekenntnissen,_Religionsgesellschaften_und_Weltanschauungsvereinigungen

      because it sounds like you're talking out of your ass, just like when you talked about European democracy

      Those statements were correct as well. Here is a page that summarizes the data pretty well (it points to sources):

      http://www.stop-kirchensubventionen.de/

      It's you who is "talking out of his ass", and you're being rude about it too.

    53. Re:How dare you! by BenoitRen · · Score: 1

      I can't read German. It should be obvious that I expect links in English as this is an English language site.

      Germany tends to be a bit more strict about its laws (especially when it involves nazism and the Holocaust), but their laws aren't that different from other civilised countries. But there's a difference between theory and practice. In practice these laws don't make much of a difference unless you're talking to a police (wo)man or the person you insulted lodges a complaint against you. Even then, what matters is context. You're not going to get thrown in jail for calling some random person an idiot.

      It's not any better in the USA, the supposed haven of free speech. Insult a judge and you're thrown in jail. In Europe this would maybe net you a fine, but nothing more.

      Almost all European nations either have a state church or transfer massive amounts of money to churches. That's pretty characteristic of Europe:

      The USA also gives subsidies to churches, so it's hardly characteristic of Europe. As for state churches, you're making that up. All established religions get their share of subsidies.

      The whole lot was guilty of the most vile forms of colonialism

      So was the USA. Your point?

      France nearly came to a civil war in 1958

      There was a political crisis, but saying there was almost a civil war is pushing it.

      it really doesn't matter what the Belgians or Dutch believe because they are little more than soccer balls for the powers that surround them

      This is pure nonsense.

      The only reason Europe hasn't started a bunch of new wars is because people are rich.

      *rolls eyes*

      Look, democracy was born in Europe. Except for Spain there's a pretty good track record. You seem to forget that Germany had a democracy before World War II. It couldn't be helped that half of it was conquered by the Soviet Union and turned communist.

      Stop spouting nonsense and go brush up on your history.

    54. Re:How dare you! by kenorland · · Score: 1

      I can't read German. It should be obvious that I expect links in English as this is an English language site.

      Look, you didn't know that these laws existed so you asked for evidence. I gave it to you. Google Translate can translate these laws just fine if you still don't believe me.

      The USA also gives subsidies to churches, so it's hardly characteristic of Europe.

      The US government transfers massive amounts of money to churches in violation of the first amendment? Really? Where?

      "The whole lot (of European nations) was guilty of the most vile forms of colonialism." So was the USA. Your point?

      Really? Where in the world is the US supposed to have practiced this "vile form of colonialism"?

      Look, democracy was born in Europe.

      No, it wasn't: http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/157129/democracy/233828/Prehistoric-forms-of-democracy

      But Europe did indeed invent fascism, colonialism, communism, socialism, industrial genocide, and Marxism.

      You seem to forget that Germany had a democracy before World War II.

      Indeed, it was. And when their economy was in the toilet, they blamed the Jews, the capitalists, and the Americans, and then democratically and knowingly elected an anti-Semitic war monger and democratically abolished their own democracy in hopes that he'd restore power, wealth, and glory to the Fatherland. And I think they'd do something like that again given similar circumstances, as would other European nations, because all of them feel superior and entitled and don't know much about history. You yourself are quite representative of those attitudes.

  2. Pot & Kettle by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    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.

    1. Re:Pot & Kettle by rvw · · Score: 1

      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.

      The US is democratic and still has institutionalised the use of torture, has indefnite detention based on "made up" charges, shits all over the law of the land. Despises its own constitution AND spies on its citizens. Oh yeah, all the american telecom companies that aid in that spying business, well they are intouchable, courtesy of the US government. Shall we talk about the end aroud the court system known as National Security Letters ?
      My dear friend, the freedom you have in the US is a false kind of freedom. Pure Illusion. Go peacefully against the government, using the rights granted by your constitution and see what happens to you.

      You're absolutely right. And still I prefer the US over China or Saudi Arabia or Russia. I don't know if the UN could handle this better.

  3. yeah, right by hype7 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.'"

    yeah, because the US would never do that.

  4. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  5. IOIIITUSA by Catbeller · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.'"

    What... sheer... motherfucking... hypocrisy...

    IOIIITUSA : It's OK if it's the USA

    1. Re:IOIIITUSA by HPHatecraft · · Score: 1

      Sure. However, from business standpoint, using network gear with a built-in backdoor to the PRC is probably not a great idea assuming you want to hold on to your IP, or otherwise wish to limit your network attack surface. Chinese espionage costs the US around 1 trillion dollars article here. I'm not certain over what period of time, but for any reasonable length of time, that's pretty bad in the aggregate, and downright awful for individual companies. I think it's apples and oranges, granting that both fruits are rotten :)

    2. Re:IOIIITUSA by HPHatecraft · · Score: 1

      article here

    3. Re:IOIIITUSA by sFurbo · · Score: 1

      As opposed to an american one, where the NSA probably have a backdoor and is eager to help with industrial spionage? I know, if I get one where the hardware is made in China and the software in the US, my company can get spied on by BOTH the US competition AND the Chinese competition!

  6. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 2

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  7. I love the arguement here. by hubang · · Score: 1

    "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.

  8. Re:The internet routes around you by firesyde424 · · Score: 1

    No.

  9. Re:Since the UN countries didn't invent or deploy by Cimexus · · Score: 4, Funny

    "the UN countries"?

    Isn't that, like, almost every country? Including the US?

  10. Okay Let's Examine the Possible Scenario by eldavojohn · · Score: 1

    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.
  11. Re:The internet routes around you by killmenow · · Score: 1

    FFS, can't politicians keep their grubby hands off anything?

    No, they can't.

  12. Fuck off by Aryden · · Score: 4, Informative

    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?

    1. Re:Fuck off by Aryden · · Score: 1

      The only thing I could think of would be that all domain registrations would have to go through one central body, the ITU. That way they could pull the domain and the removal would be forced to replicate throughout DNS. That wouldn't take care of the IP address, but I'm sure they would have some way to deal with that as well. The real question would be, who would prosecute infractions of any regulations they instituted? The U.S. has free speech guaranteed in the Constitution (for what good that's worth these days) as well as many other countries. The U.S. doesn't recognize the authority of the ICC over the U.S. so how....? Extradition? I think not.

  13. So unlike the telecoms in the US! by Gizzmonic · · Score: 2, Funny

    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)
  14. Re:Since the UN countries didn't invent or deploy by Chrisq · · Score: 1

    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.

  15. Re:The internet routes around you by Chrisq · · Score: 2

    FFS, can't politicians keep their grubby hands off anything?

    No, they can't.

    That's why I wear a tinfoil jockstrap

  16. then we are all moving to namecoin by fredan · · Score: 1

    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.

  17. monitoring ip by Meniconi,Nando · · Score: 1

    Instead monitoring traffic on behalf of corporations to find out who's watching the latest 30 Rock without paying Hulu is perfectly acceptable.

  18. I'd rather have America in control of the internet by Reeznarch · · Score: 1

    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?

  19. Seriously, what's the alternative? by taz346 · · Score: 1

    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?

  20. The US did INVENT the internet by aclarke · · Score: 1

    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
    1. Re:The US did INVENT the internet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The internet is under US control because the US invented it.

      That's why cars are globally controlled by the Germans ...

    2. Re:The US did INVENT the internet by FireFury03 · · Score: 1

      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

      I guess the US will be inventing their own world wide web then?

      --
      http://blog.nexusuk.org
    3. Re:The US did INVENT the internet by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1

      Nope. You are free to have your World Wide Web back. Good luck making it work!

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
  21. It's hypocrisy all the way down by rickb928 · · Score: 2

    "'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.
  22. Re:I'd rather have America in control of the inter by Cigarra · · Score: 2
    Here:

    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.
  23. I have figured it out... by nitehawk214 · · Score: 1

    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
    1. Re:I have figured it out... by rickb928 · · Score: 1

      Wow. Just wow.

      the US is *not* on the side of privacy on this one, just on the side of not having to defy the inevitable UN mandate to build the back doors into everything, or get labelled somehow.

      As if we care much what the UN does anyways, they are ineffective and dominated by the worst influences on the planet.

      Yes, there are worse gummints than the US. And they run teh UN. Lulz. Until we stop paying the rent for the place.

      --
      deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
  24. Demand by ThatsNotPudding · · Score: 1

    I insist my hypocrisy be labeled 'Made in the USA'!

  25. false equivalency by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

    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
  26. By the USA's metric? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    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.

  27. Re:I'd rather have America in control of the inter by Arker · · Score: 1

    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.

    Then google Brandon J. Raub.

    --
    =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
    Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
  28. Define US by manaway · · Score: 1

    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.

  29. Re:Since the UN countries didn't invent or deploy by Platinumrat · · Score: 1

    and Taiwan isn't a member because the US caved into China.

  30. Re:Blah blah blah Western Hypocrisy by xaxa · · Score: 1

    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?

    At least call it American hypocrisy ...

  31. Re:Eu and Usa are in the UN, dickhead. by joshio · · Score: 1

    What exactly are they "competing" with? The U.S. blocks DNS for some websites - hardly an effective prevention mechanism. The WATTC will be meeting in Dubai, and the UAE certainly has a long-standing reputation for an open and free Internet, don't they? And, lo and behold, some of the most vocal proponents of changes to the Internet are China and India.

    Let's pretend for a moment that the US does relinquish Command and Control of the Internet (because honestly, for the most part "The Internet" is just the root DNS servers and control of IANA and ICANN) - and UAE, India and China get a hand in the pot of controlling it. Do you really think things are going to get better, or do you think they are going to get worse?

    Now, if we were talking about Switzerland or Sweden getting control of the Internet, then that would likely be an improvement. But, to my knowledge, the countries who would be likely to improve the Internet climate as a whole are not the ones who have been vocal about an interest in "control" over the Internet.

  32. Re:It's hypocrisy all the way down by joshio · · Score: 1

    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.

  33. Local Internets by formfeed · · Score: 1

    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.

  34. Re:Since the UN countries didn't invent or deploy by Xest · · Score: 1

    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.

  35. Re:I'd rather have America in control of the inter by Xest · · Score: 1

    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.