Internet Freedom Won't Be Controlled, Says UN Telcom Chief

wiredmikey writes "The head of the UN telecommunications body, Hamadoun Toure, told an audience at the World Conference on International Telecommunications (WCIT-12) in Dubai on Monday that Internet freedom will not be curbed or controlled. 'Nothing can stop the freedom of expression in the world today, and nothing in this conference will be about it,' he said. Such claims are 'completely (unfounded),' Toure, secretary general of the International Telecommunication Union, told AFP. 'We must continue to work together and find a consensus on how to most effectively keep cyberspace open, accessible, affordable and secure,' UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon said. Google has been vocal in warning of serious repercussions, saying that 'Some proposals could permit governments to censor legitimate speech — or even cut off Internet access,' noted Google's Vint Cerf in a blog post."

Comments

Reading between the lines

[Anonymous Coward]

Google has been vocal in warning of serious repercussions

...such as the inability to lobby congressmen for favourable treatment.

Really?

[Millennium]

If the goal is not to curb internet freedom, then why are the foxes the ones at the forefront of the effort to build a henhouse?

Re:Really?

[Attila Dimedici]

That is exactly what I was thinking. I am confused as to why the people who are most vocally calling for the ITU to take active control over governance of the Internet are representatives of the governments with the strongest history of actively suppressing freedoms if the only reason for this discussion is to ensure that the Internet remain open.

Re:Really?

[icebike]

Exactly!

Dear Mr Hamadoun Toure: If it won't be curbed or controlled why not define attempts to do so as a crime against humanity and access to the internet a human right?

Could it be that you know it is already curbed and controlled and monitored and blocked.

Oh, look, your nose is growing and your pants seem to be on fire.

Re:Really?

[Tom]

Really? Follow the money and all? If the US government is crying wolf, are they really interested in ideals, or in advantages for themselves? Same for Google.

If you assign motives to one side and question their words, do so for the other as well.

Re:Really?

[jfengel]

It may be their goal, but they won't get it. It's not what the ITU does and they won't succeed in their ludicrous proposals. They only make those proposals because they have no idea what they're talking about.

In fact, most of it is political theater. The ITU attendees themselves are well aware that these proposals stand no chance of passage. But the religious zealots in their countries are as ignorant of that as they are about everything else, and enjoy being pandered to. So when the proposals fail, the government can claim that they tried to prohibit blasphemy, but those blasphemous bastards in the West defeated it.

It's a dangerous and ugly game, because some of these zealots will take it as an excuse for violence. But as far as the leadership is concerned, as long as it's directed against us rather than them, it's all good.

Re:Really?

[interkin3tic]

Dear Mr Hamadoun Toure: If it won't be curbed or controlled why not define attempts to do so as a crime against humanity [wikipedia.org] and access to the internet a human right?

For one thing, I'd bet dollars to doughnuts that at least five of the security council members (Russia, China, the US, India, and Pakistan) would have strong feelings against giving up their ability to block the internet if and when they felt like it.

And I'd probably bet at least half dollars to doughnuts that the rest would too. Azerbaijan, for example. Wiki tells me their internet is pretty open for now, but the government likes to take a heavy hand against opposition, so they're a "probably."

Re:Really?

[betterunixthanunix]

Why bother with words? Let's look at actions.

The US government is certainly not an organization that values freedom over money. Yet ICANN has not done any of the following things that the ITU has proposed:

1. Unique identifiers for Internet users or their computers
2. Separate "service classes" for servers and client computers
3. A system of fees, surcharges, etc.
4. Special licensing for providing particular kinds of Internet services

These are the sort of things that, despite intense pressure from various industries, we have not seen on the Internet as controlled by ICANN. Sure, we've seen some censorship, but at the end of the day I can still use PGP and I can still run my own mail server, and I can do so without needing to obtain anyone's permission. This morning I ssh'd to my mother's computer to help troubleshoot a problem she was having -- and nothing stopped me, despite the fact that her computer is connected to the Internet through a "consumer grade" cable package.

ITU has a long history of designing communications systems that cement the power of monopoly service providers and which prevent people from hacking or coming up with their own solutions to problems. ITU's approach to the telephone network reflects its mindset; likewise with ITU's approach to radio. Amateurs? Hackers? You're lucky to get a tiny bit of space to play in, but you better not do anything that could threaten the big boys who provide "real" service to consumers.

To put it another way, if ITU had designed the Internet, there would never have been Google, because there would have been too much paperwork to fill out, too many licensing fees, and too many bandwidth fees to make something experimental like that work. The Internet's most important design feature is not packet switching, it is the idea that all computers connected to the Internet can do the same things, limited only by technical things like CPU or connection speeds. ITU doesn't design that sort of network; ITU designs this sort of network:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X.25

Here, by the way, is ITU's next generation Internet plan:

http://www.itu.int/en/ITU-T/gsi/ngn/Pages/default.aspx

Re:Really?

[peragrin]

the thing is for as bad as the us government is I cant think of anyone else i would rather have in charge.

It is one of the handful of countries that have explicit right to free speech. Most countries have some limited right of free speech. Where if you say things that they don't like you can be charged for it.

Many of the countries at that meeting want cross border jursidiction where if you break a law in their country and someone there reads it you can be charged for it.

Re:Really?

[NettiWelho]

Dear Mr Hamadoun Toure: If it won't be curbed or controlled why not define attempts to do so as a crime against humanity [wikipedia.org] and access to the internet a human right?

For one thing, I'd bet dollars to doughnuts that at least five of the security council members (Russia, China, the US, India, and Pakistan) would have strong feelings against giving up their ability to block the internet if and when they felt like it.

I wouldnt bet anything on it, 'cause they can always have and "infrastructural failure" when convenient. :)

Re:Really?

[grcumb]

If the goal is not to curb internet freedom, then why are the foxes the ones at the forefront of the effort to build a henhouse?

It's a bit of rather disingenuous misdirection.

Touré claims that the ITU have no intention of touching anything to do with Internet governance, but this is not entirely honest: The treaty-making process starts with independent submissions from various national institutions and telecoms industry bodies. While none of them have any formal status at this point in time as ITU policy, a significant number of them speak specifically for the perceived need for transit fees for large content providers (e.g. Google). Were they to be taken up as components of the revised ITRs, they would indeed place limits on the growth of the Internet, especially in developing nations. The precedent of 'pay-to-play', for example, favours large incumbents far more than upstart content providers, especially those in the developing world, where cash flow is often limited and incomes small.

Given the rather stark opposition coming from the US and key EU countries, I still doubt whether any of the most contentious proposals will ever achieve the consensus required to become binding. And, as others have pointed out elsewhere, significant parts of the last (1988) set of ITRs have been ignored even by some of the ITUs strongest supporters.

As usual, MIchael Geist is the go-to guy to understand exactly what forces are at play here. His contention is that the 'UN takeover' spin conveniently hides a more insidious issue: Who pays for content?

Re:Really?

[sl149q]

Well the ITU and ISO did design an internet... and it was simply politely ignored by the implementors of what we now call the Internet.

Other than governance the ITU/ISO model is one of top down design by committee. Compared to the IETF practice of bottom up implementation and design using RFC's and demonstrable code.

The former model led to X.400 (possibly the best known example, but not the only one) for Email. Pretty much non-implementable in full and with little inter-operability between the implementations that did get done. It died a quick (although very expensive) death.

While the IETF model has problems. They have managed to get the Internet to where it is today. Handing it over to the ITU/ISO would probably not be in the best interest of anyone.

Re:Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

Chances are he really believes what he says. He is only the head of the UN telecommunications body, no need for countries to inform him about their hidden agenda's if he has his own reasons to want this anyway (more prestige for the ITU = better for Hamadoun Toure.

Re:Really?

[bug1]

why the people who are most vocally calling for the ITU to take active control over governance of the Internet are representatives of the governments with the strongest history of actively suppressing freedoms

why the people who are most vocally calling for the ITU to not take active control over governance of the internet are representatives (or fanbois) of the US government which has the strongest history of international domain name seizures, and RL invasions and seizures of foreign property.

Re:Really?

[bug1]

Yet ICANN has not done any of the following things that the ITU has proposed:
        Unique identifiers for Internet users or their computers
        Separate "service classes" for servers and client computers
        A system of fees, surcharges, etc.
        Special licensing for providing particular kinds of Internet services

How many elected US government officials have;
  - Overseen and supported extensive national and international surveillance of the internet.
  - Supported warrantless/roaming wiretapping laws which some argue are unconstitutional.
  - Supported a tiered internet
  - Proposed taxing the internet.

So much propaganda flowing in support of ICANN.

Re:Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

They're not worried about freedom, they're worried about turning the internet into a giant toll road. I mean, right now, basically all the routes are free as far as we're concerned and they're not squeezing as much money out of us as they could. But if they could put up toll booths everywhere online, all those internet companies would have to pay through the nose. Not to mention their customers.

So it's sort of like having a meeting about how to turn the US highway system into a network of toll roads. And we all know, once they start collecting tolls, they NEVER stop. Ironically, that's what "Net Neutrality" was originally about, but it's gotten rebranded into some political thing, when it was initially caused by an outburst of rage over the original plans to create toll booths for internet traffic.

Maybe it's time to get back to basics here? Say no to internet toll trolls!

Re:Really?

[tbird81]

ICANN would not have stopped these things, and would probably have made it worse - because it could happen in any country.

Re:Really?

[tbird81]

I'm not. I live in NZ.

I would rather have the US "controlling" the internet, than a bunch of Saudi Arabians!

Every country is not equal. Some care more about freedom than others. Germans don't. Russians don't. The scores of Islamic countries certainly don't.

Fuck those countries. They can make their own internet. The UN can make its own internet, try to charge excessively to pay for the exorbitant lifestyles of its member politicians, and see who uses it.

Why do they think they can take over something that does no belong to them? Fucking Nazis.

Re:Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

So in the end it is all about that neoclassical fantasy about 3% compound growth forever and ever...

OvO (hoot hoot)

Re:Really?

[SplashMyBandit]

Kia Ora cuz! I live in New Zealand too (for the benefit of everyone else).

I wholeheartedly support your sentiments. For me the thing is is, ICANN has to obey the laws and courts of the US where Free Speech is protected (vigorously, but outfits like the EFF and supported by the courts). Once the UN gets its mitts on the Internet there is no way anyone can try and influence it. Furthermore, the UN is corrupt in the sense that the resolutions that get passed don't actually match its founding ideals - yet there is nothing the citizens of the World can actually do about it.

Corruption of the UN
Why is the UN this way? unfortunately it is due to past and future conflicts (a legacy of the Cold War, and now influenced by the rise of global Jihad and Salafism). I refer you to this video for an overview (mid-way describes how the Non-Aligned and Islamic movements have joined to form a voting bloc to defeat the interests of the US, Israel and much of the 'Western' World):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j7Mupoo1At8

Case History - reasons to oppose the move
Now some on these forums have argued that the ITU has been good at what it does. This is entirely true. However, I would argue that this was precisely because the ITU held no power that it has avoided the manipulating interest of special groups. Once the ITU actually got power could those special interest groups warp the normal process and corrupt the ITU in the same way that voting the UN General Assembly has been corrupted by voting blocs? Well, I'll give two examples for consideration:

• ISO was a pretty respected organization. However there was a fiasco several years back where Microsoft essentially stuffed ballots for voting on the Office OpenXML document standard (despite ISO already having adopted the Open Document format as its standard). Lots of 'first time' voters registered for this, chairman barred any dissenting questions from being raised and the standard was forced through. A clear case of a single corporation warping a standards body for its own interests (and arguably, against the interests of the general population of document users, who had a preference for truly open standards).
• Second example. The UN is working on making criticism of religion equivalent to hate speech. This means you can't say that the beheading of criminals under Islam's Sharia Law is barbaric, because Muslims will almost certainly wail that they have been offended by your statement. It is an essential part of Free Speech to be able to criticize, even to the point of offense. It is no surprise that the anti-Free Speech advocates who pushed for this are also pushing to move control of the Internet from ICANN (where Free Speech is protected by US law) to the UN ITU - where they can regulate the Internet and *forcibly* prohibit *your* Free Speech.

One doesn't have to be an astrophysicist (although I am/was :) ) to see how these examples are the representative of possible future trouble if the Internet was to slip out from ICANN's protection.

Let's not give up our open Internet, and other Freedoms without making a fuss, eh?

Re:Really?

[rs79]

Actually it wasn't ignored, the ITU made sure the US goverment *mandated* the ITU/OSI protocol suite and *banned* the TCP/IP protocol suite for any interaction with the US government in 1991. By 93 this had come to seem as ridiculous even to the USG then as is it does now to you and this quietly went away.

When the very first transatlantic ITU-protocol OSI/X.25 link was put up the first thing that went over it was TCP/IP traffic. Why? Because there actually *was* some.

The sole accomplishment of the dude that spun the ITU and UN into this feeding frenzy for the net was a technical paper on how to write an X.400 email address on a business card. That's it. http://www.itu.int/itudoc/teltopic/x400/20656.txt

Previous to that he made Ethernet work in the ITU office, comically described in Carl Malamud's superb book wherein he tries to put the ITU technical specs online like the IETF's were. The general counsel at the time, the America technical genius (who set up the white house web server) / lawyer who started Internet Society, Dr. Tony Rutkowski, thought it was a swell idea, and since the rest of the ITU had never heard of the Internet they said "whatever" thinking it was some sort of CompuServe like thing. Then they found out some months later, and took them all down so they could figure out how best to deploy their information online - http://museum.media.org/eti/ http://museum.media.org/eti/Prologue01.html and more...

Rutkowski wrote a paper recently pointing out it would be best if the ITU were sort of, um, turned off. http://www.circleid.com/posts/20120816_privatizing_the_itu_t_back_to_the_future/

Re:Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

Ya, no kidding. In response to the statement "We must continue to work together and find a consensus on how to most effectively keep cyberspace open, accessible, affordable and secure,'" please note that finding a consensus on how to do those things is not at all the same as committing to actually DO any of them.

If they really wanted to ensure freedom of expression, etc. they'd be putting all their efforts in bringing something along the lines of "onion routing" (i.e. Tor) into play as a default standard for internet transmissions.

Re:Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

why not define attempts to do so as a crime against humanity [wikipedia.org] and access to the internet a human right?

Because we ought to reserve that kind of status to things which are more, well, horrific I guess. I hardly see how anything a government does with internet access, etc. even comes close to things like rape, pillage, genocide, etc.
And the internet is just a communications medium, it makes no more sense to call internet access in specific a "human right" than it does to say that we need to commit to making access to telegraph stations or courier pigeons a "human right". The "human right" here is the ability to communicate with whomever we choose without fear of reprisal, and to voice our opinions without fear of reprisal, regardless of the medium used to do so.

Re:Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

You might be an astrophysicist, but you clearly dont understand politics.

Re:Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

Indeed- Australia sent Senator Conroy, only the biggest a$$hole in Australia when it comes to mandatory filtering (which he recently had to back down on) and many other forms of censorship, monitoring and control.

Re:Really?

[Johann Lau]

Germans don't care about freedom? What do you base this on, stories your grandfather told you? Haha..

Why do they think they can take over something that does no belong to them? Fucking Nazis.

I live in NZ.

Uhuh.

Anyways, so what's your claim in this? You have a passport from an English-speaking country, so your input on something invented in another English-speaking matters why, exactly? Is it the common bond of a history of murder and delusion, are you just bored, or are you just, again, trying to take over something that does not belong to you? Lulz.

I just realized, you consider yourself part of a group of people who for the most part don't even know you exist, and wouldn't even blink if you sunk tomorrow. That must be hard, and I can see how the internet makes you angry. It must be harsh to know of an outside world that is taking place far, far away :(

Re:Really?

[HungryHobo]

germany may value freedom but not freedom of speech. Or to put it another way they redefine freedom of speech to not include things which americans or people from quite a few other places would include under freedom of speech.

Germany also orders rights differently. To americans freedom of speech is near top priority. In germany various things like privacy are treated as more important. This has upsides and downsides.

Perhaps those other rights are more important to you but when the future of the internet is at stake I'd prefer it be in the hands of people for whom freedom of speech is the first right.

Re:Really?

[Xest]

"Why is the UN this way? unfortunately it is due to past and future conflicts (a legacy of the Cold War, and now influenced by the rise of global Jihad and Salafism). I refer you to this video for an overview (mid-way describes how the Non-Aligned and Islamic movements have joined to form a voting bloc to defeat the interests of the US, Israel and much of the 'Western' World)"

I'm intrigued, pray tell how does an Islamic voting block defeat the interests of the US, Israel and the rest of the West in the UN's organisations that requires a consensus vote? Even if they gain a majority a majority is still meaningless where consensus is required. Majority voting only works in places like the general assembly which is entirely unrelated to the ITU. The ITU for what it's worth was created in about the 1880s, about 60 years before the UN, which is a large reason why it has a very different structure to some other UN organisations.

"Now some on these forums have argued that the ITU has been good at what it does. This is entirely true. However, I would argue that this was precisely because the ITU held no power that it has avoided the manipulating interest of special groups."

It has no inherent power, nor will it ever do beyond that which is granted through consensus of it's member states - i.e. just about every country in the world. The ITU can only do what the entire world agrees unanimously it can do - you seem to believe it's some kind of entity that exists in a vacuum, that's not true, it only exists and can do things where states unanimously agree to let it do so. To date those powers granted have been things like assigning communication satellite orbits - because someone has to do that and if states do so independently you'll find countries accidently crashing satellites into each other.

"Second example. The UN is working on making criticism of religion equivalent to hate speech. This means you can't say that the beheading of criminals under Islam's Sharia Law is barbaric, because Muslims will almost certainly wail that they have been offended by your statement."

This is simply an outright lie. What would be correct to say is that a few countries have proposed this even though they have no hope of passing it, and even if they did there is no structure within the UN by which they could multilaterally enforce it on those countries who don't want this. It's worrying that to try and make a point you're having to resort to outright literal FUD, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and pretend that you've said this through lack of knowledge about the topic, rather than an attempt to maliciously manipulate the discussion using the politics of fear.

It seems the majority of your post seems to be a muddle of anti-Islamic paranoia and confusion about how the UN/ITU relationship and governance works. Your post reads like a Fox News fear piece, rather than a factual, useful commentary.

For what it's worth we've already lost our free internet, if you haven't noticed ICE domain seizures are already enforcing global internet censorship at the behest of a single government. This is the flip side of your initial point that you've failed to mention - that ICANN also has to adhere to the bad laws of the US as well as the good due to it being part of a single nation. The situation is hence not quite as perfect as you make out.

If you genuinely care about internet freedom you wouldn't be spending your time spreading FUD about the ITU/UN/Islam, you'd instead be trying to create pressure on the US to make ICANN a special entity that is above US law when it comes to demands from judges in some backwater part of a US state, or customs officials bought off by the MPAA/RIAA to enforce global internet censorship. If you did that, and achieved that, there'd be no valid reason for people to argue for a move to ITU control of ICANN in the first place. You're focussing on the symptom of the problem of calls for changes to internet governance, rather than the root cause - fixing US mismanagement of t

Re:Really?

[delt0r]

NZ has no freedom of speech provisions in any form of law. Germans care about it a lot more than your typical NZ'er. I am a NZ'er currently (for 7 years now) living in Austria with a *lot* of German workmates.

They can make their own internet. The UN can make its own internet, try to charge excessively to pay for the exorbitant lifestyles of its member politicians, and see who uses it.

New Zealand has some of the most expensive and crappy internet in the world. Also the original version was completely funded by the US.

Why do they think they can take over something that does no belong to them? Fucking Nazis.

You Godwin yourself and lose at the internet for the day. Congratulations.

I sure wish you weren't a New Zealander... You seem to be attempting to be as ignorant and as arrogant as a Texan, and mostly succeeding.

Re:Really?

[argStyopa]

"In fact, most of it is political theater."

Isn't that pretty much the functional definition of the UN?

Re:Really?

[Johann Lau]

Yeah. I remember when some radicals held Europe hostage for drawing cartoons, and how the US bravely saved the day, not censoring South Park at all. Or how Obama supporters gleefully went on a hunt on racist little kids, bragging about destroying their careers because they exposed themselves as racists on Twitter. Free speech zones, and whatnot.

Nope. On paper maybe, and in your dreams. But nope.

Re:Really?

[mcgrew]

For one thing, I'd bet dollars to doughnuts

Can we retire this quaint old, now meaningless, saying? When that phrase was coined, donuts were a dime a dozen, less than a penny each. Now that donuts cost more than a dollar each, saying you'd bet dollars to donuts is saying exactly the opposite of what you're trying to convey.

Re:Really?

[Seeteufel]

It was news to me that Germans don't care about freedoms. Quite the opposite. And there a few criminal laws against use of neonazi imagery for incitement of the people. I am fine with that. Fortunately you could curse on television which you probably won't do, but in 1971 someone axed a table. The ITU is just the body. WCIT is a world conference, that means "all states" on equal footing and they revise the ITRs. The ITRs define the competences of the ITU. Now, the ITU is virtually owned by the telco companies. Decide for yourself what competences you want in their hands.

Re:Really?

[Seeteufel]

Well, the American order is based on the random set of issues that entered the US constitution and seemd highly relevant for progressive minds in the 18 century. The German order is based on other experiences which develop from the core principle "human dignity is inalienable". Of course, given the experience with 1930s hate speech you had a different priority order. In Europe the catalogue of fundamental rights is virtually the same.

Re:Really?

[ahabswhale]

Nice false equivalency you have going there. You can't compare ICE domain seizures to free speech censorship. The domain seizures done by the US are against sites selling illegal goods. The only reason the internet is as free as it is, is because the US has been controlling it. That's why you have the right to sit here and bitch about how the US shouldn't control it.

Re:Really?

[jfengel]

There are plenty of functional parts to the UN: WHO, FAO, UNHCR, UNESCO, even the ITU. But it also gets used for a lot of grandstanding, which makes the news a lot more dramatically than the dull slogging work of improving health, agriculture, telecommunications, etc.

Re:Really?

[Xest]

Actually, some US domain seizures have been for gambling websites. Sites that are legitimate international businesses with a legitimate international web prescence.

But this highlights the problem, what is illegal in the US is not necessarily illegal elsewhere.

Unfortunately people like you are the reason the US can follow a downhill trajectory in terms of this sort of censorship, because you make excuses for it, and say it's okay because it could be worse. That's not an acceptable excuse, because it could also be better, and that's what I, and many others want - a completely free internet like we used to have, rather than the partly free internet we have now.

Re:Really?

[SplashMyBandit]

Don't believe me (I'm a nobody), but listen to Vint Cerf
Look, with regard to the threat to Internet Freedom you don't have to take my word for it. You might take Vint Cerf's though (I'm sure you you know who he is, right?). http://googleblog.blogspot.co.nz/2012/12/keep-internet-free-and-open.html
I'm afraid it appears that it is *you* who has an incomplete understanding of the issue. I hope the link I've provided prompts you to do more research :)

Anti-religious statements are Free Speech criticism and this is not necessarily intolerance
With regard to the anti-Islamic tone of my post. Yes, it is anti-Islamic - because "true" Islam is an evil death cult that is manipulated by the unscrupulous (which is bad enough) and has as a core principle the desire to impose itself on the entire world (that's where it affects me, and I'm have the right to oppose it). The imposition is by force if necessary. Again, I am not saying this on my own authority, but you could listen to what Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins, Pat Condell or Sam Harris have to say about this. It is very worthwhile to take the time to listen to Hitch on YouTube, he's hilarious yet far more insightful than nearly anyone else you'll come across on the matter (certainly not the poorly informed and woolly-headed apologists you see on mainstream media).

Understanding Salafi Islam
The fact that you don't understand what Islam actually commands shows you don't know diddly about the Qur'an or hadiths (I suggest taking a peruse, as I did), and you certainly are not listening to what the Salafis, Wahabbis, Jihadis are *actually saying* (in short, you have willful cognitive dissonance). Again, you have an incomplete understanding and you desperately need to do some research (which I urge you to do, while the free media still exists :) ). Please do your research. On YouTube find out what the jihadis and salafis are actually saying in arabic (the latter part is very important, the principle of taqiyya means they can and will lie to you in English if it promotes the goals of Islam - again, plenty of examples of this on YouTube if you care to look).

How good human beings are 'bad' in a religious sense
Now I like my friends who are Muslim, they are good people. That doesn't mean I can't dislike Islam and call it out for what it *actually* is (not what its apologists and propagandists would like you to believe it is). Now the fact that you consider an anti-Islamic post to be bad shows you are missing several vital points (no surprise, you are still in 'The Matrix', so to speak).

• The first is that you confuse legitimate anti-religious criticism with intolerance. These are not the same! It is a gross and somewhat amateur mistake to think they are.
• The second thing is that even if I was intolerant then I still have Free Speech to make my (possibly mistaken) points made. Under Free Speech not only do I have the right to make statements and even offend, but more importantly, everyone else has the right to listen to that speech. By taking away someone's right to speak you take away the right of millions to hear what they have to say - which may be uncomfortable to the authorities, but nevertheless, the truth.
• There are plenty of Muslims out there that are good human beings (eg. Italy's head Iman, please do your homework, look him up on YouTube :) ). However, what makes them good human beings makes them 'bad' Muslims - because they disobey the commandments in the Qur'an. All religions (except Jainism) have the same problem, "true believers" are bad while "bad believers" are good humans. That makes the religions flawed, not the humans.
• The transfer of Internet regulation to the UN *is a Free Speech* issue. Just because you don't personally foresee the potential pitfalls doesn't mean we cannot.

It's pe

Re:Really?

[ahabswhale]

Odd that I have any number of gambling websites I can go to and spend money in spite of all this censorship you refer to. Also, I make no excuses for censorship. I have zero problem berating the government for inappropriate takedowns. Just because ICE doesn't have a perfect record doesn't mean they are bad. Mistakes have happened and they should be correct but they are on record as not having any interest in censorship. That's a lot more than I can say for the UN. You actually believe they would do a better job? Seriously?

Re:Really?

[SplashMyBandit]

Just because the current regulation of the Internet has flaws does not mean handing it over to the UN would solve the issues. In fact, it is far far more likely to get worse - which is our point. So what is the point you are trying to make, that having the UN regulate the Internet would be better and give more Freedom than now? I don't think that is a realistic position (gambling is very likely to become banned, as is pornography, sites criticising religion, political sites, whistleblowing sites etc etc).

The flaws in the current system should be talked about and corrected (eg. by supporting the EFF and others). Simply handing the Internet over to the control of the UN is not going to solve the issues, in fact it is far more likely to make it worse and you'll have no recourse to correct it (unlike now). So please get real.

Re:Really?

[tbird81]

So can I sell you any Nazi memorabilia? Email you a copy on Mein Kamf? Are you able to post a thesis on how you think the Holocaust was fake? Express an unapproved opinion on immigration? How about you dress as a Nazi for Halloween?

In our country these things are not PC. In yours - you'd be arrested.

Now all that Nazi shit is crap, neo-nazis are generally losers, and Hitler was an evil fucker. But to ban those things from your speech is a restriction on your freedom.

It's sad that you can't see that.

"I may not agree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - someone other than Voltaire.

Re:Really?

[tbird81]

I sure wish you weren't a New Zealander... You seem to be attempting to be as ignorant and as arrogant as a Texan, and mostly succeeding.

I wish you weren't a New Zealander - I assume the irony in your posts about Texans was unintentional.

New Zealand has some of the most expensive and crappy internet in the world. Also the original version was completely funded by the US.

Uhh... I wasn't saying NZ could start it's own internet. Learn to read. I was saying the UN can! I'm very happy with the US funded version.

Re:Really?

[tbird81]

And there a few criminal laws against use of neonazi imagery for incitement of the people. I am fine with that.

Well I'm not - and I don't want these things banned from the internet! It's just imagery! It's not going to kill anyone!

Most Muslim clerics are fine with banning pictures of Mohammed. Some fundamentalist Christian leaders are okay with banning discussion of evolution!

You don't seem to get that "freedom of speech", isn't "freedom of speech, except you're not allowed to say this or this or this because it might offend someone."

The fact that most Germans are okay with having certain types of things banned is an indictment on your national culture.

Re:Really?

[Xest]

"Odd that I have any number of gambling websites I can go to and spend money in spite of all this censorship you refer to."

So because not every gambling site has yet been taken down it's acceptable to censor others? What a horrible failure of logic you just made.

"Also, I make no excuses for censorship. "

No, that's exactly what you did. That's exactly what you did just now too, you said, because you can access some gambling websites, it's not a problem. If you're instead denying any gambling websites were taken down then it's trivial to use Google to find out that you were wrong.

"Just because ICE doesn't have a perfect record doesn't mean they are bad."

There go the excuses again...

"Mistakes have happened and they should be correct but they are on record as not having any interest in censorship."

Yet they do exactly that. Excuses, excuses, excuses.

"That's a lot more than I can say for the UN. You actually believe they would do a better job? Seriously?"

I think they'd have no choice because the stalemate and failure to gain unanimity which is a requirement in the ITU would force it to be the case. That's better than the status quo where the US is accountable to absolutely no one.

Re:Really?

[Xest]

The point is that handing ICANN over to the UN would put it in a place where political stalemate would prevent the consensus the ITU requires from ever being achieved.

This is far better than the current status quo where the US has no accountability and so can and does arbitrarily censor across the globe at will.

Re:Really?

[ahabswhale]

Wow, you have no reading comprehension whatsoever. My point was that there are few gambling websites that have been shutdown and there's zillions more still out there. So, what's different about those than the rest? It's not like they are secret. Use some fucking common sense. Jesus, you're an idiot.

We're done here. You can respond if you like but I don't give a shit anymore because you probably have an IQ hovering around 80. Nuance completely evades you.

Re:Really?

[Xest]

No need to cry, it'd be easier to just admit you were wrong.

You're admitting ICE has committed censorship whilst simultaneously trying to deny they've been guilty of censorship, whilst also having previously said that you find censorship unacceptable and that you wont make excuses for it, despite now once again doing exactly that.

If you can't see how illogical your argument is than I think I'm not the one that should be worried about their IQ. I don't expect people to agree with me on everything, but I ask that if people disagree with me that their disagreement at least make some kind of logical sense. You've sadly completely and utterly failed to fulfil this simple task.

Really, it's not hard to at least be consistent in your argument, I feel for you in finding life such a difficult battle that you cannot even manage such a simple task and that you apparently burst into tears when you try and fail.

Re:Really?

[SplashMyBandit]

The US does not generally censor. It removes sites for legal reasons *and these legal reasons can be challenged* - all you have to do is hire a lawyer.

The countries that do practice censorship are the ones that form voting blocs in the UN (refer to the video in my first post).

Re:Really?

[Xest]

Yes, but as pointed out, what the US calls legal, the rest of the world doesn't.

The WTO found against the US in it's attack on Antiguan gambling sites, and yet despite this the US still continues to censor those sites. It's doing so without even the law on it's side.

But your use of weasel words - "the US does not generally" - generally being the key point here, meaning that in fact, it absolutely does, masks this fact.

"The countries that do practice censorship are the ones that form voting blocs in the UN (refer to the video in my first post)."

You realise the US is a member of certain voting blocs right?

Re:Really?

[SplashMyBandit]

You realise the US is a member of certain voting blocs right?

Yes, but *you* miss the point (hence your disingenuous 'weasel words' yourself). The US-led voting bloc (that is, countries sharing Enlightenment values) is outnumbered by the countries of the Non-Aligned Movement combined with the Islamic countries. Just look at the content of many of UN resolutions, they all go against what the US would like. Your antipathy to the US is masking your thinking. Yes the US leads a block, but that is completely irrelevant to the discussion we are having because this block is not the most significant in the UN. The bloc formed by countries that far more intereference in their national Internets has greater numbers. Hence, handing over the Internet to the UN is seen as dangerous for those countries that seek to preserve Enlightenment values (albiet imperfectly). This is why both the EU and US have come out as saying it is a bad idea. It is a shame your thinking is so anti-US biased you simply don't get it.

The WTO found against the US in it's attack on Antiguan gambling sites, and yet despite this the US still continues to censor those sites. It's doing so without even the law on it's side.

Your argument is laughable. Because the US banned Antiguan gambling sites the Internet should be handed over to a voting block heavily influenced by Iran, Saudi Arabia, Russia, China and other paragons of a free and uncensored Internet. You simply have no idea about what you are arguing for. It just seems you are aguing against the US, but don't really have a decent perspective on the overall issue (nb: I'm not a US citizen, so don't bother with the ad-hominem).

Oh, and by the way. The Antiguan sites were shut down because they were involved in $3 billion dollars worth of fraud and money laundering. A trivial Google seach would have shown you this. Notice how the US also leaves plenty of other gambling sites alone - ya know, the ones not involved in laundering for international criminals. Again, you are so happy to hate the US you don't even bother to check the reason the US shut down those sites (and just as importantly, left all the other gambling sites in the World alone). Perhaps you should take some time to examine your own bias (which leads you to accept facts without looking at the counter-argument in case it has validity), and also take the time to do research rather than simply bash the US (despite it being very fashionable these days by the poorly informed).

So now that your flimsy *censorship* argument has been shot down, do you still think it is a good idea to hand the Internet over to voting blocs that would ban *all gambling* (not just the criminal launderers) ? ya know, like the Islamists? to have an anti-US bias so strong as to not consider a reasonable when it has been presented is pretty lame. Handing the Internet to countries far worse than the US is a complete mistake.

Re:Really?

[Xest]

It looks like Slashdot is losing posts again as I actually posted a response to this yesterday pointing out that your attitude is exactly that of the far right. You talk of defeating Nazism yet seem oblivious to the fact you're exploiting the exact same politics Hitler did - you're focussing on a specific minority group and using that as your target of blame to stir populist and nationalist resentment against it to push your cause. I don't think you realise quite how hypocritical this is.

I find you somewhat of an enigma because on one hand you seem to know a decent bit about programming, and you claim to have been, or still are, an astrophysicist. Both of these things require a basic understanding of logic, and yet your post borders so very dangerously on the fringes of the far right - which is inherently illogical, and irrational.

But I'm going to go out on a limb, and make a few points in the hope you'll think about them and what they mean in the context of your argument because if you do have the background of an astrophysicist you should be able to see the problems with your viewpoint given these points.

You live in New Zealand, a place pretty much untouched by terrorism, and pretty far from places that are affected. You view Islam as a problem because as you say you feel it affects you the most. I believe this has distorted your view that whilst yes, New Zealand's biggest threat from a religious grouping probably is Islam, in other parts of the world it's quite a different story. I live in the UK, and the most recent terrorist attacks here have been Islamic - 7/7, the 21/7 attempt, the Glasgow airport attack and so on. Our most significant terrorist attack is from Islam also, make no doubt about that, yet I don't single out Islam as being inherently worse than other religious. Why is that? Well, in my lifetime whilst Islamic terrorism is in most recent memory, throughout my whole life I've seen more people killed in this country and more terrorist attacks by Catholics fighting as the IRA against the Protestant unionists, but attacking even English soil and civilians to put pressure on the British government. The Protestants themselves have committed terrorist acts against the Irish also. The problem is that the Islamists are still small fry in terms of terrorist acts committed in my own backyard by Catholics, so why despite the most recent attacks should I view Islam as the bigger problem? If you look at the global picture it might be fair to argue that it's all irrelevant compared to an atrocity on the scale of 9/11 where 3,000 people died, but then what of the 1995 Srebrenica massacre, where again, Serbian Catholics massacred in the most brutal way possible 8,000 muslim civilians? This was only 6 years before 9/11 so can hardly be written off as ancient history or any such thing. Coincidentally just yesterday the BBC had an article on how there was a distinct lack of Islamic extremists coming from India despite the violence they have suffered at the hands of Hindu extremists, and despite the fact that they have a population of 180million there. Also, realise that in Lebanon, the Christians tend to actually side with Hezbollah and the Islamists against the Jews in Israel, rather than support the secularists who simply want peace. Anders Breivik in Norway certainly wasn't a muslim and his was probably the single most effective terrorist attack in Scandinavia ever - he modelled himself after the Christian crusaders as a templar.

Now I don't personally like religion much at all, I think it's for fools, people too stupid to see the obvious fallacies it relies on and the complete lack of evidence that exists for it's most fundamental teachings (i.e. that of a god, or gods), but I simply can't agree with your view that Islam is somehow deserving of being singled out. I agree parts of the text are disturbing, but the Bible is really no better. The problem is that bad people will find an excuse for their bad actions whatever the case - Hitler didn't even need to really use a religion much, he ju

Re:Really?

[Xest]

"Yes, but *you* miss the point (hence your disingenuous 'weasel words' yourself). The US-led voting bloc (that is, countries sharing Enlightenment values) is outnumbered by the countries of the Non-Aligned Movement combined with the Islamic countries. Just look at the content of many of UN resolutions, they all go against what the US would like."

What resolutions and where? Different parts of the UN are different, the ITU doesn't use majority voting so I don't understand what the relevance of your point is here. The elements of the UN where majority voting is used are non-binding on other member states anyway. The UN was set up to facilitate handling of international issues with the recognition that it could only ever work if it worked for each individual member state. This is why countries like Israel can choose not to be members of the IAEA and hence have to declare their nuclear arsenals. It's also why any general assembly majority vote for pro-Islamic ideals is meaningless to the West, because there's no onus on us to implement them.

About the only place where things can be outright imposed on countries is the security council, which has vetoes for opposing blocks for good reason. The Islamic voting blocs have no power to prevent US veto here, nor do they really have anything of a say.

You attack me, insult me, and say I don't get it, but I do get it, which is why I'm not worried - you seem to view the UN as some monolithic single organisation where everything is decided and imposed by majority vote. That's not even remotely true.

"Oh, and by the way. The Antiguan sites were shut down because they were involved in $3 billion dollars worth of fraud and money laundering."

So censorship is okay if ICE makes up an arbitrary excuse? If this is true why didn't ICE officials just chase it through Antiguan courts? Antigua isn't some backwater corrupt country, it's very modern and arguably less corrupt than nations like the UK and US. Wouldn't it make more sense to go to the source of the problem and actually catch the criminals and get the money back than arbitrarily censor a website? Do you feel that if ICE says something, it must be true? that they'd never be wrong?

You harp on about me being anti-US yet I'm wondering if you actually read my original post here. I made it quite clear that my first preference is that the US retains control but ups their game and stops with the abitrary domain seizures and censorship. I stated that ITU control should only be a last resort of the US fails to sort itself out and recognise that the internet is international, and not it's own private entity to do with as it wishes. If I was anti-US as you so repeatedly claim, why would I state a first choice preference of the US retaining control? why wouldn't I suggest it goes straight to the ITU without even considering that?

Your entire argument seems to be based on fallacies - false understanding of how the UN works, false appeals to authority as ICE being incapable of doing wrong, false attacks on me as being anti-US and wanting removal of US control above all else.

When your whole argument is propped up on fallacies, what do you think that says about your argument?

Go read my other response to you, and understand why your fear of "the Islamists" is clouding your judgement, and exacerbating your unfounded paranoia on this issue before you bother to post again. You're being irrational, your arguments are based on unsound premises. You say you're an astrophysicist, you of all people should know that science requires your findings to be built on a sound basis, treat this discussion like a scientific one, cut away the populist paranoia filled tripe, and actually come back with points that make sense and are based on an actual understanding of the likes of the way the UN etc. work. Arguments based on falsehoods don't cut it with me, because I do understand how organisations like the UN actually work and so forth.

Re:Really?

[Seeteufel]

You are free to watch these things at home but honestly...

Re:Really?

[SplashMyBandit]

Do you feel that if ICE says something, it must be true? that they'd never be wrong?

Prove that the Antiguan sites were blocked for *censorship* reasons. That is the thrust of your argument. Yes, ICE could lie, if so it should be easy for you to prove it in this case. Can you prove that those sites were innocent? can you prove that they were censored for presumably political reasons? do you believe that that sites should be blocked/taken down if they are involved in international criminal trafficking?

I'm a New Zealander and I'm disgusted the way that my Government has kowtowed in the Kim Dotcom case, and in how the US has behaved. However, he ain't no saint - his site was designed to support piracy. It is a slippery slope between MegaUpload and Google but the difference is *intent*. There are plenty of emails captured (maybe not legally, but that is moot) that show he and his staff encouraged use of the site for piracy. You need more than a fig leaf to defy the law.

We can agree the US should up its game. I'm glad you clarified your position. You may have been thinking in your head that handing over to the UN is a last resort, but that is not what your posts said (I just re-read them). Your posts talk about how the US seized legitimate web businesses and you made the assertion that this was for censorship reasons of some kind (including economic competition I guess). This is false. Please accept this.

and understand why your fear of "the Islamists" is clouding your judgement,

I don't *fear* the Islamists (by this I mean, Hamas, Iran and the Salafis - if you know the differences). What I do is *listen to what they are actually saying* and *watching what they are actually doing* in the court of public opinion, the UN, and in the countries of the World (eg. Bulgaria, Thailand, Georgia, Argentina, India etc etc if you don't know the significance of each of these countries then you haven't been paying attention and shouldn't be commenting about something you don't know about). Now your argument seems to be that because various parts of the UN have no power to enforce resolutions without either a majority or consensus then that means everything is will be ok. Weak argument, IMHO. Even bogus resolutions have been increasingly used for propaganda purposes and have been used to shape public opinion. This has been warping the situation around the world for some time now - and resulting in increased problems and deaths. Just look at the facts and then look for the numerous bogus UN resolutions or commission reports (the Goldstone report being a classic case of assertions without evidence being swallowed by the UN, and then used as if it was factual, even though it was easy to disprove). Then look for the consequences of these bogus UN resolutions or reports - they are inflaming situations around the globe. Shitty internet governance decisions at the ITU will have an impact far greater than the simplistic strictly legalistic interpretation you are talking about. Plus, all it takes are some small changes to the ITU rules and you are in a world of trouble (the same cannot be said for the US, the Free Speech rights in the Constitution that cannot be trumped). These are some of the reasons why the EU, US and people like Vint Cerf are opposed to this move (and I am too).

You're being irrational, your arguments are based on unsound premises.

Nope. You don't understand the Salafis at all and haven't been watching them at work. It is not simple paranoia on my part, it is careful observation from multiple sources, plus the enlightened observations of folks like Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris and Pat Condell that have been pointing out the differences between what the Islamic World say (ya know, the dudes that want the ITU change and have been trying to get criticism of religion equated with hate speech), and what they say in their own languages and behind closed doors. Have you done th

Re:Really?

[SplashMyBandit]

You have me wrong. I'm not from the Far Right, I vehemently reject the ideology of the Far Right, and I vehemently reject extremists as you do. In fact, I'm a lefty, but that doesn't mean I lack a spine and will turn a blind eye as most lefties do. What I'm arguing for is to recognize evil for what it is and nip it in the bud, before you and I, or our descendants have to go and do what your grandfather did.

The reason I pick on Islam is because in the last two decades that has become the religion that seeks to impose its will in a violent manner in far more instances than the other religions. This is undeniable. What is also undeniable is that this has become a trend for the worse - thanks to the spread of Wahabism and Salafism taking over from 'moderate' Islamists.

I too have come around to disliking all religions because, thanks to the insights of Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins I've now aware of what is going on in the World. I urge you to listen to what Christopher Hitchens and Dawkins have to say. They are not saying it because they want to hate Muslims. They say what they say because the West is being lied to - both by the propagandists of Islam (where lying is legitimized through a principle called 'taqiyya') and by the Westerners themselves - who mistake Islam as a religion in the same vein as Christianity, Hinduism, Judasim etc. Islam is not, it is a combination of religion and political system, and the commandments of that religion are to take over the World (as I keep saying, go and Google the commandments in the Qur'an; they are actually worse than the disgraceful barbarism of the bible). Before it was less of a problem, the Wahabbi, Salafi and Iranian agenda has always been to spread their flavour of Islam throughout the World. The problem now is that vast gobs of Saudi money have now gone to preaching this and this is why this extremism is spreading so rapidly: from the Arab Sudanese killing the animists in Sudan; the Afghan Taliban and the Pakistani Taliban; the Hamas; elements of the Brotherhood; jihadis still operating in Iraq; jihadis now operating in Syria; Hezbollah; the Chechens; etc etc You can't fight and sustain wars without money, and most of that is coming from the Saudi vs Iranian power play now going on as they strive to first defeat each other in a stealth conflict, and then spread further afield.

From Britain have you not seen the Muslims from your own country shouting, "Death to America! Death to Israel! Death to Britain!". Did you not realise that your schools all serve halal meat in their canteens. Surely you also know of the Sharia courts operating in parallel to your existing courts. Of course, you have read the Qur'an and hadiths and realise that Sharia is completely and fundamentally incompatible with the modern rights of women and homosexuals. Then there is the polygamy that is being legalised in Europe - but only for Muslim men, since they are special and don't have to obey the same rules as the rest of is (to try and apply Engligtenment values to everyone is 'culturally insenstive' don't you know?). Does this not concern you at all? You do realise what we are seeing now is the 'thin end of the wedge' and that no amount of appeasement will stop the incessant demands and progressive Islamicisation of Britain. I have zero issue with Muslims apply their own standards to themselves in the own countries, but when it becomes imposed on others that is where I feel I need to stand and make a statement. There is nothing Far Right in this at all.

Actually, it is worrying that you automatically assume that anyone who defends Enlightenment values is automatically seen as Far Right to you. The Far Right may end up in a similar position, resisting the progressive Islamicization of Britain, but their route to get their is completely different (and IMHO, disgustingly racist).

Don't fume about whether I'm right wing or not (I'm not, I'm like Christopher Hitchens and Pat Condell, instrinsically lefty but infuriated with the moral corrupt

Re:Really?

[Xest]

"Prove that the Antiguan sites were blocked for *censorship* reasons."

What are you on about? It doesn't matter what the reasons were, the fact is it was censorship. Or are you saying that prevent access to information arbitrarily defined as illegal is somehow not censorship?

I suppose you could argue that it's "good" censorship and start going down that path, but then you have to admit that you're not actually for an open internet and actually for an internet that's censored against someone's subjective morals but however you cut it it's censorship.

"I'm a New Zealander and I'm disgusted the way that my Government has kowtowed in the Kim Dotcom case, and in how the US has behaved. However, he ain't no saint - his site was designed to support piracy. It is a slippery slope between MegaUpload and Google but the difference is *intent*. There are plenty of emails captured (maybe not legally, but that is moot) that show he and his staff encouraged use of the site for piracy. You need more than a fig leaf to defy the law. "

Ah so here's my answer - you actually aren't for a free and open internet, you aren't actually for justice, you're saying that if someone feels something is illegal because of "intent" it's actually okay to censor.

I wont bother with the rest of your posts as it's more of the same anti-Islamic paranoia. I don't think you recognise the hypocrisy of your position though, you say you're for a free open internet, but then you suggest that censorship is actually okay in some circumstances, and you justify this to yourself by trying to pretend it's not censorship.

cenÂsorÂship /ËsensÉ(TM)rËOESHip/
Noun
The practice of officially examining books, movies, etc., and suppressing unacceptable parts.

If seizure of said gambling domains is not censorship, then please tell me what it is, as you appear to have a completely different definition of censorship to the rest of the world.

I think you need to accept that you're not actually for a free and open internet, but simply for the status quo, where the US is the only place that gets to decide what to arbitrarily censor, and that the rest of the world should live by the US' morals, both the good ones, and bad ones.

This does at least explain why you're continuing to argue against me on this point when I am for a genuinely free and open internet, something you claim you are meaning we should agree, yet for some reason you don't. You don't agree because you want a censored internet in some circumstances.

Re:Really?

[Xest]

"You have me wrong. I'm not from the Far Right, I vehemently reject the ideology of the Far Right, and I vehemently reject extremists as you do. In fact, I'm a lefty, but that doesn't mean I lack a spine and will turn a blind eye as most lefties do. What I'm arguing for is to recognize evil for what it is and nip it in the bud, before you and I, or our descendants have to go and do what your grandfather did. "

Sorry but this makes no sense, you may want to think you're a "lefty" but you're spouting far right views and pushing far right politics.

You talk about nipping evil in the bud, and that your focus is on Islam because it's been the biggest problem for the last 20 years - where exactly? In Africa I think you'll find far more people have died to Christian extremist groups, in India more people have died to Hindu extremists. You've got a very ethnocentric view of the world.

You talk about the most violent teachings of Islam taking over the moderates, where is your evidence? The 180million muslims in India certainly haven't been taken over, you just don't hear about them precisely because they're getting on with their lives peacefully, despite Hindu terrorists attacking them.

You talk about groups like the Chechens as being examples of dangerous muslim extremist groups, but you do realise that they're actually the victims of violent Russian oppression right?

"From Britain have you not seen the Muslims from your own country shouting, "Death to America! Death to Israel! Death to Britain!"."

Yes, there's also a bunch of far right extremists known as the EDL running round cities, causing riots, and harming innocent non-muslims and destroying their property. The EDL have actually caused far more damage than the Islamic protesters have.

No one however caused as much damage as the mixed-race, mixed-culture gangs did with the riots, or as students did with student loan protests however. Maybe we should fight against students too?

"Did you not realise that your schools all serve halal meat in their canteens."

Well no, they don't. Some offer it as an option. It's called multi-culturalism, we have a multucultural society here in the UK, far more so than most countries. Perhaps that's why we're more tolerant and recognise that different communities have different problems, and that it's not all just about Islam.

"Surely you also know of the Sharia courts operating in parallel to your existing courts."

Yep, but because of the overriding laws of this country people are only bound by them if they choose to be. Are you suggesting we shouldn't give people the freedom to practice their beliefs if they choose to?

"Of course, you have read the Qur'an and hadiths and realise that Sharia is completely and fundamentally incompatible with the modern rights of women and homosexuals."

Yes, I'm also aware that the Church of England recently voted against equal rights for women and consistently fights against gay rights for homosexuals. The Catholic church is even worse again on these issues.

"Then there is the polygamy that is being legalised in Europe - but only for Muslim men, since they are special and don't have to obey the same rules as the rest of is (to try and apply Engligtenment values to everyone is 'culturally insenstive' don't you know?)."

Again, but only if the women consent. They cannot be forced into it. Again, are you suggesting we should not allow women to make their own choices? The EU clamps down very strongly on enforced and arranged marriages- a lot of money is being poured into preventing that. You could argue that they should allow it for other reasons for fairness purposes, but other religions don't want it for their followers.

"Does this not concern you at all?"

It concerns me about as much as people with far right ideologies like yourself do. You're worrying, you're annoying, but ultimately you don't yet have enough of a foothold to be too much of a concern. This is changing somewhat as the far right in the UK and Eu

Re:Really?

[SplashMyBandit]

You keep mentioning the likes of Dawkins and I do follow him often, he's not saying a lot of the things you're saying. You seem to be hijacking his points and twisting them for your own ends, I can't say I listen to many of the others you mention, but if you're doing the same with them as you are Dawkins then it doesn't add the weight to your argument that you think it does. You talk about listening to the Iranians, which ones exactly? The ones that have desperately trying to fight their government to liberalise their country? Omid Djalili a famous British comedian who makes light of these sorts of issues because he recognises the sillyness of the likes of Ahmadinejad? You're trying to tar all Iranian's with the brush of the likes of Ahmadinejad - again, this is why you are pursuing far right politics, you're generalising against entire groups of people for your own political ends.

How do you listen to Dawkins and not hear what he has to say? he is against all religions (as am I). He considers Islam to be the most dangerous of them, as do I. With regard to the Iranians. I know plenty personally. I think they are cool and have much to be proud of. However your view is too simplistic (a common theme in your argument). It is not the cool Iranians I'm talking about, it is the Pasdaran and Quds (you know who these are, right?), and the fact they export terror. You keep banging on about how peaceful the Muslims in India are. Well, Muslims are constrained when they are dominated by 800 million pissed off Hindus (who are heartily sick and tired of their fellow Muslims - which you would know if you followed what many Hindus say since they had to resist Muslim aggression for several hundred years).

I believe that good inherently always wins out, because if something like a mass Islamification of the world were to ever become close to reality then people like me would, as my grandfather did against the nazis, fight for our freedom, but again, there's no real threat from that from Islam right now, not even close, and again, in contrast, from the far right, there absolutely is.

Lol. You are wrong. Look at the numbers. With the exception of Russia, there are a few tens of thousands of right wing dickheads about. I'll be generous and give you one hundred thousand active fskers in Europe (again, excluding the massive problem in Russia). There are 1.6 *billion* Muslims in the world and every Friday the majority of them are exposed to shit like this:
Your mistake is thinking this preacher is an extremist. He's not. He is following the mainstream Muslim view that you can find from Birmingham to Jakarta. I have to keep saying it because you keep missing the whole point. Don't listen to what I say, listen to what they say. Have you got that yet? no, you are fixated on me and trying to ad-hominem me so you don't actually have to do any work and go and find out what the Muslims are actually saying. Intellectually lazy.

I believe that good inherently always wins out, because if something like a mass Islamification of the world were to ever become close to reality then people like me would, as my grandfather did against the nazis, fight for our freedom, but again, there's no real threat from that from Islam right now, not even close, and again, in contrast, from the far right, there absolutely is.

With 1.6 billion and growing you think that leaving it until the last minute to protect your freedom will work? The US doesn't believe so and they are much much stronger than puny Britain. Chamberlain's strategy didn't work in 1938 and only a fool would think the same mistake would work now. No wonder Britain is progressively being colonized without a fight when there people too lazy to do the research, let alone stand up for encroachments on their existing rights.

Consider this - replace muslims/Islam with jews/Judaism and recognise that your argument is exactly that used by Nazi apologists in the

Re:Really?

[Xest]

I'll step out now as you've merely descended into another mindless rant laced with insults, and more lies and falsehoods.

You're obviously too far lost in your far right mindset, so I guess there's really any hope of rationality from you at this point. If you can't see why the rise of the far right through politics in nations with some of the highest defence expenditure in the world and nuclear weapons fitted on global delivery systems (Britain, Russia, and France) is a bigger threat than a bunch of angry people living in abject poverty in nations like Saudi Arabia whose military is only a signature in the Whitehouse away from losing the funding it requires to survive turning the nation and it's leadership into the latest target of the arab spring then you really aren't capable of having this discussion.

It's just a shame that you have become exactly what you claim to preach against - an extremist, and that what you claim to argue for, internet freedom, you don't actually want.

Re:Really?

[SplashMyBandit]

I'll step out now as you've merely descended into another mindless rant laced with insults, and more lies and falsehoods.

Please do.

If you can't see why the rise of the far right through politics in nations with some of the highest defence expenditure in the world and nuclear weapons fitted on global delivery systems (Britain, Russia, and France) is a bigger threat than a bunch of angry people living in abject poverty in nations like Saudi Arabia whose military is only a signature in the Whitehouse away from losing the funding it requires to survive turning the nation and it's leadership into the latest target of the arab spring then you really aren't capable of having this discussion.

These countries are powerful but *regional* players. As a European they loom large for you - but for most of the rest of the world they are insignificant. They don't matter a whit on the *global* stage because their power projection is limited, and they don't have the will to dominate the globe. What matters is who is most likely to reach out and affect ordinary people in the places they live and work, or when they travel. The relative insignificance of Britain, France and Russia is of the same order as China, which is the regional nuisance here (with its neighbours getting bullied by its imperialist agenda in the South China Sea, which is real, unlike your theoretical postulations).

Certainly a country taken over by the far right would be very bad. I don't think it is very likely in Britain or France. Yes, the right gets in but they usually become centralised slightly once in office. Plus, in order to implement your fears they need to eliminate their political opposition. It's just not going to happen in the way it did 80 years ago. In Russia, well they've always been dodgy and they are destroying any moderating opposition. However, the probability of this happening is still lower than other threats that are already in motion - and the US still has the power to cotain Russia (the US defensive missile program gives more options without having to resort to MAD, and the Russians know this which is a good restraining factor).

It's just a shame that you have become exactly what you claim to preach against - an extremist, and that what you claim to argue for, internet freedom, you don't actually want.

Utter codswallop! You keep projecting attributes on to me that are assumed and completely false (just like your complete ignorance of New Zealand, and then the clueless insulting of a country and its inhabitants you have little real idea about; at least I've been to Britain numerous times, have you ever been to NZ and seen how diverse and inclusive it is?). Unfortunately it appears your mode of debating is to continually project strawmen on to people, and then knock your projection down. It appears you still have not listened to the (progressive, not fascist!) references I keep talking about (and I keep talking about them because your strawmen would be destroyed if you did the research - and then we could progress the debate in a rational and informed manner).

I'm not an extremist at all, I simply follow the line of reasoning of esteemed progressive thinkers like Hitchens, Dawkins, Harris (and the slightly more rabid, but factually correct Condell). But please don't let me spoil your (dare I say, extreme) delusions about an imminent return of imperialistic fascism or your delight in characterising someone trying to get you to do some *basic research* as an extremist :)

But...

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

As for those claims that we have a crack team of ex-Ma Bell billing experts working on proposals to better 'monetize' the internet and ensure hilariously usurious returns on 'investment' by incumbent telcos? Well, now, I never disavowed that...

Re:But...

[icebike]

If all they were trying to do was monetize it, we could hold our nose and probably live with that. If that was ALL they are trying to do.

Re:But...

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

Oh, I'm pretty sure that he is lying, but he isn't even bothering to pretend on the extortionate gouging part of the agenda...

Re:But...

[Anonymous Coward]

Bell (in both the US and Canada) is, and has been for a long time, a billing company that just happened to provide telecom service as a side effect.

As a result, it is horrifically inefficient at actually providing service.

This is not a good model for the Internet. There is so much data being passed in so many directions that you'd end up with more infrastructure and corporate overhead dedicated to monitoring and billing than to the actual task of sending that data. Everyone's costs would skyrocket.

Please move along

[grumpy_old_grandpa]

"Nothing for you to see here, please move along, folks"

Unless you say something negative towards Mohammed

[Anonymous Coward]

Prove me wrong.

Noone has any intention of erecting a wall.

[Anonymous Coward]

N/T

Re:Unless you say something negative towards Moham

[Anonymous Coward]

Which Mohammed? The pedophile? The bigamist? The mass murder? Oh wait, that's the same Mohammed. Fuck Mohammed and the camel he rode in on.

It's already controlled like fucking hell.

[Anonymous Coward]

By terrorists and corrupt assholes:
The Internet cancer.
The rotten and corrupt Domain Name System.

Re:It's already controlled like fucking hell.

[Anonymous Coward]

Kimmo, you are not fooling anyone.

Reality is they are doubling down...

[blahplusplus]

... on media secrecy. Techdirt has more here:

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121201/01525121195/doubling-down-secrecy-itu-believes-secret-media-strategy-key-to-avoiding-sopaacta-fate.shtml

Re:Reality is they are doubling down...

[multicoregeneral]

Right. I think it's fair to turn government logic back on them in this case. If they are telling the truth about their intentions, and they are not doing anything the public would object to, then why the secret meetings and media silence on the whole thing? Since they're being secretive and quiet, one can only reasonably assume that they're up to no good, and that they need to be monitored.

Re:Reality is they are doubling down...

[The Archon V2.0]

If you've done nothing wrong you have nothing to hide.

(...)

It's a matter of national security.

Re:Reality is they are doubling down...

[Jason Levine]

Classic Saying: If you've done nothing wrong you have nothing to hide.

ITU's Version: We've done nothing provably wrong if we've hidden it well enough.

High priests of do nothing

[h8sg8s]

Is this the same ITU that wanted to charge me $1200 for a single binder of doc back in 2007? They view information as power and want to install themselves as the high priests. Control the Internet? I think not.

Why bother denying the obvious?

[WaffleMonster]

"'We must continue to work together and find a consensus on how to most effectively keep cyberspace open, accessible, affordable and secure"

Lets see it still costs me > $1/min to make international calls.

It costs me nothing to transfer information over the Internet to any destination in the world.

The consensus appears to be ITU "continuing" its march into irrelevance as the Internet eventually replaces the telephone network.

Re:Why bother denying the obvious?

[mikael]

Long distance and national phone calls are charged at a higher rate as it is the simplest way of getting businesses and wealthy people to subsidize the maintenance of the local telephone network.

Re:Why bother denying the obvious?

[BlueStrat]

Long distance and national phone calls are charged at a higher rate as it is the simplest way of getting businesses and wealthy people to subsidize the maintenance of the local telephone network.

It's also a dis-incentive to the peoples of different regions to develop close, regular contact, thus promoting social and cultural divisions based on fear, ignorance, hatred, and mistrust. The more divided people are, the easier they are to control.

The internet has exploded far beyond expectations in almost every metric, and this threatens the entire current power structures of both governments and commerce worldwide. Depend on the powers that be attempting to control what and who is on it and how it is used. It's the single greatest threat to tyranny and despotism to come along in centuries. Of course that all depends on, as Ben Franklin said to a woman who asked him about the freshly-minted US Republic, "If you can keep it!"

Strat

Re:Why bother denying the obvious?

[butlerm]

Long distance and national phone calls are charged at a higher rate as it is the simplest way of getting businesses and wealthy people to subsidize the maintenance of the local telephone network.

That is why they invented progressive income taxes. No need to stunt commerce and communication too.

Re:Why bother denying the obvious?

[Anonymous Coward]

Seriously, someone on _Slashdot_ spent a mod-point to mod the parent "Overrated" for cautioning against the very sorts of things TFS is concerned with? The very sort of internet-freedom-killing things that Slashdotters always get up in arms about? WTF?

Really?

I gotta call "shill-mod" on this one.

Re:Why bother denying the obvious?

[Anonymous Coward]

One of the inventors of the telephone system was actually run out of a city after demonstrating the telegraph in front of an auddience. The crime was "performing illegal communication between two cities".

Re:Why bother denying the obvious?

[delt0r]

It costs me nothing to transfer information over the Internet to any destination in the world.

You get a free internet connection? If not then i don't think nothing means what you think it means.

Re:Why bother denying the obvious?

[mcgrew]

You get a free internet connection?

Sure, there are free hotspots in a lot of places.

Re:Why bother denying the obvious?

[BlueStrat]

One of the inventors of the telephone system was actually run out of a city after demonstrating the telegraph in front of an auddience. The crime was "performing illegal communication between two cities".

Things got quite weird and interesting for a while in the very early days of radio as well, until, much like now, all the governments got together to craft treaties to clamp down and control who had access to, and what was said over, the airwaves.

Just as is happening now with the attempts (and successes) at placing ever-more controls, restrictions, and intrusive monitoring on the internet, reasons were trotted out such as controlling chaos, crime, maintaining the publics' "moral turpitude" and more, as justifications for the governments of the world to seize control of this incredible new medium of instant long distance communication without wires.

The US then created the FCC who, as George Carlin famously quips, "...decided all on their own that radio and television were the only two areas of American life where the First Amendment didn't apply. What, are these people out of their fucking minds!? There are two *knobs* on the radio: One of them turns it OFF, and the other one *changes the station*!!"

I mean, I could be wrong, but damn if it doesn't look to me a whole lot like history, in general and with all things being equal, is repeating itself here with the internet.

And why wouldn't it? Wireless instant communications across borders in the case of radio/TV scared the bejeezus out of the world's leaders, and the internet is a all that times Chuck Norris as far as it's threat-potential to tyrannical/authoritarian leaders, despots, and regimes, and their propaganda programs that keep the people under control and producing.

And that's not to mention the force-multiplier it provides an abused population resisting and combating an authoritarian government that is cracking down on them.

Strat

Well, almost free speech

[Anonymous Coward]

From the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 29:

  (3) These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

So your freedom of speech on the internet will not be abridged unless you are critical of or oppose the actions of the UN. Sounds fair to me.

Re:Well, almost free speech

[Hal_Porter]

Fuck the UN

/BRB, Black Helicopters

Re:Well, almost free speech

[reboot246]

There you go, telling the truth about the UN's view of human rights. They really don't want people reading all the way to the end of that charter. None of your rights is safe with the UN, but fools continue to trust them and defend them (our holy leader Obama being one of them).

Re:Well, almost free speech

[Anonymous Coward]

They really don't want people reading all the way to the end of that charter.

So that's why they posted it publicly on their webpage and it's mirrored in numerous other places? Yeah, sounds like they are totally trying to hide things.

Uhm...

[Black Parrot]

Some proposals could permit governments to censor legitimate speech — or even cut off Internet access

I presume he means "more than already" ?

Re:Uhm...

[iluvcapra]

Shorter Vint Cerf: Some proposals would actually allow sovereign governments to enforce their sovereignty, as bad as that may be.

Nobody would support the UN forcing the US government to do anything; it's funny when we're shocked that Russia or China would insist on being able to regulate cables and boxen that operate on their own frigging soil.

Of course governments can censor speech and cut off Internet access, that's their prerogative. Or are we working from the idea that the Internet is actually greater and more important than any government, and that the laws of a state (democratic or not) are not binding upon it? How do you think an American government would react if it was told by the UN, or Mexico, that it was forbidden from arresting undocumented migrants, because such action would infringe upon an individual's absolute freedom of movement, as protected by some UN declaration of human rights?

Freedom is a good thing, freedom of speech is a good thing, in the US we are blessed to have a national polity that respects it. The Internet can allow it to flourish in other places too. However, any goodwill for your cause is likely going to be depleted twice over if people in Iran and Burma come to believe that, as shitty as their government may be, actual decisions that govern their virtual life take place in Marina del Rey, and it wouldn't matter who was running their country. They'd call it imperialism, and they'd be right.

Re:Uhm...

[Microlith]

Shorter Vint Cerf: Some proposals would actually allow sovereign governments to enforce their sovereignty, as bad as that may be.

Yup, and that's a bad thing. No accommodations should be made to make things easy for censorious, oppressive governments to act in such a manner. All the burden should be on their end, rather than worked into some sort of legalistic framework ripe for abuse.

Of course governments can censor speech and cut off Internet access, that's their prerogative.

But is it the prerogative of the people in that country? Or is it a government acting unilaterally for the sake of retaining power? Should we be accepting or tolerant of that?

How do you think an American government would react if it was told by the UN, or Mexico, that it was forbidden from arresting undocumented migrants, because such action would infringe upon an individual's absolute freedom of movement, as protected by some UN declaration of human rights?

This is an idiotic comparison.

Mexico/UN: Hey, stop arresting and deporting people who bypass legal channels to enter your country!

vs

US: Hey, stop fucking with the internet in your bid to silence opposition and retain power over the populace of your nation!

No, if anything there should be protocols put in place to ensure that no one could ever be sure that information was being cleanly filtered, to the point that the only option for these countries would be to vanish from the net entirely, and suffer the requisite economic damage for doing so.

Re:Uhm...

[iluvcapra]

No accommodations should be made to make things easy for censorious, oppressive governments to act in such a manner.

I don't see how this principle could stand, without forcing nation-states to submit their laws to the UN (or Vint Cerf for that matter) for approval as "sufficiently non-oppresive." Let alone your proposal for Internet trade warfare -- do you really think denying Amazon.com to the people of Shiraz is going to get them to turn against the Basij?

Hey, stop arresting and deporting people who bypass legal channels to enter your country!

The whole point is that undocumented migrants don't see it that way, to them, la migra is the oppressor trying to force them to eat lizards at the Nike factory in Matamoros, when they could be earning a small fortune mowing lawns in San Antonio, working for people who are falling over themselves to pay them. The idea that a state has the right to use force to prevent this or that case of economic migration is, SURPRISE!, very contentious and a source of genuine dispute between nations and peoples.

Guess what: the US has "legal channels" for keeping out the wetbacks, Japan has "legal channels" for torturing dolphins, Germany has "legal channels" for suppressing political parties, just as Egypt has "legal channels," for the very same thing. Who are international diplomats, university academics, let alone foreigners, to pass judgement on any state?

This is more than a little like Niemoller principle -- it's easy to attack repressive regimes, but if you come for the freedom of North Korea to make its laws, where does it stop? Does the US get an out, because everything it does is obviously virtuous? And how do all the other nation-states feel about that rather clubby arrangement?

Re:Uhm...

[tqk]

Shorter Vint Cerf: Some proposals would actually allow sovereign governments to enforce their sovereignty, as bad as that may be.

Even shorter: why should we care about sovereign governments? We should care about individuals. Screw the cartels; all of them!

Re:Uhm...

[Xest]

"But is it the prerogative of the people in that country? Or is it a government acting unilaterally for the sake of retaining power? Should we be accepting or tolerant of that?"

It's up to the people of that country to do something about it. It's a painful situation to watch sometimes, seeing people oppressed by their government, but as things like Iraq have taught us, intervention can be so much worse. Saddam's use of chemical weapons and so forth to kill 5,000 odd civilians was sick, but was the situation worse than the best part of a million people who died as a result of America's intervention there?

Compare this to say, Egypt, Libya, or Tunisia, and yes blood was spilt, but far less than through external intervention and the inevitable power vacuum that that causes.

Re:Uhm...

[Seeteufel]

Supressing parties? You mean the Communist Party or the Reichspartei ruled unconstitutional in the 1950ths? Look, the sovereignty principle is fine but the ITU is actually a corrupt and geriatric telecom cartel. The WCIT is a world conference of states. One of the proposals says that ITU-T recommendations become binding for members.

Re:Uhm...

[Seeteufel]

International law is based upon sovereign states which coexist. Article 2 of the UN Charta. If you don't like your government feel free to get a new one. If you don't like your state feel free to proclaim a new one. Unfortunately most governments don't like the idea of sovereign citizens or secession as the US civil war demonstrates.

Re:Uhm...

[iluvcapra]

Note that you've shifted the argument from "the Internet," to "individuals," as if The Internet and the decisions of any Internet regulatory body were somehow equivalent to, and deserved the same high standard of protection as, individual rights.

As if the present governing institutions of the Internet weren't a cartel? An intensely pro-western one at that, and where you see the Internet fighting for individual rights, more than few others see it as a club that works to expand western cultural hegemony. It's like nuclear technology -- you can tell Iran that their government is obviously warlike and unworthy of nuclear weapons, but the government comes right back and says that what the UN really wants is to make Iran prostrate before the incumbent nuclear powers. Predictably, the Iranian people, the people whose freedom we supposedly cherish and are doing all of this for the benefit of, side with their government, because even though they're evil bastards, at least they're Persian evil bastards and they don't dress up condescension with hypocritical pieties about "rights" and "self-determination of peoples."

Re:Uhm...

[iluvcapra]

I have no kind words for the ITU, but any replacement that attempts to breach national sovereignty, under the cover of "International human rights" or any idealistic conception, is apt to be counterproductive and a net negative to world peace and the rule of law.

Re:Uhm...

[Seeteufel]

Actually that turns the argument.

Re:Uhm...

[tqk]

I'm not advocating violent revolution. All I'm saying is governments only exist because we individuals generally agree that they can be of some use to us. That's what's important; not what politicians or bureaucrats or rulers want. Their opinions are irrelevant. If our governments aren't focussed on that, then they need to be redirected so that they are.

Educate your elected representatives, or swap them out for someone else who can be.

Re:Uhm...

[iluvcapra]

Awesome, now go to the UN and tell Indonesia that's why you're banhammering them from the Internet unless they stop censoring YouTube.

That's the GPs point, that the Internet (read: US political appointees and telecom consortia) has the right to cut off any country it pleases if they exceed some standard of illiberalism. It has nothing to do with how a country is governed, places like Indonesia or the UAE have really popular and democratic despotisms.

Re:Uhm...

[sveinungkv]

Of course governments can censor speech and cut off Internet access, that's their prerogative.

Just to be 100% sure here: You are arguing that governments have a right to to censor speech and cut off Internet access (like I have a right to shoot a robber that breaks into my house during night and attacks me), not that are able to censor speech and cut off Internet access (like a gang of robbers can kill you and steal your stuff)? Your talk about sovereign governments and prerogative makes me suspect you view it as a right. If I understand you correctly: What is it, in your view, that give a government (or organization of governments like the UN for that matter) that right?

Re:Uhm...

[Seeteufel]

UN means 180 states and developing nations officials get bribed, that is the only reason why they participate.

Open, accessible, affordable and secure?

[AHuxley]

Q: What is the difference between the US and UN controlled internet? Both guarantee freedom of speech.
A: Yes, but the USA also guarantees freedom after the speech.
ie Open, accessible, affordable - sounds like a trap to get you online.
The secure sounds like easy tracking at any point along the network.

Re:Open, accessible, affordable and secure?

[alexo]

the USA also guarantees freedom after the speech.

In theory.

But we all know that the difference between theory and practice is much larger in practice than it is in theory.

And this case is no exception.

Decentralize it, only way to be sure

[magic maverick]

I've said it before: decentralize it, it's the only way to be sure. The USA govt. at the moment (via the Dept. Commerce) has effective control over the generic domain names. And they use that control. They shut down websites for all sorts of reasons, including accidentally. They shut down websites that are operating in foreign countries, hosted in foreign countries, and don't even target US citizens. Oh, but they happen to host links to copyrighted material. Or they happen to be doing a perfectly legal thing in their own country, e.g. providing DRM breaking tools, or online gambling, but which isn't legal in the USA.

And people think that the ITU is some how going to be worse? It would be different, but I can't see how it could be worse (you couldn't get all the countries to agree anyway, and if the USA really cared, they could just veto stuff; I think the ITU operates on a consensus model). (Fun fact: the ITU is older than the UN, and the previous League of Nations; it was setup back in the 1800s.)

Still, the best solution is to decentralize. Perhaps a web of trust; I trust this person (these people) and they (a clear majority) say that this domain resolves to this IP address. Actually, the domain name system is already a trust exercise, with people choosing which resolver to go with (e.g. I currently use Google's 8.8.8.8 as I can't remember the local one, and I'm not sure I would trust it more than Google anyway), and the resolver ultimately choosing a root.

So why can't we decentralize it more? Come on people, I know there are lots of smart people, get together and work out an alternative DNS and make it really easy for everyone to use. And make it not be in the hands of anyway. Perhaps a federalized system. But remove control from governments and corporations and give it back to the people, just like God intended when he created the Internet. (Also more people use FreeNet please.)

Re:Decentralize it, only way to be sure

[Anonymous Coward]

With the US controlling things, you get shut down for CP, and IP violations.

Now, take the same control and hand it over to the UN. Your domain can get taken not just for IP infringement, but:

Insulting a head of state.
Blasphemy (and this is more than one religion). This can easily be used to get anti-religious sites, or sites critizing an extreme arm of a sect or cult off the Internet.

When the UN takes control of the Internet, it will be the lowest common denominator, which virtually makes it open season on all websites. A Shia site critical of a Sunni group's actions can be flattened just as one who criticizes leadership in Thailand.

So far, the US isn't great, but there is far worse...

And we have not gotten to the fees yet. Once the UN realizes that extorting domainholders for fees is lucrative, that means another party, immune to the control of any country, now appears on the scene to dictate to other people what to do.

Re:Decentralize it, only way to be sure

[jbolden]

There are lots of alternative DNSes. But you don't need an alternative DNS all you need to do is start running DNS services and

a) Use whatever rules you want
b) Get other people to use your service instead of the ones you are objecting to.

It is perfectly anarcho-democratic. Everyone votes everyday with the DNS settings what DNS they want.

Re:Decentralize it, only way to be sure

[Anonymous Coward]

I think there has to be some form of central authority or else it will be necessary to reinvent one.

Remember the reason mankind accepted leaders in the first place was to resolve disputes. If two parties are fighting over something, the only way to have any hope of something approximating fairness is for the two parties to bring their case before an adjudicator with the authority to enforce a judgment.

We already have institutions that have been doing this for centuries. They are currently poorly adapted to some issues in modern communications systems. However that doesn't mean that reimplementing a sort of prehistoric tribal rule in digital form is a good way forward.

I believe that the way forward is to reforge our existing social compromises for the new systems. The way you do that is to think about what rights and protections you want to have, then think about what circumstances would make it difficult to argue that your preferred rights are respected, then come up with mechanisms that try to make allowances for those situations while otherwise preserving your preferred rights.

Re:Decentralize it, only way to be sure

[Kjella]

I've said it before: decentralize it, it's the only way to be sure. The USA govt. at the moment (via the Dept. Commerce) has effective control over the generic domain names.

But as far as I know each country manage their own country domain so they don't have a monopoly on domain names. That's why TPB moved from .org to .se and they're hardly less popular because of it. That's roughly as decentralized as you can get without terrible headaches with namespace crashes where my "slashdot.org" is different than your "slashdot.org" - you'll be destroying the one Internet where everyone can reach the same sites and restore many of the old borders Internet has been tearing down. Imagine just how crazy email would be if I couldn't write a domain name and know it'd be delivered to the right domain, or that I couldn't get email from all over the world without registering with hundreds of DNS services. Yes, ideally the US should have been banished into edu.us, gov.us, and mil.us but beyond that it's a good system.

I have a very simple proposal that would clearly show beyond a shadow of a doubt what this is about. Grant the UN their own .un domain and let them try to build their "freer" Internet. I mean, you can't possibly become less free with more choice, right? Unless of course your agenda is something completely different, like giving people less choice. Compared to all the pundits in the UN the ICANN has been remarkably hands-off about who gets a domain, that the US courts use the opportunity to cease things under their jurisdiction is so but I doubt UN domains would get any "special global" status, I think more that it'd be shut down by any member of the UN that wants it shut down. That all they can do is yell and scream at YouTube and not pull its domain has been the best way to bring free speech to all the countries that don't want it.

Re:Decentralize it, only way to be sure

[Anonymous Coward]

But it's not just CP/IP. You can also get shut down for things including, but not limited to:
  - Carrying information deemed to be "propaganda" for groups hostile to US interests
  - Selling holiday flights to Cuba
  - Publishing information that the US gov't deems 'classified'
  - Running an online casino

This vaunted 'freedom of expression on the Internet' has only ever been as deep as the government wanted it to be.

Re:Decentralize it, only way to be sure

[tbird81]

And that would be one hell of a lot worse under the UN.

The thing about United Nations (other than it's just a junket for corrupt has-been or wannabe politicians) is that some of the nations are fucking terrible.

Re:Decentralize it, only way to be sure

[Anonymous Coward]

Smart people have. One group decided that the general structure of Bitcoin was good for this so they created a fork called Namecoin. A truly decentralised DNS has been operating for about two years now.

Unfortunately, those that are good at building this sort of framework are not usually good at marketing it or making it easy to use. The system currently reports only 70000 registered domain names and just 4 public DNS servers.

Re:Decentralize it, only way to be sure

[Anonymous Coward]

But you don't need an alternative DNS all you need to do is start running DNS services and ...

In other words:

You don't need an alternative DNS, you need an alternative DNS.

Re:Decentralize it, only way to be sure

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah but namecoin is stupid.

Re:Decentralize it, only way to be sure

[harlequinn]

Some nations are terrible. But the US controlling the internet hasn't stopped them being terrible.

Many of these nations already do all the things people are worried about happening.

Re:Decentralize it, only way to be sure

[Johann Lau]

"You don't need an alternative DNS, you need an alternative DNS server"

What do you not understand about that?

Re:Decentralize it, only way to be sure

[argStyopa]

I actually agree with most of your point, but this caught my attention:

"...And people think that the ITU is some how going to be worse [than the US's current control of the internet]? It would be different, but I can't see how it could be worse ..."

Seriously? You don't see how it "could be" worse?
Are you being naive out of sheer ignorance, or simply disingenuous based on US-loathing blinders?

The UN had a 'Human Rights Commission' for SIXTY years with members such as People's Republic of China, Zimbabwe, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Algeria, Syria, Libya, Uganda and Vietnam...

If you 'can't imagine' how a UN-controlled internet 'could be worse' you're not really trying terribly hard.

Re:Decentralize it, only way to be sure

[magic maverick]

Depends on how it is "controlled". If it is like the security council, all the major players (rather, the five major winners after WW2) get a veto. In which case the US can veto anything they don't like, keeping it like it is now. Right? If it's like certain other UN organizations, and operates on consensus, then any player can veto anything they don't like. That means fewer changes, and keeping things the same, that's what you want isn't it?

I doubt very much if it would be like the general assembly where only a simple majority is required.

But yes, I could be wrong. I saw a news article yesterday which suggested that it could be really awful.

Re:Unless you say something negative towards Moham

[Anonymous Coward]

and the camel he rode in on.

Yeah, he probably did.

Steely Neely said it best.

[sconeu]

"If it isn't broken, don't fix it".

She's an engineer at heart.

Re:Steely Neely said it best.

[Mashiki]

This is the UN. Their motto is: "If it's not broke, break it." Followed by: "If it has money, pillage it." And "If there are small children, send in the soldiers so they can rape them."

Let the UN and ITU run their own Internet . . .

[PolygamousRanchKid]

. . . and leave the rest, as-is.

And then see which one folks use.

Re:Let the UN and ITU run their own Internet . . .

[Scorch_Mechanic]

Folks will use the internet available to them, as dictated by their residence in European countries or elsewhere. They may "choose" their internet by moving to another country, and that's not a realistic solution. Your assertion that people have a choice between UN internet and "other" internet is false.

Don't trust coercive monopolies on violence

[Anonymous Coward]

"How do you tell a government official is lying?" "His/her lips are moving." Governments always grab as much power as they can, and give as little back in return as they can get away with.

UN is even worse - an entity immune from intergovernmental competition, therefore there is no frame of reference. Tyrants like Hitler, Stalin, and FDR can keep each-other in check to some degree, but tyranny on a global scale would be impossible to escape!

What we need is a more decentralized Internet that is outside of all governmental control: no DNS monopolies, no cable/phone monopolies, no "net neutrality", no taxation of online sales, no limits to free speech.

--libman

Re:Don't trust coercive monopolies on violence

[The Master Control P]

"Tyrants like Hitler, Stalin and FDR"

If the credence I gave to your post were plotted as a function of how much I'd read, at this point there would be a discontinuous step to zero.

Re:Don't trust coercive monopolies on violence

[lgw]

Well, FDR did do some crazy shit, like making it illegal for Americans to own gold so that he could cheat on the currency (since no citizen could now redeem the bills for gold), and attempting to remove the SCOTUS as a check on federal power. Not in the same league as the others, to be sure, but certainly the same direction.

Re:Don't trust coercive monopolies on violence

[Anonymous Coward]

FDR obviously came to power in a much different place and circumstance than Hitler or Stalin, so his opportunities for tyranny were rather limited. Still, here's a brief summary of his resume:

Lying to get elected - he ran on a limited government platform. (Even Ayn Rand voted for him in 1932!)

Prolonging the "great depression" (which was caused by socialist policies in the first place).

Vastly expanding Federal power, particularly the Executive Branch.

Putting "undesirable minorities" in concentration camps.

Vastly reducing economic freedom and civil liberties.

Forcing Japan into war through a blockade.

Preparing to nuke Japanese civilians.

Outlawing private ownership of gold.

Etc, etc, etc.

--libman

Re:Unless you say something negative towards Moham

[Anonymous Coward]

You should put a graven image of Mohammed in a jar of elephant piss. The way the Moslems will flip out would be hilarious. Then we could glass their countries and be done with Islamic barbarism for good.

Never believe anything until it has been officiall

[etudiant]

Bismarck said: Never believe anything until it has been officially denied. Presumably Mr Toure's comment qualifies as an official denial.

That would be a change

[Anonymous Coward]

Under the current US-centric regime, the Internet is controlled.

At least to the to the degree that the United States Government wants it to be controlled.

Well, that proves it:

[Hartree]

"'Nothing can stop the freedom of expression in the world today, and nothing in this conference will be about it,"

Well, if it's not possible to stop the freedom of expression in the world, then nothing enacted or done by a government or international body can do that.

Therefore, the great firewall of China, the network shutdowns in Egypt, Syria, etc by definition didn't stop the freedom of expression. Because, that would be impossible.

Thus nothing that we could consider can stop freedom of expression. So we are free to do anything we want, since going by what the Secretary General said, it can't stop freedom of expression. Q.E.D.

Move along, nothing here to see. These aren't the droids you're looking for.

Think it won't be interpreted that way by some? Just wait until any of various repressive countries use this to justify saying "The Secretary General says our restrictions don't stop freedom of expression."

At best, Ban Ki Moon should be a little more careful about how he phrases things. Surprising, for someone who is as experienced a diplomat as he is.

Re:Well, that proves it, I'm making mistakes:

[Hartree]

This wasn't Ban Ki Moon that said that, it was the ITU Secretary General Hamadoun Toure.

That's what I got for posting while running a fever.

Yea...

[Larry_Dillon]

I'll believe that when when we have built-in end-to-end encryption off all Internet traffic by default, get rid of mandatory (CALEA) backdoors in telecomm equipment and get equal privacy for electronic communications.

the translation..

[Anonymous Coward]

"I'm pretty sure that if we say now that we intend to curb internet freedom we'll get lynched by the masses, better that we take enough freedoms generally until that’s not an option and then start the curbing."

The big issue has been how it's billed

[isdnip]

As to censorship, the ITU never proposed censoring the Internet. That's not their bailiwick -- national governments can and do censor domestic Internet access, and the ITU can't stop them. Nor can it force a government to do anything. The US can simply declare an Exception to an ITU rule and it doesn't apply here. Enough bilateral Exceptions and the ITU is irrelevant.

I did read the more controversial proposals. What a lot of countries wanted was to treat the Internet as if it were telecommunications (it is seen in the US as the content of telecommunications, not the telecommunications itself) and to apply telephone call-like charging to packets. So if somebody in Benin or Fiji downloaded a movie from YouTube, their country would receive payment from YouTube. In many countries this would go to the government, supposedly to pay for the network facilities but of course many of these countries are remarkably corrupt...

And unlike a phone call, where the party who dials the call pays, Internet payments would be made by the side sending the packets, even if the other side asked them to. This would of course probably cause YouTube and other high-volume information sources to shut off access to those countries. Not censorship per se, but pay to talk.

Other proposals on the table are technically unworkable, but then the old PTT (post-telegraph-telephone) guys who dominate ITU-T don't understand how the Internet works (very, very tenuously).

"Legitimate" Speech

[Darkness404]

Any talk about "Legitimate" speech is on the same level as "Legitimate Rape". All speech is legitimate, though, clearly the UN and most of its members do not.

Don't believe me that the UN classifies political dissent as non-protected? Just look at their "Universal Declaration of Human Rights" http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml#atop where it says Article 29: (3) These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

Do we really want people controlling the internet who in their own "bill of rights" basically say you don't have these basic, "universal" rights if you disagree with us?

Dude I'm serious

[Anonymous Coward]

One day you'll be doing something productive like posting to 9gag. Then you hear this faint sound that goes something like "turka turka turka." You go "wtf was that?" listen, hear silence, go back to your rage comic.

Then.

Out of fucking nowhere, "Allah akhbar, balalalala!" and a Boeing 747 crashes into your gaming tower.

Sorry, but I'm really really skeptical about these Muslim pigfuckers getting ANY kind of say in how the internet works.

Power Grab!!!

[CHIT2ME]

I see this as nothing more than a power grab by the ITU and the UN. If they want an internet that they can control, let them build their own!

Legitimate speech? Excuse me what?

[xtal]

There's the problem.

All speech is legitimate. If words threaten you so badly you can't refute them on their grounds; well.. the truth is a bitch.

As far as I can tell, the USA is as close a bastion of true free speech as exists, and that right hasn't been molested too badly. I do not want my internet in the charge of those who would seek to regulate in the name of "religious tolerance".

All words should be read and judged on their own merits.

Screw the ITU.

Re:Legitimate speech? Excuse me what?

[Anonymous Coward]

hear, hear!

Re:Legitimate speech? Excuse me what?

[alexo]

There's the problem.

All speech is legitimate.

If only the world was so black and white.

Is false advertisement legitimate?
Is libel legitimate?
Is fraud legitimate?
Is perjury legitimate?
Is publishing private data (say, the username/password to your banking site) legitimate?

They are all subsets of "speech", you know.

Re:Legitimate speech? Excuse me what?

[xtal]

[quote]
Is false advertisement legitimate?
Is libel legitimate?
Is fraud legitimate?
Is perjury legitimate?
Is publishing private data (say, the username/password to your banking site) legitimate?
[/quote]

In the moral sense.. all words are indeed legimate. You are free to refute or counter. I admire the American ideal of freedom of speech quite highly and it is unique.. and it is very much part of what makes the internet special.

Re:Legitimate speech? Excuse me what?

[Seeteufel]

Try the defense with Mr. Manning.

"secure"

[CHRONOSS2008]

there's your lil misfit word....to have secure internet one must place undue controls on it to monitor and make impossible anonymity.
I would argue its that insecurity that makes the internet so vibrant.
YOU all know the risks and you all know that "shit" happens now and then and thus that's how it is.

OR it should be. I will further argue however that i would rather the net in the UN'S hands then the USA. WHY? LOOK at the direction the USA is heading...it isn't democratic...besides all nations on earth have or should have a say rather then one nation that is bribed and bought out by corporations that consistently see lawsuits and evil short term gains over there nations that spawned them.

WELL think of canada's minority govts as how the un will deal with stuff, if you like the net the way it is now think how 192 nations are ever ever gonna agree...and thats the rub i say go for it. we cant do any worse.

Evil

[Anonymous Coward]

ITU is Evil in two ways:

1. It is part of the UN, let the experts decide, see how well that did with Climate

2. It is always on the industry+government side

MFG, omb

Really, yes Really

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you know humans forget pain quickly, the last part of the CCITT as it then was (run by the French out of Geneva, CH) is X509 Certificates, and they are part of the reason why consumer cryptography didn't take off as in M$ Outlook/Exchange.

Want a laugh, look at X400 email, clueless, an address is longer than this post!

This is the UN third world idiots AGAIN.

The answer is what my old Texas flying instructor used to say in the 50's. Fcuk off, in fine pitch!

MFG, omb

Watch what hey do...

[QuietLagoon]

Watch what they do, not what they say they are doing.

.
In the end, what matters is not what has been said, but the laws and resolutions that have been passed.

Watch what they do, not what they say they are doing.

Curious language.

[Anonymous Coward]

The freedom of the internet IS controlled. By who depends on where.

When's the last time you had privacy?

It would be cheaper and more effective if we stopped being dicks to other countries... period. Leave them alone and fix ourselves.

I thought government was about governing. The bit missing is governing the will of the people. not the governing OF the people. Am I wrong in this?

Re:Curious language.

[Anonymous Coward]

Am I wrong in this?

Yes, now bend over bitch.

There is nothing to be confused about.

[Anonymous Coward]

The speaker was being mendacious. Boldfaced, blatant lying is how politics work these days. Rarely do we see the efforts at artful vagueness that dominated the politics of an earlier era, because the latest crop of rich-and-powerful have learned that there is no penalty for direct prevarication.

So they lie to our faces, then do the exact opposite of what they said they would do, and rather than hold them accountable we reward them with even greater wealth and power.

It is a good gig if you can get it.

open?

[Anonymous Coward]

How can something be open AND secure?

of course not

[kenorland]

Of course, they won't "curb Internet freedoms". They'll simply "outlaw dangerous speech", "protect the faithful from being offended by blasphemers", "create taxes to compensate creative organizations like newspapers", and "track online use to protect children". But no Internet freedoms will be harmed. Right.

BULLSHIT

[Anonymous Coward]

Everytime some politician says something like that, they are full of it. It ALWAYS ends up getting changed under peoples noses, or those politicians end up changing their minds under the guise "we have to adjust with changing technologies".

In this case they want to outlaw saying anything against Islam or Muhammad, then they will turn around and say freedom is not infringed.

"Nothing can stop the freedom of expression in the world today"

If that is true, then nothing is required for them to even meet or discuss.

We will not give them an inch, will not give them a millimeter. The Internet is our domain and the people will hold control of it by any means, just wait and see.

OMG

[Anonymous Coward]

OMG. This is a war on Christmas! O-M-G!