Slashdot Mirror
Russia, China, and Others Seek Greater Control Over Internet
kodiaktau writes "A proposal put forth by Russia, China, Saudi Arabia, Algeria, Sudan and the United Arab Emirates seeks greater international control and government of internet addressing. 'A leaked draft (PDF) of the Russia-led proposals would give countries "equal rights to manage the Internet including in regard to the allotment, assignment and reclamation of Internet numbering." This could allow governments to render websites within their borders inaccessible, even via proxy servers or other countries. It also could allow for multinational pacts in which countries could terminate access to websites at each others' request.' The move would basically undermine ICANN and decentralize control of internet addressing: 'The revision would give nations the explicit right to "implement policy" on net governance and "regulate the national Internet segment," the draft says.'"
Well, I knew it was coming. No "free" source of information can remain free forever. Here's to hoping they fail.
Control of internet numbering.. so these countries don't want to move from IPv4 to IPv6 to aid in their controlling of device / service blocks?
Take Nobody's Word For It.
From the official speech delivered by the ITU's secretary-general at the first Plenary of World Conference on International Telecommunications in Dubai last week:
We have the power to create a brave new world, where social and economic justice prevails – together.
And no, that quote is not taken out of context.
Donate free food here
Instead of opposing it and then caving in, The western world could rip a page off the dictatorships' book: "the proposal has merit, but it has to be studied thoroughly: We could form a committee with ,oh, all the countries in the world, chaired by a non aligned country, Tuvalu [internet domain: *.tv], and wait until they come with a legal and technical proposal behind which a qualified majority, for example enough countries representing 95% of world population and internet domains, gathering at least 85% of the number of countries involved, could be found. Do you mind if we of the ole US of A get represented by all the 50 states individually? We know for a fast that Canada wants to do likewise, and to be fair, all the European countries have a vote each, so it would only be fair..... See you in 3.100 AD, ok? Of course, if some technical advance has taken hold in the meantime, the whole process has to be restarted."
"If a boss demands loyalty, give him integrity. But if he demands integrity, give him loyalty." (John Boyd, 1927-1997)
Now is their chanc to experience the awesomeness ofRussian and Chinese control.
This reminds me of the scene at the beginning of Serenity in which the children question why the Browncoat rebels would reject civilized living.
....ignoring the word "NO!"
It's a dictators charter, pure and simple.
Now's a really good time to tell the world where to jump off.
The current situation:
One country can implement rules to abuse the whole world. Each country can implement rules to screw over its own citizens and manipulate traffic routed though that country. Many countries already abuse their own citizens ( China, UK, Netherlands, etc. )
Without US control:
Each country can implement rules to screw over its own citizens and manipulate traffic routed though that country. Many countries already abuse their own citizens ( China, UK, Netherlands, etc. )
How can this not be a Good Thing(tm)?
Besides the part in the summary about blocking access via proxy servers is bull. Even with the deep packet inspection currently implemented in the UK they can't block VPN links which can be easily hidden in other traffic.
And I'd like a resolution that advocates regime change of these oppressive, abusive governments around the world such as in Saudi Arabia that have no legitimacy whatsoever. But hey, it's not a perfect world.
"Saudi Arabia, Algeria, Sudan and the United Arab Emirates"... So these countries proclaiming that they are supporting the revolution in Syria under the title of "Freedom of people", are now looking into more way to harass and oppress their own people (Much more than it is already)?
mmmmm.....
The Internet is basically define by the IP addresses that are reachable from anywhere. What they are really saying is that they don't want an Internet, they want local networks with government-controlled gateways.
So instead of working towards an Internet that blends everything together in a rich, international and multicultural mosaic they wish to deny everything in areas where a select, privileged few rule, creating a blander Internet that caters to their dogma. Nice way to block other people's viewpoints and thus create greater cultural, religious, and political misunderstandings.
Kings of the hill, indeed.
Why shouldn't these countries have the right to allow or disallow certain kinds of information coming into or out of their country? Despite what everyone wants to believe, countries other than those that you agree with have the right to govern their people as they see fit. Other countries can of course pressure them militarily or otherwise, but the fact remains as long as they are in power they have this right. Not every country has to be pro-internet. Not every country has to be pro technology.
With today's centralized structure of backbone connections, it shouldn't be too hard for governments to 'squeeze the pipes'. Which for most users, should do the job of blocking 'undesired' sites. I don't see why a government would even need the help of outside organizations (or other countries) for that.
Technically inclined users will be able to find ways around that. And it'll be very hard (if not impossible) to stop those users. That is, unless a government is prepared to f**k with such basics as encrypted connections. Which would make many legitimate uses (eg. online banking, webmail) impossible too. So from a government's POV it's basically a choice between "no internet at all", or "a mostly controlled internet, but with loopholes for those who know to find them".
With wireless routers becoming very common, it's not hard to imagine that some mesh networking protocol will pop up. Retrieve firmware from your neighbor (to get around what government allows to be sold commercially), upload to your router @ home, send messages around the net by passing them to a neighbor's router, that router passing it onto the next neighbor, and so forth a 100 times until it reaches its destination. All in P2P style with full use of encryption technology. Maybe not efficient (or a replacement for general web browsing), but good luck blocking that.
Now is their chanc to experience the awesomeness ofRussian and Chinese control.
You are right. The vote for the lesser evil is still a vote for evil.
They can run their own networks. Few Americans could care less if the foreigners opted out of the Internet.
Hypocrite.
"equal rights to manage the Internet including in regard to the allotment, assignment and reclamation of Internet numbering." This could allow governments to render websites within their borders inaccessible, even via proxy servers or other countries. It also could allow for multinational pacts in which countries could terminate access to websites at each others' request
The idea of internal websites within a country's boarders doesn't sound like such a bad idea. Not really sure how they would stop you from accessing it via proxy. But can't you block access via geolocation already?
The second part is what worries me - the ability to terminate access to websites at each other's requests.
What gets me here is that they are proposing rules for things that there are already solutions for - geolocation and blocking at an ISP level or government level DNS addresses which would prevent access to websites.
Basically, it sounds like governments want to setup internal sites that people in their nation have access to while limiting access to the outside internet. Aren't there already tools that alow this?
I assume your statement's laced with sarcasm.
The moral standpoint of the US and other liberal democratic countries to resist such proposals is compromised by these countries' eagerness to "censor" the Internet for something as trivial as copyright infringement. However "evil" you might think it is, copyright infringement doesn't lead to ANY civil disturbance. On the other hand, the Arabs can argue that the propagation of anti-religious media like Innocence of Muslims can trigger riots and hence pose a security threat. Similar arguments may be made by the Chinese and the Russians.
We might see such justifications as flawed. But so is the argument that sites that promote copyright infringement or the sale of fake designer goods should be taken off the Internet.
Any country is free to do whatever they want. They have full control over their territory, with the exception of some satellite links. The governments know where the international gateway nodes are located and can install any spyware or filtering software they wish. Furthermore, the governments can set up domestic social networks and other applications (as China is doing). They can set up competing DNS solutions and security protocols and distribute client software to their populaces.
I think this has more to do with others playing along, that is, having your cake and eating it, too. The Western civilization should open up the crucial fruits of their technological achievements while agreeing to withhold subversion and porn. That is overreaching. It is analogous to the West demanding that Russia, China et al. should police the West's copyright claims within their national networks.
Wow, yeah, this is right up stupid liberal neckbearded geek alley. Let's dissolve the boundaries of the digital superhighway in the Tao of global equality. Let's give jihadists as much right as the NSA, man such a great idea. Right up the yin yang!
Step 1: Pass law making it illegal.
Step 2: Make trucks that drive around neighborhood detecting "Illegal Signals" that issues "Ticket" for amount that will ruin the average person financially.
Step 3: Those who don't pay their fines and show up to court, send the SWAT team to kill their dog, their children, and themselves.
Step 4: Make the whole operation outsourced and privatized (because gov't can't do anything right and private companies can do it cheaper)
Step 5: Profit!
Notice, there is no ??? step.
Russia, China and others seek power over others. Shocking surprise. More shocking, no one trusts them enough to give them a f**king drop of it outside their borders. Film at 11 with pie charts,timelines and product placement.
*Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
how about China and Russia pull the plug on their WWW connection, and make something like a Local Area Network that functions like the internet but only inside their national borders so the rest of the free world can enjoy their internets without some draconian rules imposed by totalitarian state
in short i would like to say "FUCK YOU to the UN, China & Russia and any other totalitarian bigwigs that want to stifle free speech and the freedom to share ideas and free software, and free music and video
Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
Nostalgia aside, there are significant parallels to the wild west.
- The Internet has been a place of wide open spaces and unparalleled freedom.
- Everybody who wanted to could go stake a claim (domain name) somewhere, for next to nothing.
- If you don't protect your own turf (Web site, community, etc.), often nobody else will.
- Peddlers (Web ads) roam around selling goods you probably don't want or need, only to disappear when the goods don't turn out to be what was advertised.
- Outlaws lurk around the periphery, and sometimes roam around causing damage to established communities, or you own computer.
The wild west could not stay wild. As it became a more popular place to live, the old free-for-all could no longer be sustained. People demanded security and enforcement of laws to protect themselves and their communities. Whether we like it or not, the same thing will happen / is happening to the Internet. We must be vigilant to ensure that the new, "civilized" Internet is a place where people will want to live.
It's right there in the web address. WWW. If a site listed under WWW can't be accessed world wide, then there's no point to it.
The real goal is to require all other nations and institutions to actively cooperate with their censorship.
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
governments, corporations, churches, unions, charities, etc etc etc
none of them can be trusted, all of them are the enemy of people who just want to be left the fuck alone
http://project-byzantium.org/
https://code.commotionwireless.net/projects/commotion/wiki/Newbie_How_it_Works
https://www.torproject.org/
https://freenetproject.org/
http://www.i2p2.de/
http://bitcoin.org/
these are the tools individuals can use to subvert the control of large organizations, anonymity is the only defense an individual has against the powerful
everyone can contribute a little bit right now to ensure individual freedom into the future, the cost to be a part of the solution is as low as little bandwidth and there is almost no risk
if you want to help more for a small investment you can buy or make dedicated hardware and be part of a disaster and censorship resistant mesh network
This Winston Churchill quote is more relevant than ever:
"If you will not fight for the right when you can easily win without bloodshed; if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a small chance of survival. There may even be a worse case: you may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves."
Russia = communist = little freedom China = communist = little freedom Saudi Arabia = muslim = little freedom Algeria = muslim = little freedom Sudan = muslim = little freedom United Arab Emirates = muslim = little freedom Gee...I can't understand why these countries want greater CONTROL over the internet....hummmmmm
A tin pot dictatorship like sudan actually has the internet? There's a surprise, I thought they wasted all their money on weapons
the countries you don't want to have control over the internet.
At least it managed to disconnect its citizens:-(
Sovereign nations can do whatever their people will let them get away with within their own borders. They are also quite free to make any pact they want with any other nations.
China did not need permission to implement its "great" firewall neither did Libya or Egypt need permission to press the off switch. Countries always had carte blanche over their Internal networks and Interface with the external world.
for a small forum site. IPs from china were taking up gigabytes of data transfer every day. they were just scraping the whole forum almost daily. soon as I block a few ips, within a day or two another one started doing it. Baidu spider was a problem, but the content scrapers were something else. So in effect, they FORCED me to block the site from their people. Either that or I pay massive bandwidth costs to their robots.
Any county already has the power to "render websites within their borders inaccessible". And it happens all the time too - police cracking down on criminal sites, confiscating servers, pulling the plugs.
I for One welcome our new Soviet / Chinese / Iranian Internet Overlords!
That is, unless a government is prepared to f**k with such basics as encrypted connections. Which would make many legitimate uses (eg. online banking, webmail) impossible
It is actually trivial: require all servers their law can reach to use one of their officially-approved CAs, for security and so on, of course. Then ignore any traffic from a "legitimate' business, and get on with MITM-ing the communications with everyone else. For international messages, just block or interfere with any message to or from a user they can't MITM unless it is a recognised "good" user (i.e. big business). Problem solved, near enough.
A free internet is like a free press, writ large. If they allow a free press, a free internet is a natural. If they don't normally allow a free press, then censoring the internet is a given (or at least their portion of the internet).
how did the world get so full of assholes with nothing better to do than mess with human rights, freedom and choice?!?
Trying to control the internet like this is futile, yes they may be able to block a few sites for the average user. However, the more computer savvy will just find ways around this, as long as there is at least one pipe out to be used a hop back into the free internet, techies will exploit this using tunnels perhaps with disguised packets, fancing routing etc.
Just like no computer system is really secure all the government can hope to do is make it that bit more difficult.
Hmm. Like the p2p mesh in your neighborhoods' smart utility meters?