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.
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.
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.
The problem being that 'regime change' just creates a bigger mess. Look at Egypt right now, it was a bit messed up, now it's it's seriously messed up. Same with the French revolution. Same with Iraq and Iran.
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.
Which is fine, they can already do this.
Let them have their own IP based networks. Nothing's stopping them now. The technology's freely available.
Meanwhile, the rest of us will use the interconnected networks on which we can largely do as we please. When we can't, we'll switch to other interconnected networks.
The cat's out of the bag. Either you allow connected networks or you don't, and you can already make that choice.
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.
Reminds me another country that supports revolutions and even invades foreing countries for "freedom of people" too.
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!
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.
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.
Why shouldn't they indeed? But, what is a country?
If it is the leader, dictator, government, bureaucracy, then indeed they can and will set the rules, and they will need the valves on the intertubes available to them to control the flow of information - ideas, values, concepts, the like.
But if a country is to include the people, then perhaps the people will want to know things, things other than those approved of and delivered by their dictator, government, bureacracy.
The current Internet is already so ubiquitous that cutting off a country results in an immediate acknowlegement that the people of that country have been denied access to the most important and powerful forces we have - ideas, information, values, and the like. It seems, to me, that the ITU is being used by many countries' powers to regain control and be able to suppress the people even more efficiently. That alone is reason enough to oppose this, but the leaders of this movement are themselves potentially some of the least trustworthy and most likely to misuse these powers.
The US may not be blameless or without fault, but we should tell these other countries that if they find it necessary to exert this level of influence and control over the Internet, they should do so within their own borders, and leave us out of it please. Just have their ISPs rearchitect their systems, and give them the cutoff and isolate switch. No need to get us involved.
The second greatest attraction of freedom is its existence elsewhere.
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.