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."

16 of 128 comments (clear)

  1. Anything that comes out of the UN by na1led · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
    1. Re:Anything that comes out of the UN by Hentes · · Score: 3, Insightful

      And the majority of the world's nations are barbaric. Your point?

    2. Re:Anything that comes out of the UN by CanHasDIY · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Apparently to shit-talk the US for no particular reason?

      Oh, c'mon now, you and I both know that there's plenty of legitimate reasons to shit-talk the US.

      Our nation has earned its global reputation; don't be a whiny bitch, own that shit.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    3. Re:Anything that comes out of the UN by Vaphell · · Score: 4, Insightful

      world food programme? easy target, as it's riddled with nasty unintended consequences

      1. people let's say in Africa starve - long story short their environment/tech level can't support that many people. Food from external sources means artificially raised survivability. People multiply, now there are more mouths to feed, and you are back at square 1. Disparity between productivity and needs is even greater which means even greater dependence on external support. Population of Ethiopia (country in more or less perpetual state of famine) grew from 48M to 84M in ~20 years (1990-now).
      Feeding Africa is counterproductive: there is a lot of talk how we should reduce global population growth and shit, on the other hand the world subsidizes the very hotspots of rapid unsustainable population growth.

      2. dumping free food on developing markets kills any viability of local food producers who can't compete with free/subsidized food from the west. In other words they will be always dirt poor and always dependent on free food because so called humanitarian help takes away their only fishing pole and gives them fish instead. With no way to support from the work of their hands, they will never be able to lay solid foundations for healthy, sustainable economy.

      I don't mind disaster relief programs, but perpetual humanitarian help needs to go asap.

    4. Re:Anything that comes out of the UN by KeensMustard · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Yes - the UN Declaration On Human Rights was certainly bad - for those of us who like to water board suspects and dislike having our actions questioned.

      By way of comparison I don't remember the UN ever calling for the assassination of someone who merely published some factual material, nor did they declare such a person an "enemy of the state" nor are they in anyway implicated in an actual character assassination practiced on that person.

      Also worth noting that the UN has never invaded a country on a false pretext and killed a 120 000 people. That is a lot of people. Their bodies make quite a large pile. There is an odd game of priority at play here on /. . Two US citizens get killed by drone strike - that's a travesty. Hundreds of innocent non US citizens are killed by drone strikes - that is merely unfortunate. Some people in a far off land are angry because of a stupid cartoon - that is an attack on our freeeeeeedom. A document reveals that a member of my own Parliament is a CIA informant - I had no right to that information and it should be suppressed from me, the voter.

      The UN is by not by any means a perfect organisation - certain countries (e.g the US) arguably carry far more say than they should. But nevertheless they aren't the ones standing on a huge pile of bodies at this point in time. I don't know that they can be fully trusted. I know for sure that the US government cannot.

    5. Re:Anything that comes out of the UN by Dishevel · · Score: 5, Funny

      Cool. So we will just talk about reputations that are earned.
      The US. Does not give a shit about anything outside the US.
      France
      A stuck up surrender Monkey country that can not figure out why guaranteeing jobs for life could be a bad thing.
      Germany
      Nazi fuckers that want to rule the world and have great need for really freaky sex.
      Israel
      Bad ass little fuckers that are US puppets.
      Saudi Arabia
      Terrorist bastards that hate women.
      Iraq
      Terrorist bastards that hate women.
      Iran
      Terrorist bastards that hate women.
      Afghanistan
      Terrorist bastards that hate women.
      Pakistan
      Terrorist bastards that hate women.
      Syria
      Terrorist bastards that hate women.
      Egypt
      Terrorist bastards that hate women.
      UK
      Tea sucking bastards that taxed the US in to freedom.
      Ireland
      Terrorist bastards that hate not drinking.
      Scotland
      Drinkers that wear dresses.
      Russia
      Vodka drinkers that sell their women.

      Need I go on?
         

      --
      Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
    6. Re:Anything that comes out of the UN by fredprado · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I would be really happy if US didn't give a shit for anything that happens outside it. Unfortunately it is the other way around, it wants to make sure everything that happens outside it goes accordingly to its agenda.

    7. Re:Anything that comes out of the UN by BlueStrat · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If we (and by we, I of course mean "our government") didn't give a shit about anything outside our own borders, we wouldn't spend 23 times as much blood and treasure as the next nation showing off how big our (militaristic) dick is.

      And while "showing off how big our (militaristic) dick is" we save most of the EU from having to learn to speak Russian and much of the rest of the world from having to learn to speak Chinese, not to mention saving all those countries from having to spend a much larger portion of their GDP on defense, while the people that benefit in those same countries piss and moan about US military might.

      I'd be fine with rolling back US military participation with NATO and the UN and drastically reduce our economic support as well. Let the other countries spend their own people's money on their own military...or learn to speak Chinese or Russian.

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
  2. Re:My Plan by tnk1 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    More to the point, it currently *works*. It's not like the system is broken now, it's just that some other people want pieces of the pie. And they could have that, if they wanted it, by building and maintaining their own infrastructure.

    However, they don't want to do that. They just want to make money off of, and regulate, what other people built and bought for them.

  3. What will preserve Internet as we know it by e065c8515d206cb0e190 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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)

    1. Re:What will preserve Internet as we know it by jittles · · Score: 3, Funny

      I think we can all agree that War and Peace was a very long and dry book. The fact that there is no UN resolution stating the same is due to the fact that Russia and the former USSR have veto power in the UN.

  4. you need a reality check by kenorland · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The UN is nothing more and nothing less than the collective wishes of the world's nations.

    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.

  5. How does the U.N. think they're going to do this? by kheldan · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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!
  6. Re:Anything that comes out of the USA by magic+maverick+ · · Score: 3, Informative

    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!
  7. Nationalism, ye gods by Tenebrousedge · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.
  8. Re:Law enforcement types by RazorSharp · · Score: 3

    I know this is repeated a lot here on /., but don't confuse incompetence with malice. The sad thing is that many of those law enforcement types actually think they're doing the right thing. When they engage in unconstitutional wiretapping, when they detain people indefinitely, and even when they bust some hapless stoner; more often than not they're acting under the delusion that they're taking the morally correct course of action.

    The evil fucks who know what they're doing is wrong and do it anyway: the lobbyists who are paid to get these draconian laws passed and the people who pay them - they're the ones who really write our legislation. Congress and law enforcement - for the most part I just see incompetence.

    --
    "From the depths of my skeptical and rationalist soul, I ask the Lord to protect me from California touchie-feeliedom."