Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Google Warns Against UN Net Conference

Posted by Soulskill on from the deciding-how-you-view-cat-pictures dept.

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.

47 of 79 comments (clear)

  1. A Very Special E-Mail by eldavojohn · · Score: 5, Funny

    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.
    1. Re:A Very Special E-Mail by Hentes · · Score: 1

      The nice thing about the internet in it's current form is that if you don't like a service there are dozens of alternatives around the globe to choose from. Let's keep it that way.

    2. Re:A Very Special E-Mail by jc42 · · Score: 1

      ... if you don't like a service there are dozens of alternatives around the globe to choose from. ...

      Yeah, you're right; if someone doesn't like the ISP that has an agreement with your local government to be the sole permitted supplier for your internet, you can just up and move to somewhere that there's an ISP that you like. Then, when they change their policies entirely next month (as their TOS says they have the right to do), you can pick another ISP that you like, and move to its turf.

      It's all very free and open. Well, at least if you stay within the national boundaries of wherever you currently live. There are serious consequences to just "up and moving" across national borders nearly everywhere in the world.

      This is what you're talking about, right?

      --
      Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
  2. The UN = Censorship by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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)

    1. Re:The UN = Censorship by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      So what you're saying is that the UN votes should be weighted based on how democratic they are? The US barely makes the top 20 in that regard (Democracy Index.)

    2. Re:The UN = Censorship by causality · · Score: 1

      So what you're saying is that the UN votes should be weighted based on how democratic they are? The US barely makes the top 20 in that regard (Democracy Index.)

      The right thing to do is the right thing to do, even if that might give "our team"* something to think about.


      * No, I don't think that way because it's mindless, but nonetheless it's all too common.

      --
      It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
    3. Re:The UN = Censorship by sortius_nod · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Democracy is about counting the votes of people equally, good or bad. In essence you're advocating a dictatorship (as the Internet is run now by the US) over a democracy by claiming that dictatorships (countries) will have more of a say.

      I trust the US less than I trust the UN with the Internet. When "Internet Kill Switches" are being investigated by the US, it's clear this is not about democracy but protecting US assets/companies at the cost of the rest of the world.

      US citizens, as usual, see the US as the police of the world, the rest of us are the criminals. The truth is, the US are the criminals & we're trying to wrest control of a powerful tool from despotic megalomaniacs.

    4. Re:The UN = Censorship by Hentes · · Score: 3, Interesting

      You confuse people with states. If you really want a democratic control of the internet (a bad idea IMO), you shouldn't propose giving votes to leaders that weren't elected democratically. It's double standards to talk about democracy and at the same time making excuses for tyrannies.

    5. Re:The UN = Censorship by blahplusplus · · Score: 1

      "You confuse people with states"

      If the vast majority of the people are too dumb, idiotic, brainless to contain their own governments evil then they are culpable regardless of what anyone thinks.

    6. Re:The UN = Censorship by bhagwad · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Since when did dictatorships suddenly have the same moral standing as democratic countries? I mean on the one hand you want democratic control over the Internet. And on the other you want participants who themselves are not democratic...something's missing here.

      While I dislike many things about the US's control over the Internet, I would choose them over the UN in a heartbeat. It's a question of the lesser evil.

    7. Re:The UN = Censorship by cardpuncher · · Score: 1

      Are you saying that international agreements would be more effectively enforced by making them instead with disparate groups having no effective de facto control over anything in their countries?

      And that's without getting started on the dictatorship and corruption that only exist because of the sponsorship of "liberal" western countries...

    8. Re:The UN = Censorship by OeLeWaPpErKe · · Score: 1

      Heh, the joke of this is that the vast majority of the people on this planet are in favor of censorship. "The west" is between 800 million and a billion people. The Chinese want censorship, Indians (a democracy) want censorship, muslims want censorship. Those 3 groups together are close to 2/3rds of our planet's people.

      If the internet was governed democratically, as in 1 head = 1 vote, there would be no freedom on it. These countries have already proven that they'd rather cooperate on censorship, enforcing eachother's firewalls, rather than stand for freedom.

      If the "bad" US loses control, expect the internet to become a nightmare.

    9. Re:The UN = Censorship by alexgieg · · Score: 1

      So what you're saying is that the UN votes should be weighted based on how democratic they are? The US barely makes the top 20 in that regard (Democracy Index.)

      I think a better criteria would be to weight them by how well their population live. Being able to vote isn't an end in itself, it's a means to an end: that of making the government improve things for the majority of the population and, if possible, to not cause them to become worse for its minorities. If you were to have a dictatorship, or even an absolute monarchy, in which both things were provided, what would the population gain by having a democratic process added to it? Worst case scenario, things would end up going downhill, fast.

      Now, admittedly, democracies tend to reach this outcome more often than the alternative systems, but even so, it's steadily reaching it that really matters, both the arrival as well as the intermediate steps taken to get there, not the idealized process that goes with it, which many times is appropriate only for certain cultural backgrounds, not others.

      --
      Conservatism: (n.) love of the existing evils. Liberalism: (n.) desire to substitute new evils for the existing ones.
    10. Re:The UN = Censorship by Xest · · Score: 1

      "Since when did dictatorships suddenly have the same moral standing as democratic countries?"

      I would imagine since democratic countries became the ones that invade other nations without just cause, that abduct foreign citizens and hold them for years without trial despite having never committed a crime, that torture people, and refuse to ban the use of weapons like white phosphorous and cluster bombs, that use entities like the WTO to enforce trade rules that benefit them and hurt others including those much poorer than them, that are the root cause of financial turmoil across the globe, etc.

      You know, just if I had to hazard a guess that is.

    11. Re:The UN = Censorship by bhagwad · · Score: 1

      Your point is valid only if dictatorships do not do the above things. I didn't ask whether or not democratic governments are perfect. I asked whether they're better than dictatorships.

      Dictatorships not only do all of the above, they do it more frequently, more openly and they do far worse as well.

    12. Re:The UN = Censorship by LourensV · · Score: 1

      There's another issue with the UN, which is that the International Telecommunications Union, the UN organisation that would take over control of the Internet, is run by the old national telephone companies. They're extremely conservative and would be very happy to grab control and kill all innovation, or at least slow it down a lot. See Mother Earth, Mother Board for how control of the undersea cable system that ties together most of the 'net was wrested from them (and because it's an excellent read). Imagine being only allowed to connect "approved equipment" to the Internet, the way it used to be with phone networks until not that long ago. It's bureaucracy that we should be afraid of, maybe more so than censorship (after all, the US has been seizing domain names as well).

    13. Re:The UN = Censorship by Xest · · Score: 1

      The point is that dictatorships don't do many of those things as well, that's why I picked them. You'll find some that do some of them perhaps, but for example, when is the last time China invaded a foreign nation, let alone without good cause? when is the last time China abducted foreign nationals? when was China last responsible for the kind of fiscal irresponsibility that led to the global financial crisis?

      At the end of the day it's arbitrary as to whether they're better, they do different things wrong that's for sure, but to describe them as inherently worse? I don't think so, I think the US is at least as much of a problem in this world as China - China has an appalling human rights record internally, but at least it largely keeps to itself. Contrast that to America that may have a better average human rights record (though I'd argue in certain specific cases it has at least as much to answer for), but it's also got a far worse record in terms of detriment to global peace and in pursuing actions that have caused civilian deaths. Far more people have died as a result of US foreign policy either directly or indirectly than Chinese foreign policy for example.

      What you're suffering from is a classic case of ethnocentrism, you believe that democracy is somehow a magical thing that makes a country "good", and that anyone who doesn't have it is inherently "bad", that's all well and good until you look at the number of civilians that have died as the result of US actions - I'd argue that 100s of thousands of dead civilians in Iraq paints a country in a far worse light than human rights abuses in China. Of course, democratic states can be good, and more generally are, but it's not a magic thing that makes a state inherently good, Russia, Venezuela, Iran, are all democracies, do you honestly believe they're better than, say, Cuba, or Burma?

    14. Re:The UN = Censorship by bhagwad · · Score: 1

      Good points. The main difference in a democracy though is that people like you have an impact on what the government does. You're raising your voice against overseas wars. So are many others in the US. And through that you're able to somewhat change what the government does. There's feedback. At least at some level what the American people feel and think about what their country is doing, matters.

      In a dictatorship, there is literally no hope for course correction. Power vests permanently with someone who isn't accountable. While the US has done bad stuff, it is held accountable by its own people. That might not be as effective as one wants, but it does provide a check mechanism.

    15. Re:The UN = Censorship by Xest · · Score: 1

      Even that varies from country to country, for example, I live in the UK and we have an electoral system where the country is split up into 650 regions, each of which has it's own member of parliament who is elected by first past the post. This means that the largest minority gets their MP elected, and the party that gets enough MPs to have over 50% of the seats in parliament gets effectively 100% of power.

      The region I live in has an old mining village in it as well as a number of other villages. The mining villages vote Labour without fail for historic reasons, the other villages are a bit more pragmatic and vote for whomever they think is best at the time. The problem is this means that Labour always wins - it's known as a safe seat because no matter what happens, Labour will win because they can count on the political ignorance of the majority of the electorate in the particular village that votes for them no matter how badly they do.

      To put numbers to it, they usually win with around 35% of the vote, with the other 65% split between about 5 or 6 other candidates. This means that in our area, despite nearly 2/3rds of the population voting against this guy, it doesn't matter, our vote doesn't really count, he doesn't have to listen to us, the majority of his constituents, he only has to listen to the minority that vote for him no matter what he does or however badly he screws up. This is the same story across the country, but ultimately parties in the UK tend to get an effective 100% of power with sometimes as little as only 30% of the public's support, that is, they get 100% of power despite not representing as much as 70% of the population.

      Our "democracy" isn't untypical of many Western democracies, most of them are this bad and unrepresentative, this is why no matter how much people protest against wars like Iraq, the governments in question don't care and persist anyway.

      There's really no more or no less hope for course correction here - Burma has carried out far vaster, far more wide ranging and important reforms as a dictatorship in the last year or two than our country has to it's political system in over a hundred years.

      The fundamental problem is that few democracies are actually genuinely representative of the people. Most do the bare minimum needed to avoid a complete arab spring style meltdown of the power hierarchy. The swap of power in two party states does go at least a little way towards preventing complete North Korean style totalitarianism, but can you for example say that the US government has listened to the public at all on the war on drugs? the war on terror? the war on copyright infringement despite the multiple changes of guard during the lifetime of these issues?

      To add another point, keep in mind that the West has (particularly including the British empire) installed it's own dictators in many countries for hundreds of years now precisely because the alternative is sometimes possibly going to be worse. In the arab spring for example, even Syria now, we're at risk of losing people like Assad, who have been horrendous leaders, and instead getting something worse - elected Islamist extremists. Iraq for example was also far safer and relatively more peaceful under Saddam, than it is since his overthrow, and China would be a massive clusterfuck if it weren't a dictatorship - the conflict between the Chinese and places like Taiwan, Xinjiang, and Tibet, would be far worse than they are now. In Palestine, Hamas is the elected representative of the people, yet Fatah who it beat are far more moderate, far less extremist, far more rational, and far more interested in peace. This is why Gaza is in a permanent state of conflict, and whilst the West Bank still has conflict with Israel, it's much more low level and generally a police issue, rather than the full on wars Gaza has with Israel. As you can see, democracy is just as capable of creating cruel war mongers as dictatorship, and sometimes dictatorship can bring stability and relative peace where democracy can't.

  3. Something to consider by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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."

  4. The Devil we Know... by jythie · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.....

    1. Re:The Devil we Know... by girlintraining · · Score: 2

      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.

      The problem is that the internet is the best tool for democracy ever created. We are all peers now in a global and worldwide community, with the ability to freely communicate with each other. While this communication has moved forward slowly, fitfully, and often painfully, it is moving forward. But it will still take generations of this access before true social change is achieved. We still, for the most part, watch our own news, talk to people geographically local to us, and eschew the larger world. But it still creeps in, day by day, bit by bit. Eventually, the shell will be cracked, no matter how tough it is.

      Democracy is also the most dangerous thing imaginable for those in power. It means that you can't control the media in just one country and call it a day -- now you have to control them in all the countries. If your bomb goes awry and lands on civilians, the whole world is going to hear about it. Coverups, media manipulation, etc., all become more difficult. Government transparency increases year after year, and the costs to maintain a curtain over what is happening become higher and higher. The so-called "Transparent society" and loss of privacy goes both ways. Nobody can hide.

      That's why the internet has to be dismantled and sold off piece by piece. The geographical barriers need to be put back up. Sovereignty must be restored -- and it's something all governments can agree on, and all of their citizens can disagree with. The internet is the ultimate tool of democracy. It must be destroyed! And quickly, before the whole world converts to it.

      --
      #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
    2. Re:The Devil we Know... by Krojack · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I always see non US citizens complain about the USA having control over the internet yet I never seen any examples of what the US control does to hinder their Internet experience. Is the US preventing you from doing something on the Internet? Is the US throttling your internet connection? Is your monthly Internet bill to the US to high? Are you upset because the US caps your monthly download limit?

      Please give some examples because I'm honestly confused.

    3. Re:The Devil we Know... by MrL0G1C · · Score: 3, Informative

      You clearly haven't been paying attention.

      U.S. Government Shuts Down 84,000 Websites, 'By Mistake

      Just google ICE and 'websites' for more crap that the US govt has been pulling against websites, many of which are perfectly legal and not in the US.

      --
      Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
    4. Re:The Devil we Know... by rgbrenner · · Score: 1

      So the US government (accidentally.. but that part is irrelevant) shut down a US-based service... and this effects non-US internet users how?!

      Are you saying that the US has no right to enforce laws over US citizens and companies if that person/company operates on the internet?

      Are you fucking serious?

    5. Re:The Devil we Know... by rgbrenner · · Score: 2

      megaupload.com

      .com is a US domain name. If you don't want to be subject to US laws, don't register your name in our country.

      The UN isn't going to change that.

      I can't operate in your country and expect to be exempt from your laws.

    6. Re:The Devil we Know... by GrubInCan · · Score: 3, Informative

      Is it? RFC1591 says it's supposed to be international. Only GOV and MIL are US only.

    7. Re:The Devil we Know... by RobbieCrash · · Score: 2

      Thanks for illustrating the problem with a US dominated internet. The US only domains are .GOV for the US government, .MIL for the US Military, .US for American sites, and .EDU for American educational institutions.

      America can control those, but you're not allowed to dictate what happens outside your domains. If, like Megaupload, I have servers in your country you're allowed to confiscate those. You can block my site in your borders. You can try to take me to court. But what the fuck gives you the right to silence me in countries where your jurisdiction is null?

      --
      Keep on knockin'
      https://robbiecrash.me
    8. Re:The Devil we Know... by rgbrenner · · Score: 2

      Why do you think .EDU is American, but .COM is not? Both are top-level generic domains. So it's interesting that you assign different ownership to them.

    9. Re:The Devil we Know... by MrL0G1C · · Score: 1

      This third round of action in âOperation in Our Sitesâ(TM) took control of the domains of Rojadirecta, one of Spainâ(TM)s most popular sites.

      The people who operate Firstrow donâ(TM)t live in the US, and neither are their servers located there. In fact, Firstrow says that their site is perfectly legal where they are based

      November when ICE seized Rojadirecta.org, a sports site held to be a legal website by Spanish courts on two occasions. The agency may have a desire to protect consumers from foreign websites. Steve Tepp, ICE senior director for Internet counterfeiting and piracy, explains that âoetheir jurisdiction is limited to the United Statesâ¦â However, Tepp argues that âoe[w]e need legislation to provide enhanced remedies to cut off foreign rogue sites from the U.S. market

      U.S. Claims Global Jurisdiction of .net and .com Web Sites: Is .edu Next?

      It appears to be the US asserting jurisdiction over any website in any country.

      ICE seized the TVShack.net in June 2010

      --
      Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
    10. Re:The Devil we Know... by rgbrenner · · Score: 1

      .com, .net, and .org are US top-level domains, and are there because of the fact that the internet was created in the US. Notice that .MIL and .GOV -- also top-level generic domains -- are explicitly specified for the US.

      The fact is, the generic top-level domains are under US control, and have always been under US control from the birth of the internet.

      Also, you links are all BS.. since they are all for .COM, .NET, and .ORG domains. You hold up rojadirecta as an example, but rojadirecta.es continued to operate, providing exactly the same service, with no disruption or degradation of service.

    11. Re:The Devil we Know... by Xest · · Score: 1

      Well there is a way the US could defuse this whole situation and that's enshrine in it's constitution that the internet is something that is international in nature, and that no national governmental body in the US, be it the courts, or be it the may interfere in the running of it.

      This would eliminate the issue of ICE domain seizures, prevent the likes of SOPA and so on and so forth.

      The problem is the US wont put this on the table, as such it's time to hand over the keys to the ITU who at least offer the protection of requiring unanimity.

      The US could fix this in a second, it could trivially eliminate any valid reason to move control to the UN so it's not as though it's powerless to stop this - it just requires the US to listen to the people, not just it's own, but the people of the world, rather than vested corporate interests for once. That, and if it did this, it'd earn it a lot of international kudos and go some way to undoing much of the bad reputation it's earned in the last decade.

      If the US wont do that it's just further confirmation as to why it shouldn't stay in the hands of the US. I'd urge all Americans to take this opportunity to write to their representatives and tell them this, that they can eliminate any reason for UN control by enforcing mandated protection of the internet as something far bigger and more important than just a toy for US corporations and courts to fuck around with at will at a level that guarantees it protection from such meddling.

    12. Re:The Devil we Know... by MrL0G1C · · Score: 1

      You said link to examples of non-US sites being fucked about with by the US govt, I did that, now you're saying the links are BS which clearly they are not, YOU are a fucking arsehole, and you've lost the argument, goodbye.

      --
      Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
    13. Re:The Devil we Know... by rgbrenner · · Score: 1

      your links are BS because those sites submitted themselves to US laws by registering in the US.

      If they don't want to be subject to US law, they are free to register a country code domain name.

      Look.. I can register for a .es domain right now.. and if the spain says my site is illegal, and revokes the domain, there isn't anything I can do about it. It is a spanish domain after all.

  5. Re:Google should know by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Yeah, if China blocks google, google runs to UN (WTO, WIPO) etc but if UN says something G doesn't like G runs to Uncle Sam. Google is there for money just like any company but they have manged to PR themselves as "Do No Evil".

  6. Misread by bhcompy · · Score: 3, Funny

    Read that as UUNet.. instantly brought back memories of hatred and despair for them ruining my Quake ping times

  7. Let the UN have DNS by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

    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!”
    1. Re:Let the UN have DNS by someones · · Score: 1

      if you call DNS obsolete... whats the replacement for DNS?
      do you call ipv4 obsolete too by chance?

    2. Re:Let the UN have DNS by TheSkepticalOptimist · · Score: 1

      Should just go back to AOL style "web".

      Then all the websites you are allowed to view are icons you can click on, meaning that you don't have to trouble yourself with typing in a URL. Then each government can roll out their own version of 'X'OL where X is the name of your dystopian country.

      Oh wait, Apple already patented that...

      --
      I haven't thought of anything clever to put here, but then again most of you haven't either.
  8. One bright light in a dark hole by Synerg1y · · Score: 1

    "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.

  9. Just create INTERNETv3 by HaeMaker · · Score: 1

    "The Internet interprets censorship as damage and routes around it." -- John Gilmore

  10. Gutsy move or power play? by srussia · · Score: 1

    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"!
  11. Open Media is way ahead of you google by Cyko_01 · · Score: 2

    http://www.protectinternetfreedom.net/

  12. What specific services does the US control? by MobyDisk · · Score: 1, Interesting

    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.

  13. consensus by KraxxxZ01 · · Score: 2

    "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.

  14. Re:Google should know by bhagwad · · Score: 1

    Try and provide falsification conditions for your statement. What would it take for you to feel that Google genuinely isn't evil?

  15. Who in teh hell are these people? by 3seas · · Score: 1

    Name them and them place the list next to the 7 + billion people on this planet..... so to see how small they really are.