Slashdot Mirror
Google Warns Against UN Net Conference
another random user writes "Google has warned that a forthcoming U.N.-organized conference threatens the 'free and open internet.' Government representatives are set to agree a new information and communications treaty in December. It has been claimed some countries will try to wrest oversight of the net's technical specifications and domain name system from U.S. bodies to an international organization. However, the U.N. has said there would be consensus before any change was agreed."
Google is using its Take Action page to encourage people to speak out on this issue.
From: Google Staff
To: All GMail Users
Subject: UN Net Conference
Okay, let's just clear the air here a bit. We know that you are thinking about the UN Net Conference coming up and frankly we're a little hurt. Don't even try and deny it, we've been reading your e-mails and we know you're talking to all your friends about it. And what is up with that? It's like a serious threat to our free and open internet, man! We've got a really good thing going here and you're going to fuck it all up!
And we know how much you love a free and open internet, remember that time you e-mailed the EFF asking about a possibility that Google Staff was reading your e-mails? Yeah, that wasn't the EFF that told you that there was nothing to investigate and to go back to doing your lame-ass private things. That was us so the jig is up, we know you like a free and open internet and now we're asking you to help us preserve that and protect it from governments. And don't change the topic like you always do, this isn't about corporations. This is about the dirty nanny state governments that you complained to your coworker Allen about.
And now you're thinking about this UN Net conference thing? Jesus, man, do you know who else is going to be reading your e-mail? Kim Jong Un. No, he's not asking for it but that's who we'll give it to if you go to this conference! Mark our words, the DPRK is going to be up to their eyeballs in what your Magic deck is looking like for Friday nights if you don't start protesting this shit ASAP.
Ugh, you know, we hate to get ugly but, like, we do this because we love you. We were there reading along when you told your vet in an e-mail that $1,000 was too much for Fido's gum cancer treatment and then they turned around and charged your $365 to put his corpse in a garbage bag. We felt for you, man.
We got a really beautiful thing going on here between us, man. So get out there and protest this thing! Let's just keep the internet free and open. If you do we'll keep that wart on your junk between just us (anonymous browsing? Please, we knew that was you). Governments don't need to get involved in this. Come on.
We know you'll do the right thing because we know more about you than your closest friend,
- The Google Team
My work here is dung.
Google has already seen what foreign governments want to do to protect their own local businesses.
The UN, a wonderful organization where every dictatorship gets the same votes as a western country. What could possibly go wrong? Surely there are more liberal countries in the world than dictatorship and corruption...
I, for one, welcome our new insect overlords. Allahu Akbar! (don't kill me)
This would be a great way for the government of the US and other Western nations to make a show of "transferring control" of the internet to an agency of the UN, influenced heavily by Russia and China, to do their SOPA-style work for them. "Hey- we didn't push the latest round of censorship...don't bitch at us."
While I feel that the US domination of the Internet is a problem.. and its current unilateral control over so many part of it is not just bad for foreigners but not that good for US citizens either... I am not convinced that the UN would do a better job and would likely make the situation even worse. Just look at the domain name dispute process.....
Read that as UUNet.. instantly brought back memories of hatred and despair for them ruining my Quake ping times
Then we will have some incentive to make it obsolete. I mean, it already is, but at least we will do more to find an alternative.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
"Some proposals could permit governments to censor legitimate speech - or even allow them to cut off internet access.
How is this different from the current internet?
"Other proposals would require services like YouTube, Facebook, and Skype to pay new tolls in order to reach people across borders. This could limit access to information - particularly in emerging markets."
Countries shouldn't be relying on international call rates either, the whole system is a racket, now they want to expand it. And the one bright light...
It has been claimed some countries will try to wrest oversight of the net's technical specifications and domain name system from US bodies to an international organisation.
Anything on U.S. soil is subject to U.S. law, and that hasn't always resulted in the best of scenarios, especially with DNS. The U.S. does own the physical infrastructure for these systems, so chances of us accepting the proposition are probably slim to none, but then again it may be for the best depending on what your intentions are... The U.S. is overzealous on governing the internet, an international organization given the complexity of international law and bureaucracy in general would probably be sluggish and inefficient creating tons of loopholes and work arounds.
"The Internet interprets censorship as damage and routes around it." -- John Gilmore
Google can afford to "persuade" each member of the ITU to vote to its benefit (rent-seeking).
On the other hand, maybe Google thinks it has amassed enough clout to go it alone and dictate its terms directly.
Set your phasers on "funky"!
http://www.protectinternetfreedom.net/
What specific services does the US control? What aspects does the ITU control? And how can we get those onto a peer-to-peer system? People have talked about peer-to-peer DNS before, but I'm unclear if that is the only item that needs to be relinquished. The items Google mentions all sound like peering agreements, so I'm unclear what is even on the table to discuss.
"consensus before any change was agreed". Now name me one government that wont get a boner to stricter net control. Being a non-US citizen I usually welcome similar news with warm "meh...". But this one gives me creeps. Having Saudi Arabia with a say what is acceptable GLOBALLY, with theirs, to me at least repulsive culture, is frightening. My hope lay in cultural differences that will make global deal on this issue unreachable.
Governments can't live in the same space as an uncontrolled information system.Copyright law / protecting the innocent etc are all just Trojan horses. By their very nature they have to control and regulate everything. It's just taking a while for them to figure out how they can do it with the Internet. There is such a sustained flow of new laws, bills and regulations that eventually they will win. It doesn't matter how many of these initiatives get stopped, there are 100 more following it and only a few need to get through. The wild west days of the Internet are coming to an end my friends.
Name them and them place the list next to the 7 + billion people on this planet..... so to see how small they really are.
consensus does not mean unanimity, nor does it me, the best agreement that can be reached at this time, which each member of the group can live with and/or support. consensus means PATRICIA ESPINOSA: [translated] I want to concur with some of the delegations that have already expressed here that the rule of consensus does not mean unanimity. And much less does it mean the possibility that a delegation can impose a right of veto on the will of everyone, who have, after so much work, arrived and reached a decision on an agreement, with so much effort and so much sacrifice in some cases.
the usa has shown that it has not the wish to be fair free and open, thus you lose....
p.s. i'd rather have a 180+ country squabbling rabble look after it as its present way of doing stuff is fine and the idea that the majority have to agree is well next too impossible so thats good.
where you physically host should count.
IF i buy a US car and leave the us with it , your ideal is that i should be subject to usa law because its a us car?
fuck off how about that....go pay your 16 trillion debt then come back and tell us shit
You can have freedom of expression in a dictatorship. What you don't have in a dictatorship is a vote.
Democracy isn't in the USA either: it's a representative democracy and most of the power is not voted for at all by the citizens.
You ARE demanding a dictatorship for the internet. You ARE demanding that a democracy is not what you want for the internet.
Because the dictator NEVER thinks that moving to a democracy is a good idea.
So there's no need to take it out of the US.
PS you know that language you're using: Enlgish. It's ours. Give it back.
You know those numbers you're using? Indian. Give it back.
You know that TV you're using? Scottish. Give it back.
You know that HTTP protocol you're using? Swiss. Give it back.
You know that infrastructure you're using? African slave labour built it. Give it back.
If youre going to demand someone have to "physically pick[e]d it up and [left]leave the US with it?" for names, then all the other things you have that aren't physical objects have to go back to where they came from or you must obey the laws of the country you've not taken them from (unless you can show you physically picked up the english language and movet it out of the UK...).
Has any "world" body ever done any good? UN, WTO, WHO, etc. Is there a single thing we can thank our lucky stars they did?
Governments will censor, and do censor. The central control setup has little influence. So is this worry of Google's about censorship, or ownership?
Removing ultimate control of the public internet infrastructure from the US government simply means that the US will no longer own it and, in essence, one government will no longer be able to pull the plug or set the rules on its whim.
Instead, the world will own it. The way it was meant to be.