Slashdot Mirror
Russia and China Withdraw Bid For Internet Control
judgecorp writes "Russia, China and other nations have withdrawn proposals to take control over the Internet within their borders. The proposals, handed to the World Conference on International Telecommunications (WCIT) on Friday, caused widespread dismay and protest. The WCIT event in Dubai, run by the UN agency ITU, is working on new International Telecommunications Regulations (ITRs) which are due for their first revision since the emergence of the mass Internet. The line-up of nations wanting to formalize their power to restrict the Internet included Russia, China, UAE, Saudi Arabia, Algeria, Sudan and Egypt. Their proposal has been withdrawn without explanation, an ITU spokesperson confirmed."
I think our "friends" may have learned some tricks from here in America. Prepare for drafts with a lot of double-speak that is going to be pushed quickly and with as little media attention as possible.
So in exchange for shutting up about it, they'll probably get it officiously, thanks to nations who also want full control but didn't formally ask for it (ie, all of them?).
Or am I being paranoid?
Allowing Russia and China to have any say over anyone or anything is tantamount to giving the fox access to the chicken coop.
It'll be a very long time before world peace is achieved, but this news may have potentially cut that time by decades or even centuries.
Language, currency and cultures often divide us, but the internet is one of the things unified in this world. Long may it stay that way.
Why OpalCalc is the best Windows calc
1) Make a huge noise about implementing draconian measures.
2) Withdraw these measures after the hue and cry.
3) Propose more "reasonable" measures that will, after the dust settles, actually end up giving more control.
This is how our gas prices keep going up. They jack the prices up by a dollar, then back down 80 cents. Repeat as necessary.
"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong."
-H. L. Mencken
"Mommy, the other countries laughed at us and made fun of our idea!"
Soon, the "global internet", where anyone on the planet could request information from anyone else and have that request fulfilled, will be a quaint concept from the past, like the buggy whip, the Austro-Hungarian Empire, or color-blind hiring. Internet fragmentation is coming, indeed it MUST come, as it fits the needs of so many, so well.
Think about yourself - when's the last time you needed something from .ru or .cn? I got to the point where I outright blocked everything from .ru as I had zero legitimate (English-language) users and all spam from that country. Not trying to be racist, but that's how it was. What happened? Spam accounts went from 10 per day to 3 per month. Legitimate conversations on my website were not affected at all.
They'll just do this on a national level instead of international. You have to realize that there is real harm that arrives from the unfiltered internet. Racism, sexism, hegemony, all these concepts are enabled by technology. How many young boys have heard the story of the underage sex fiend John McAfee, and decided that he's an ideal male? Merely because he's been portrayed as a "rebel" and a "fugitive from authority"? You have to realize that these are heady words that have a great effect on youth, especially those raised without role models. This is what countries fear, and quite rightly in my opinion.
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
Good - It should not have been submitted it in the first place...
This summary is slanted and biased: "proposals to take control over the Internet within their borders". The text "within their borders" has been added by the submitter - the word "border" isn't even in the document that text links to.
Countries already have control over the internet "within their borders", just like they have control over everything else within their borders. They were seeking control *outside* their borders, to force outside companies to have to pay them to deliver content. What these countries are wanting (among other things) is the ability to force content producers, like Google's YouTube, to have to pay their ISPs in order to be able to deliver content at a "quality" level to their citizens.
In other words, there are countries that want the US to have to pay them so their population can consume content created by the US. If Google deems it wise to invest in a country's infrastructure so that more people in that country can (for example) watch YouTube videos at a certain level of quality, then that's Google's prerogative. They shouldn't be forced.
Better known as 318230.
The cast of countries that submitted this proposal all share a common trait of disrespecting the freedom of expression of their own citizens. This disrespect is rooted in fear. These governments see their own citizenry as a threat to their own power, especially if those citizens can read anything they want on the global internet.
If you're gonna spam random internet forums, at least double check your google translate so you don't come off like a complete moron.
... whatever
F*** them all... I really could care less if I can never get to a Russian or Chinese website. They would both be riddled with spyware anyway. I say we just cut them both off the Internet in the best interest for the rest of the world.
These things always go the same way. You propose something outrageous. There is push back from people who don't want to see that happen. You withdraw your proposal, but a year or a few years later, you propose a slightly watered down version. Eventually, people get "defense fatigue" and they can't work up the energy to oppose it any more. Finally you get your way, and then you can work on ramping it up to the level you wanted to begin with.
It WILL happen. It always does, when authoritarians get involved. The same will happen with SOPA. Or just look at DRM - it's now ubiquitous and everyone just accepts it in their phones and iPads. 20 years ago that would have been unthinkable. It just matters that you boil the frog slowly.
To be honest I don't see why the UN would have to be involved in this to begin with. If China, Russia plus various Islamist countries are so concerned about content on the Internet, exactly what is stopping them from deploying their own parallel DNS system within their borders? If they want to set up their own non-ICANN sanctioned .com, .net and .org root servers and then force their ISPs to use those I'm sure they can do it already without UN involvement. Sure, they will invoke the rage of their citizens and probably a lot of international companies that depends on properly working Internet connections but in the end it's their own problem. If they are so dumb they think it will solve anything then I say; go for it!
When I visited a friend in Czechoslovakia in 1985, he had just installed a very expensive ( for him ) satellite dish so he could watch West German TV. Now the Internet makes it easy to watch and participate. Even with heavy censorship closed societies can no longer control the ongoing discourse. Closed society can mean anything from China to various "self contained" religious groups.
Thank you ICANN for contributing towards this mess, with your self-serving policy of continually releasing new TLDs - most recently the generic TLD.
What purpose does this rubbish serve, apart from making ICANN more wealthy?
Other big countries see it as the US making an easy grab for money based on their control of the internet, even if barely any US citizens benefit from the countless TLDs that have now been released.
If the USA doesn't want their stewardship of the internet repeatedly challenged by foreign nations, maybe they should administer the internet with a little more neutrality. Time to rein in ICANN.
I really don't get all this "control of the internet" hoopla. The reality is that anyone can run a DNS server. These countries can run one of their own if they don't like ours. They can also put whatever firewall they choose on the lines going in and out of their countries. They already have as much control as they choose to have. What is the point of having some international governing body? I'm not getting it.
Their proposal has been withdrawn without explanation, an ITU spokesperson confirmed.
I'd guess that they've decided to sub it out to the major U.S. telco's, who will perform any act or service for the right price, no questions asked.
Please let me out, I don't want to be programmed by an exceptional sikh! No more lotion!!
Given the current economic climate it would make sense to hire people to actually *read* the content being created.
Discussion on chat:
Person1> I have these strange sexual urges...
Person2> Really? Can you t
YourHelper532131> How long have you felt this way?
There was time when everybody knew what a member of the community was thinking. There were village elderly and other highly reputable who basically maintained the social balance. How it is now? No respect for the elderly. We need back the micro-community cops but this time for the "virtual world".
Providing links to torrent sites, which is all Pirate Bay does, is not copyright violation. The US copyright lobby is totally out of control, having people extradited for breaking US laws, even when they are not in US jurisdiction and have broken no laws that apply where they live and when they did what they are accused of doing. The USA would not tolerate that being done to its own citizens for any other trivial offence, other countries should simply tell these US corporates to get fucked.
Heavy is the head that wears the tinfoil hat.
The ITU is about telecom standards that provide for compatibility of communications between carriers, and countries. If there were to be a technical standard for censoring the internet, then the ITU would necessarily be involved. The nature of the ITU working methods is that any member country could make such a proposal. That proposal would be studied for worthiness for ITU resources and for technical merit, and other proposals may be made for doing things differently. The outcome would be a world standard which would become part of the international treaty on telecommunications. Member countries are not obliged to follow these standards but they must not impede the services of those members who are following the standards. Equipment will be produced that implements the standard. The ITU rarely conducts votes. If there is significant objection to a proposal then usually it will not be considered. The ITU is not influenced significantly by selfish interest groups. The global carriers and manufacturers hate the fact that they cannot corruptly influence the ITU through campaign donations. It would be better if a common standard was applied for this than that each country developed its own method. If some countries want to implement censorship in their jurisdiction then that is their sovereign right. They may have very good reasons, and it is none of our business to attempt to stop it. Personally, I would like to block any sick sites that sexually exploit children, support terrorism, or show non consensual sex or violence. I think this should be done using an international standard.
Heavy is the head that wears the tinfoil hat.