Slashdot Mirror
US Offers New Plans 1 Month Before UN Meeting To Regulate Web
Velcroman1 writes "Slashdotters have been reading for months about the upcoming ITU conference next month in Dubai, which will propose new regulations and restrictions for the Internet that critics say could censor free speech, levy tariffs on e-commerce, and even force companies to clean up their 'e-waste' and make gadgets that are better for the environment. Concerns about the closed-door event have sparked a Wikileaks-style info-leaking site, and led the State Department on Wednesday to file a series of new proposals or tranches seeking to ensure 'competition and commercial agreements — and not regulation' as the meeting's main message. Terry Kramer, the chief U.S. envoy to the conference, says the United States is against sanctions. '[Doing nothing] would not be a terrible outcome at all,' Kramer said recently."
is going to be bad for the rest of us.
-- By all means let's be open-minded, but not so open-minded that our brains drop out.
What is going to happen to me if I write blogs calling for a new government in Dubai? The US might have its problems but they pale in insignificance compared to the UN. It's like having Pat Robertson control the internet.
ain't it?
Orwell: "In a Time of Universal Deceit, telling the Truth is a Revolutionary Act"
Tell the UN to go stuff itself. The US isn't perfect, but it is less imperfect than any other solution I've seen proposed.
is the fact that countries won't ever agree on how to regulate it.
Just like they can't agree on war and peace at the UN.
And thats a Good Thing (tm)
is going to be REAL bad for the rest of us....
----
there fixed it fer ya , i will add what is bad for the usa usually is great for the rest of earth these days.
all this law is going to is create things much much worst then the internet we have right now, im sure most of us have seen free-net imagine that 100x bigger because crap laws like this force people to move there
and even force companies to clean up their 'e-waste' and make gadgets that are better for the environment
How horrible!!!
are drooling over regulations and laws. More money for them from the gov. The war on Marihuana will end eventually so they need a new "War on ..."
by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
improve what ? HOW TO REGULATE IT....haha nice try....
is exactly what they should do. It is evident that everyone wants more control, and not in the consumers/citizens best interest.
Proof again... nothing new is under the SUN... people keep voting in or supporting, or ignoring the people causing all the problems.
If your elected official says, "We can't just do nothing!", then its time for a replacement.
It is the collective wishes of the world's governments, most of which are run by crooks, corrupt politicians, and dictators. It is about representative of the people of this world as the Supreme Soviet was representative of the will of the people unfortunate enough to live in the USSR.
The UN was never intended to be a representative or democratic government. It is a body of international diplomacy in which even the worst of the worst have a voice, for the purely practical reason that those people also have guns and bombs.
You know, there are a lot of idiots (and otherwise smart people) going on about how the ITU is terrible and the UN will ruin everything, and such. You know, like how the ITU really ruined international phone calls, and the UPU (IPU) has totally fucked up handling of international mail. And some of them will say something stupid about the UN building their own Internet (considering the US built the Internet etc. etc.) or how the US is doing such a good job of things.
Well, here's my take:
The USA may have initially funded and the initial technology behind the Internet may have come from the USA, but it doesn't matter. It really doesn't. It's like saying that just because some random Chinese person made fireworks that China should have control over fireworks for the rest of eternity. It doesn't work like that. Moreover, the rest of the world has built the Internet. Without the rest of the world it would just be a USA based network, and frankly that would be pretty boring. (And many countries had their own internal networks that were joined to the Internet, that could have been joined together perfectly well without the USA based portion.)
And the USA isn't doing a good job of managing the domain name system anyway. Not only are domain names being seized left right and center, ICANN (a subdivision of the US Department of Commerce) is creating an insane system where any big corporation can create whatever top level domain they want.
And, even if the ITU did take over control of the domain name system, they require unanimity (according to same random /. post I saw) to actually make decisions. And surely the USA wouldn't agree on censorship! (Oh wait, they actually would.)
So, my proposal: fuck hierarchy in the domain name system. A simple peer-to-peer system, each system recognizes friends and if enough friends say that this domain name points at this IP address, then that's what happens. If you want a domain name, you just have to convince people to recognize you have the domain name. It makes it harder for businesses (because there is no enforced hierarchy), but, you know, fuck 'em. Maybe .com and .biz and .scammer could all be in a hierarchy, and the rest of us could go our own way with a bit of anarchy. OK, my distributed domain name system is probably not workable. But I know there are a lot of smart people who could easily come up with a workable system. And the major problem as I see it? Well, corporations and government. You know, the people wanting to keep control over the Internet and everything.
If corporations jumped on board, a distributed DNS could be up and running in days. Push some OS updates out and Bob's fucking your uncle (you didn't know your uncle was gay? the way he pays so much attention to the football didn't tip you off?)
HELP MY ACCOUNT HAS BEEN HACKED BY AN ILLIBERAL ART STUDENT SET TO DESTROY THE INTERWEBZ!
The Internet, since DARPA handed it over to the general public, has been developed by private corporations, not governments, who are the Johnny-come-latelys to this game. If the U.N. gets too uppity about wanting to control/censor/ruin the internet, what's going to stop the core companies from just pulling out and starting an entirely different Internet? Without all the companies that provide the backbone bandwidth all the way down to the last-mile ISP's, there wouldn't BE an internet.
Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
If it wasn't for the US, they would be in World War VI by now.
If we don't go along, they'll scweam and scweam and scweam until they're sick, and then you'll be sorry.
Vaguery. All the governments need to do is say "all communication" instead of "internet". makes it a little harder to work around.
NREN's, such as JANET, AARNet and many others existed. The Internet could easily have formed without the US portion. Yes much of the tech and standards came from the USA, but it is easily replaceable.
HELP MY ACCOUNT HAS BEEN HACKED BY AN ILLIBERAL ART STUDENT SET TO DESTROY THE INTERWEBZ!
Remembering what ISDN specifications costed in the 1980's, I welcome spending $4000 to find out what the new 401.2.3.128382 http code means.
I have to disagree. Japan and the US have pretty awesome population control. We make our citizens wealthy, educate them, and give them lots of distractions and increase their life expectancies and they willingly choose to practice population control themselves.
In the US, we only have population growth because of immigration. In Japan, their population is declining at a rather frightening pace.
I think the OP was right: Stop concentrating on feeding these people, unless you can also teach them how to feed themselves.
Maxim: People cannot follow directions.
Increases in truth directly with the length of time spent explaining them
You're right of course. But instead they've learned to speak English.
Are you entirely sure that's what you want to base your argument on?
So I have a crystal ball that tells me how the rest of this conversation will go. I will introduce many facts detailing exactly how awful US hegemony has been for most of the world. You will bring up the few times this has been positive, but largely rely on nationalistic fervor. The conflation of monologues will end with sentiment to the effect of "Love it or leave it." and other such vaguely ad hominem remarks. We will each leave convinced we have carried the day, and some day far in the future, you or your progeny will be ashamed that, when confronted with evidence of heinous acts, you chose to serve your own tribe and not humanity.
Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.
"What is going to happen to me if I write blogs calling for a new government in Dubai?"
Nothing.
Why? The USA for example are on the UN and they would veto anything that made you culpable for extradition over merely that.
It's the job of member governments to convert a treaty into laws which regulate its citizens and then enforce them.
What the freak is e-waste? Do I have some one bits dribbling out the back of my computer? Is this stuff toxic? Is there some zero bits floating in my drinking water?
You're absolutely right. That evil evil internet that came out of the US is REAL bad for everyone not in the US.
"Cursed is he who rises early in the morning..." Isiah 5:11
You seriously think that some other country wouldn't have come up with the Internet?
Man you're a retard!
Regardless of popular belief, the United Nations has no authority over the laws and conduct of the United States, within United States territory. Our laws and rights are not subject to control from outsiders, and they are not subject to change by our leaders, in any way that is contrary to our constitution, because their oath which binds them in letter and spirit of the law forbids it. Any treaty or agreement that infringes on the constitutional rights, is an illegal and invalid treaty within the United States. Any law enforcement officer or judge that tries to contradict that, are themselves invalid as an authority, and subject to criminal charges.
There is no debate, there is no discussion, the law is the law is the law.
I don't take credit for this idea, and I realize that this proposition would face enormous political and legal hurdles, but wouldn't it be nice if the UN could somehow be convinced to recognize the Internet as a sovereign nation, with all the rights and obligations that accompany such a status. There would be enough ripple effect to drive a trilogy of science fiction novels.
FYI, on this side of the pond think means FAT not STUPID.
Err, THICK not THINK (sheesh, now who looks THICK!) BUT I'm BIG BONED!!
I didn't say they died recently, duffus. You're a perv, and stupid. And don't come crying to me about what you wrote. It was obvious what you meant, you bigot.