US Refuses To Sign ITU Treaty Over Internet Provisions

An anonymous reader writes "The United States said today that it will not sign an international telecommunications treaty thanks to the inclusion of Internet-related provisions. According to the BBC, the U.K. and Canada have also pledged not to sign the treaty in its current form, while delegates from Denmark, the Czech Republic, Sweden, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Costa Rica, and Kenya also have reservations."

Comments

Norway too

[Anonymous Coward]

Norway is also refusing to sign

Re:Norway too

[ajdlinux]

As is Australia.

Re:Norway too

[crypticedge]

America refuses to sign generates more outrage than everyone except Iran refuses to sign.

Re:Norway too

[Bigby]

As is myself [slashdot.org]

Re:Norway too

[tbird81]

NZ refuses too.

Re:Norway too

[tbird81]

Here's a list of countries that signed:
http://www.itu.int/osg/wcit-12/highlights/signatories.html

The ones in dark green (signatories) you would not want to live in.

Treaties

[girlintraining]

Treaties no longer apply to the United States. Our promises aren't worth the paper they're printed on. We've withdrawn from more of them than we've signed. Even a purely declarative treaty about the rights of the disabled -- with no enforcement provisions at all, we rejected because we didn't want to be perceived as supporting anything from the UN! And the irony is, the treaty was modeled after our own Medicare program. We've become like Darth Vader when it comes to our treaties: "I have altered our agreement. Pray I do not alter it further." I find it as absolutely no surprise they won't sign the ITU treaty... though it probably has less to do with control over the internet than the admission that something that started here is now better pretty much everywhere else but here. Mobile phones cost a fortune, our internet service is overpriced crap, and yet we cling to the idea that because we gave birth to it, it's ours. Yeah, okay mom. The internet moved out of the house 30 years ago. It has a life of its own now, and apparently, you don't even want to call and see it anymore except on birthdays and holidays.

Re:Treaties

[CajunArson]

Thanks for condensing every anti-American platitude into a single post for easy two-minutes of hate consumption. You get bonus points for using Star Wars references while citing exactly zero facts to support your arguments and pointing out exactly zero treaties that the U.S. has "violated".

Re:Treaties

[Tridus]

Not signing a treaty in the first place because you don't like whats in it is a sound and rational thing to do.

The US is doing absolutely nothing wrong in this case.

Re:Treaties

[serviscope_minor]

Treaties no longer apply to the United States.

Well, not if they don't sign. That's kind of the point. If you don't sign it doesn't apply. And they won't sign. That sounds entirely reasonable.

There are many bad things sure, but this isn't one of them. For various reasons most of the western world don't seem to want to give the ITU control over the internet, and would rather control resides with the USA for the time being.

As a non American westener, I'd agree that this is by far the best choice.

Re:Treaties

[Anonymous Coward]

International Treaty on Torture Fucking Contard.

Which we still belong to. Which is a WAR CRIME.

Re:Treaties

[Anonymous Coward]

who are the idiots voting parent insightful? did you even read the article?

Re:Treaties

[tech10171968]

FTFA: "Some countries at the table, however, have submitted proposals that would also give the UN some power when it comes to Internet regulation, which the U.S. and other countries oppose. Ambassador Kramer has been speaking out against the Internet component of the treaty since before the conference started on Dec. 3, but more than a week later, they are still included in a draft that's on the table."

Maybe you missed that part. Seems the countries opposing this (no, not just the "evil" US) are doing so precisely because no one actually "owns" the internet as it stands now. The second we allow a governing body, *ANY* governing body, to do so is the second we start seeing people get censored by tin-pot dictators wishing to cover up the evidence while committing all sorts of atrocities against their own people - and, yes, that goes for the US as well. If you look at quite a few of the countries who back this treaty (China and Russia are two of them), it's easy to come up with a list of folks who'd love nothing more than to narrow down the avenues through which information gets out, and for some pretty nefarious reasons.

I think the only reason you were modded "+5 Insightful" was because of your anti-American rant, not due to actual logic.

Re:Treaties

[Luckyo]

The types who have been following news on things like Guantanamo.

Re:Treaties

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, what an amalgam of off-topic wrong. We aren't signing the treaty. So it doesn't matter about anything else you said - as wrong as what you said was. We (and several other countries) don't want to give Iran, North Korea, China, etc. the ability to use the UN to censor the internet. This is a GOOD THING that the US, UK, Australia, Norway, etc. are doing by not validating this treaty.

Re:Treaties

[Anonymous Coward]

Yup, this seems to be girlintraining's typical mode. She makes some wildy idiotic statement and if she gets modded down, she gets all indignant. She seems to get off on how many +5 posts she can get, which is quite a few when you understand the mentality of the Slashdot groupthink.

Re:Treaties

[Anonymous Coward]

Like not signing treatys that allow you to be punished for war crimes. Then well signing into law a law that says they will invade the Netherlands and forcably remove
anyone held for war crimes. Yes, nice responsable country. The sort of views you want for a nuclear power.

Re:Treaties

[Arancaytar]

I find the US' anti-UN attitude as irritating as you do, but it's not just the US. As the summary mentions there are many other nations in opposition, and the European parliament attacked the ITU as vocally and before the US did. This move was supported and partly spearheaded by MP Amelia Andersdotter of the European Pirate Party. When she's against something concerning the internet, something just might be wrong with it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Telecommunication_Union#Proposed_Changes_to_the_Treaty_And_Concerns
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/11/24/european_parliament_votes_against_itu/

Re:Treaties

[girlintraining]

Not signing a treaty in the first place because you don't like whats in it is a sound and rational thing to do.

That's not why the treaty wasn't signed. Lay off on the koolaid; Even Jon Stewart on the Daily Show dedicated a full 15 minutes to mocking the stupidity of not signing the treaty. Even "Binders full of women" Romney only got half that time of being mocked for that comment.

Re:Treaties

[squiggleslash]

The merits of the ITU being involved in Internet protocol discussions aside, the notion that the Internet is some kind of anarchic, ungoverned, network that's not "owned" by any group, groups, or governments, is a ludicrous meme that has no basis in reality.

Every user of the Internet is governed by, at the very least, their local laws, and frequently affected, if not bound by, the laws of governments they would otherwise not normally be associated with. Content on the Internet is frequently censored, and people have suffered penalties from enormous fines to actual imprisonment, due exclusively to things they did online. ISPs are, actually, required to abide by local laws, and frequently are compelled to take a role in law enforcement, be that simply giving up names, or in some countries, filtering content and identifying people who attempt to get hold of content legislated as illegal.

Given that, the uproar about the notion that the ITU - which is hardly a political body and thus far has never made any decision you could reasonably suggest is content based - might be involved in provisioning the Internet because somehow it means the UN now governs the Internet - is faintly ridiculous. Nobody is going to deported to a dictatorship from their home country thanks to any rules imposed by the UN or ITU. And Kony (or whoever the Godwin-violation of the week is) isn't going to be able to take down criticisms of him hosted on US websites thanks to decisions by the UN.

There may be legitimate reasons to oppose the ITU's involvement in the Internet. The "If the ITU is involved, the Internet will be governed by POL POT!!!" one really isn't.

Re:Treaties

[girlintraining]

Well, not if they don't sign. That's kind of the point. If you don't sign it doesn't apply. And they won't sign. That sounds entirely reasonable.

I was referring to them backing out of, rejecting, or not acknowledging, a few dozen treaties lately, not honoring extradition requests while stealing other citizens out of their own beds in other countries without that government's consent, and withdrawing from the Geneva diplomatic conventions, etc. When you've violated so many of your own treaties (Hello, Native Americans! How 'ya doin'?) your word no longer means anything. Treaties are contracts between countries... if you don't honor them, they become meaningless.

Whether they sign or don't sign isn't the problem: It's that the signature wouldn't mean anything anyway. But I can't blame you guys for having such terminally short memories... just ask Julian Assange about international treaty law. Or did you forget about him already? :/

Re:Treaties

[girlintraining]

I think the only reason you were modded "+5 Insightful" was because of your anti-American rant, not due to actual logic.

Yes, and now I'm -1, Troll, apparently due to your pro-american rant, not due to actual logic. You missed my point -- I wasn't discussing the pros or cons of the treaty, but rather that it doesn't matter whether we sign it or not. I was mocking the idea that the United States has any diplomatic currency left to spend after we've pulled out of so many treaties and failed to sign others even when they're clearly aligned with our ideological values and would cost us nothing! We talk about how we're "world leaders" and a "beacon of hope" and the "police of the world", but it's a joke. It's total propaganda. And everybody else except the citizens here who've grown up on CNN and Fox News know that.

When I was talking about how the internet moved out of the basement 30 years ago, what I meant was that the government hasn't been directly involved in it for some time. It's already out of the control of the government -- it's being controlled by private american companies with no oversight, no laws to govern them, etc. So why would it matter if we signed the treaty or not? The government has no actual control! It'd be like me signing a contract to put you on the moon -- I have no way to deliver.

Re:Treaties

[Hentes]

The problem with disabled rights is that they are not a natural right, but requires massive governmental spending. That doesn't mean that countries are banned from implementing it, only that they aren't forced to do so. Some countries are simply not in the economic position to be able to afford that, and forcing them to spend all their money on medicare instead of trying to get out of poverty is unfair.
And the current treaty isn't really an international agreement, because many countries oppose it, not only America. And if you think that leaving American control will somehow free the internet, you are very naive. The ITU will still be controlled by politicians, the difference is that most of them will be unelected.

Re:Treaties

[Anonymous Coward]

Jon Stewart, the Comedy Central spoof news show host, really? Well, that is quite serious.

Perhaps, Vint Cerf or Tim Berners-Lee are better experts in how the Internet works, though? See Berners-Lee comments http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-20594779

Re:Treaties

[DigitalReverend]

Citations needed

Re:Treaties

[cavreader]

I support the US actions just so I can watch people like you implode in a fit a mindless rage while using half-truths and outright lies to support your ravings. The best sign the US is not all lost is it's growing reluctance to concede any decision making power to the UN which as an orgranization is worthless and should have been shown the door a long time ago,

Re:Treaties

[girlintraining]

while citing exactly zero facts to support your arguments and pointing out exactly zero treaties that the U.S. has "violated".

A correctable problem, if you'd just ask nicely instead of being a total jerk and assuming that just because I didn't list them means they don't exist and I'm therefore wrong.

List of Notable Treaties the US has withdrawn from (broken)

• Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty; Signed 1972, withdrawn 2001.
• Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention (BWC) and Draft Proposal. Signed 1972, ratified 1975, withdrawn 2001.
• Chemical Weapons Convention. Signed 1993, ratified 1997. Originally would have allowed countries to inspect other countries (including the US) for evidence of banned chemical weapons production. The treaty was modified to exempt only the United States from it.

There's also a number of treaties we haven't signed that are notable. For example, the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, Convention on Discrimination of Women (Iran and Sudan are amongst the very few countries that also haven't signed on), Convention on the Rights of the Child (142 have signed so far), Mine Ban Treaty, Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC).

There's also a number of treaties that, while we haven't formally withdrawn from or issued a statement on, we're in clear violation of and have stated our intent to continue doing so. Guantanamo Bay, for example, is a violation of numerous Geneva Conventions.

Re:Treaties

[girlintraining]

Perhaps, Vint Cerf or Tim Berners-Lee are better experts in how the Internet works, though?

They probably are, but they're not as funny, and they aren't commenting on the UN treaty about disabled people in that article.

Re:Treaties

[Anonymous Coward]

Thank you for clarifying that you have no clue as to how the Internet works, what involvement American companies have with it, and that you were off topic.

All in one thread. Kudos.

Re:Treaties

[girlintraining]

I find the US' anti-UN attitude as irritating as you do, but it's not just the US.

But I'm not talking about those other countries because I don't live in them. I live in this one, not those. And regardless of how few or many other people agree with the position, we're not doing it for the same reasons -- we're doing it because the Republicans have their panties in a knot about supporting UN actions regardless of how humanitarian and cost free the signing of a given treaty would be. So all this crap about how the ITU treaty being wrong and such may be valid, but that's not what I'm addressing -- I'm addressing the fact that the United States wouldn't sign it even if it created the perfect utopia, fed all the hungry people of the world, and cured all disease. And only that fact.

What's worse though, even if we were to sign it, it would mean nothing because of our past record of violating treaties. How many times does a person have to lie to you before you stop trusting them? The international community has to ask that question every time they look at a treaty they've signed with us now because of how many times we've backed out of something we signed because we no longer agreed with it. Well... I don't agree with having to pay taxes -- but I don't get to stop paying them. Unless, of course, I'm armed with nuclear bombs and millions of soldiers, in which case I suppose I could do whatever I want. And that's sorta the point here. Treaties signed by us don't matter -- our word is not what people are going off of anymore, it's our massive armaments.

Re:Treaties

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

If there's any entity in all this acting like Darth Vader, its other governments wanting to censor and control.

In the larger picture, there's also the meme growth mechanism lodged in most of your brains to knee-jerk run to government as solution, and only solution, such as this treaty's call for government control mechanisms for spam, which I am sure will never, ever be misused for other types of data filtering.

Spam bad. Government mass murderous. Are citations needed?

Re:Treaties

[Bill_the_Engineer]

International Treaty on Torture Fucking Contard.

I never heard of this "International Treaty on Torture Fucking Contard", and from what I can tell we only interrogated "Fucking Contards". I see where you could be upset and will do my best to get the US to start torturing these Fucking Contards ASAP.

Re:Treaties

[jythie]

To be fair, the US government does have a pretty long and distinguished history of signing agreements (or for that matter, domestic laws or, well, our own constitution) and then ignoring them if whatever administration is in power feels that the other parties can't stop them.

Not to say this is a US specific thing, it is probably a product of having enough power to ignore rules and not be stopped.. so the US gets highlight since we have quite a bit of power (both economic and military) so we end up on the 'winning' side of such violations more often then not.

Re:Treaties

[Anonymous Coward]

So you are using an appeal to authority argument using a comedian as your authority. You really have an interesting logic pattern.

Re:Treaties

[Anonymous Coward]

Hello Africa this is your bestest buddy Europe stopping by to carve your continent up and to rape, pillage and plunder all your resources. We wont go into depth about the slave trade of your people conducted by the Arabs from the north and the Europeans. Shall we go into depth about the persecutions done by those Europeans that you seem to never want to say anything bad about?? Silly, silly person placing blame on only the new comer to the worlds countries and politely forgetting about all those "others".

Re:Treaties

[Anonymous Coward]

So when China pulls the plug on its people or Egypt or Iran or.... This is fine with you? I bet these very same countries voted FOR the treaty for this very reason. The UN has been such a strong force for good. They stopped Syria in its tracks, Stopped Iran from moving ahead on its nuclear project, stopped the genocide in Bosnia, stop the genocide in Sudan and Ethiopia. Yeppers this is the best group to handle everything because they have such an excellent track record. / sarcasm Well ok I will give you Korea, they did get goat roped into that by the evil American. Oh also the Cuban missile crisis too but that one really rests on the Russians walking out.

Re:Treaties

[compro01]

I think she is going on about the "rights of the disabled" treaty in the post you're replying to, not the ITU treaty.

Re:Treaties

[Q-Hack!]

Whether they sign or don't sign isn't the problem: It's that the signature wouldn't mean anything anyway. But I can't blame you guys for having such terminally short memories... just ask Julian Assange about international treaty law. Or did you forget about him already? :/

Wasn't aware that Julian Assange was charged with breaking international treaty law. At least not yet anyway.

Re:Treaties

[VGPowerlord]

So you are using an appeal to authority argument using a comedian as your authority. You really have an interesting logic pattern

Even better, (s)he's using a strawman as well, as Tridus's "a treaty" is likely referring to the current ITU one, but "the treaty" in girlintraining's direct reply to that post is (by his/her own admission later down) referring to "the UN treaty about disabled people."

Re:Treaties

[girlintraining]

Wasn't aware that Julian Assange was charged with breaking international treaty law. At least not yet anyway.

He wasn't charged with it; He was the victim.

Re:Treaties

[bedroll]

And yet, none of that pertains to this treaty at all. There's not even a need to defend the US and its actions here, because this entire argument is a derailment of the primary one: whether or not the US should sign this treaty. Instead we're ranting about completely unrelated treaties on topics that hold no bearing to this discussion. The only tidbit of the entire rant we can apply is that the US does not always consider itself beholden to treaties it signs.

If we apply the only relevant part back to the actual topic what are we left with? Well, I would say that your standpoint is a great argument against signing this treaty. This is because any effort to hand control of the core systems that support the world wide web must be binding and complete. If the US is not going to honor those then what will happen when we have competing regulatory agencies and systems? I don't think it will be pretty.

It's interesting that the only useful nugget of that rant seems to work in favor the US actions, considering the rest of the rant is against it.

Re:Treaties

[serviscope_minor]

I was referring to them backing out of, rejecting, or not acknowledging, a few dozen treaties lately

Well, ok. Given that the original post was about the US not signing a specific treaty, you can perhaps forgive my confusion :)

Re:Treaties

[mikael]

Don't forget the Barbary Corsairs, who took Europeans as slaves.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/empire_seapower/white_slaves_01.shtml

Re:Treaties

[girlintraining]

To be fair, the US government does have a pretty long and distinguished history of signing agreements (or for that matter, domestic laws or, well, our own constitution) and then ignoring them if whatever administration is in power feels that the other parties can't stop them.

Yes, but pointing that out lands you in "-1, troll" land usually, as my OP demonstrates to great effect. In most developed countries, there's been major historical event that they lost on. Germany lost WWII. Britain was bombed back into the stone age. The French... well... 'nuff said. Poland, Switzerland, every European country has at one point been steamrollered and had to eat crow. So their sense of patriotism is tempered by the understanding that they can lose, that they have lost, and that while they're proud of who they are, they're not insensitive to the fact that they've also screwed up before.

The United States hasn't had that pivotal moment yet where it simply, unquestionably, lost. Failed. Beaten. Destroyed. It will happen, eventually, but until it does, people here are going to be highly resistant to the idea that we can screw up. They have untempered pride in their country, blind patriotism. And that's why so many people are irritated with Americans -- it's the lack of humility, it's the idea we can do whatever we want because we'll always win. But we're paying an enormous cost for this attitude; The south now resembles the living conditions commonly found in the suburbs and smaller towns of Egypt. Detroit is a wasteland full of crime, murder, and destroyed infrastructure. Several of our major cities have been reclaimed by nature due to economic neglect. Many americans are starving or close to it, and our food reserves dangerously low. People talk about the recession like it's over, but it's never been worse. Our pride is killing us. Literally. Every predator drone launched is a denied college education. It's food that could have been put on the table of a hungry family.

We need to jettison that pride, but as you can see, even here on Slashdot, that's amazingly hard for people to do. They'd rather just scream at the top of the lungs "You're wrong! You're wrong!" They're dragged kicking and screaming to the truth, and they hate me for it.

Re:Treaties

[logjon]

Good Lord. You're a raving fucking loon, aren't you?

Re:Treaties

[logjon]

Good. Fuck the UN.

Re:Treaties

[Raul654]

Withdrawing from a treaty is not the same as violating it. In international law, the rule of thumb is that a country is only obligated to comply with the laws (treaties) it has ratified, and is not bound by those that it has not ratified. (Note: One debatable exception to this is the Nuremberg Principles)

Furthermore, countries are free to withdraw from ("repudiate") any treaty at any time, unless that treaty has provisions that provide specific steps for (or prohibit) repudiation.

Re:Treaties

[SonnyDog09]

Guantanamo Bay, for example, is a violation of numerous Geneva Conventions.

Have you actually read the Geneva Convention (which one)? You should at least read the first page or two of one of them before you comment. In order to be afforded the protections of the Geneva convention, several things need to happen.

The combatant needs to be a member of the armed forces of a sovereign state that signed the treaty. They need to be in uniform or clearly marked as being in the military. They need to be carrying their arms openly. They need to be under clear military command and control. A state of war needs to exist between the two sovereign states. The terrorists in Gitmo meet none of these conditions.

If you want to be afforded the protections of a Treaty, you have to follow the rules and meet the conditions of the treaty. Here is a news flash for you: Terrorists don't follow the rules.

Re:Treaties

[Zalbik]

assuming that just because I didn't list them means they don't exist and I'm therefore wrong.

No, I'll assume you are wrong because now that you have listed them, you are, in fact, wrong:

Here's a few items you have gotten incorrect:

1) BWC is currently listed as an active treaty on the US department of state's website here. What makes you think the US withdrew?

2) I can't find any evidence that the US is exempt from the CWC. The US CWC website indicates no such exemption, and neither does wikipedia, nor the UN website on the treaty. Care to provide some evidence?

3) Withdrawing from a treaty is not the same thing as breaking it. The US gave 6 months notice of the intent to withdraw from the ABM treaty as permitted by the terms of the treaty. Saying that's the same as breaking a treaty is the equivalent to saying not paying your car lease is the same as completing the lease and returning the car.

Treaties that the US has not signed have nothing to do with the discussion, but nice attempt at moving the goalposts.

Re:Treaties

[Anonymous Coward]

Queer fuck.

Re:Treaties

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe when she gets tit's she'll behave a bit more rationally.

Wait...what am I thinking!?!?

Re:Treaties

[KingMotley]

The United States hasn't had that pivotal moment yet where it simply, unquestionably, lost. Failed. Beaten. Destroyed.

It is quite strange that you try to preach to others about history, when you don't even know it your self. Perhaps google can enlighten you if your school has failed you.

Or perhaps you were only talking about history within the last generation?

Re:Treaties

[phlinn]

Withdrawal from a treaty is not the same as violating it. The ABM treaty, for instance, had a clause requiring 6 months notice for withdrawal, which the US complied with. There were good reasons for withdrawal, even if you disagree with the final decision to do so.

BWC: from a quick search, we didn't withdraw from the treaty, but did refuse to sign on to an additional protocol for it. Maybe you have a better link.

CWC: we appear to be in the process of destroying the declared stockpile, although we missed the deadline. Where was the the treaty modified for us?

Each of the other treaties has a reason for not signing, and it's quite arguable that guantanamo Bay doesn't actually violate the Geneva Conventions. Despite what it's opponents suggest, the treaties as written only explicitly protect uniform soldiers, and the definition of a "competent tribunal" is not made within the treaty.

Re:Treaties

[Anonymous Coward]

Troll? Satire is dead...

Re:Treaties

[Anonymous Coward]

There may be legitimate reasons to oppose the ITU's involvement in the Internet. The "If the ITU is involved, the Internet will be governed by POL POT!!!" one really isn't.

What a nice strawman. Don't you mean "If the ITU is involved, the Internet will be governed by HITLER HIMSELF!!!11eleventeen"?

Just because the ITU is (supposedly) apolitical, doesn't mean they aren't going to fuck it all up, if they ever lay their hands on the Internet.

Case in point: the fucking telephone system (you know, that thing which we let the ITU have control over?). Guess what? It fucking sucks. As someone already pointed out... if the ITU had been in charge of the Internet from day 1, you'd probably pay different prices if you were sending an email to Washington or to Seoul.

You know when was the last time that giving something for bureaucrats to control ended up being a good idea? I'll tell you when: NEVER.

As you said: the Internet is anything but "anarchy"... people are still governed by their respective local laws and whatnot. So, again, why the fuck should the ITU have any saying over ANYTHING at all?

Between the known issues with "US governance" of the Internet and the unknown issues with "UN governance" of the Internet, it's very easy to choose.

Re:Treaties

[phlinn]

There are actual reasons to reject the treaty other than the fact that it comes from the UN. Just as an example, it does not have the exemptions for small business that are present in the ADA.

Re:Treaties

[stephanruby]

Nobody is going to deported to a dictatorship from their home country thanks to any rules imposed by the UN or ITU.

That's a straw man argument.

Most people worry about their own home country, that's why they'll take great care to ssh into a foreign country that won't tattle-tell on them.

And we're not talking solely about so-called "dictatorships" either. If you're a whistle-blower, or if you are of the wrong religion, or if you like to sample music from P2P, or if you're married and are having an affair, there can be negative consequences for not selecting a foreign jurisdiction to ssh-in that's more likely to protect your anonymity.

Re:Treaties

[Omestes]

Which might be true or false, but doesn't really have a thing to do with TFA. Further, the US not signing this one is a good thing. And if the US signed it, and didn't honor it, I wouldn't have much of a problem with that either.

Do you have anything to back up your claim that we're not signing this because some deep character fault of the US rather than the fact that it is a very bad treaty which erodes freedom and rights, and puts control of the internet directly in control of states with a deep tyranny streak? Lacking any evidence, this becomes a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation, which leads me to wonder if your just trying to find faults for the sake of maintaining a pre-existing bias.

Would you rather that the US ratified this treaty, just to make it clear that they lay no claim to the internet?

Yes, the US has some deep faults, and have done some deeply disturbing things in the past (not-so-recent and recent), but they aren't all bad. Also, government is an immensely complex beast, thus it is hard to characterize isn't a single bile soaked ideology. Perhaps there are voices in the government leading to this decision for the "right" reasons? How could one ever prove this either way?

Re:Treaties

[Anonymous Coward]

Convention on the Rights of the Child is a poor example, due to the US's separation of power between state and federal the US legally can't ratify the treaty in it's current form due largely to provisions about education. The applicable laws on the subject however are just as strict if not stronger, much like most of the protection under the international treaty on the disabled which was also recently not signed by the US.

Re:Treaties

[weiserfireman]

The other problem with the Disabled Treaty is it is modeled on the American's with Disabilities Act.

While the ADA has done a lot of good for disabled people in our country, I don't see any value to signing a Treaty which would essentially duplicate it. It would unnecessarily complicate the discussion about accessibility and what is required and what isn't.

Re:Treaties

[Omestes]

They probably are, but they're not as funny, and they aren't commenting on the UN treaty about disabled people in that article.

But what does a UN treaty about disabled people have to do with the topic, a UN treaty about the internet? For that I'll listen to Vint Cerf and Tim Berners-Lee, as they probably know a thing or two about the internet.

So you're saying we should sign this treaty then? Why?

Re:Treaties

[Redmancometh]

In debate they call what you said a claim without a warrant.

Re:Treaties

[Omestes]

I wasn't discussing the pros or cons of the treaty, but rather that it doesn't matter whether we sign it or not.

So a valid mod would been "-1 Off-Topic", then?

Re:Treaties

[Redmancometh]

Some here in the US carry an anti-UN sentiment, but there is far more reason to oppose this. Read the above comments about ITU ruining telecom in it's infancy.

Re:Treaties

[girlintraining]

unless that treaty has provisions that provide specific steps for (or prohibit) repudiation.

All of the treaties mentioned that had been ratified had such provisions. The United States ignored those enforcement clauses. But thank you for your legal explanation, even though I had clearly delineated those which had been signed and ratified from those that had not been ratified.

Re:Treaties

[Redmancometh]

A troll without the nword is like a snake without venom. Hilariously pathetic.

Re:Treaties

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you misunderstood the word associations slightly - the OP was angry about torture-fucking the Contards, whoever they are. If we're still torture-fucking the Contards it's probably just a misunderstanding, or else it's the fault of the dickwolves. I'm blaming the dickwolves.

Re:Treaties

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, but pointing that out lands you in "-1, troll" land usually,

This is funny, coming from someone that regularly karma whores with anti-US rhetoric.

Re:Treaties

[atriusofbricia]

You do realize that of all the treaties that you are condeming the United States for not signing have in fact all been signed except the Mine Ban Treaty? What they haven't been is ratified. Without going through every one of them the likely reasons for them not getting ratified is either that they are incompatible with American values or the system of government or that they are frankly stupid.

I can't say I feel too bad about the US not ratifying whatever random stuff the UN General Assembly spits out. The US is not governed from the UN and nor should it ever be.

Re:Treaties

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe that's a part of American culture. Who are you to judge, right? Oh, that argument only works for discussions about other countries, my fault.

Re:Treaties

[jythie]

No.. I suspect you are marked troll not for the things that are true but unpopular, and more for the rather over the top extrapolation you use them for.

Re:Treaties

[morgauxo]

Why would we need or want to sign treaties regarding civil rights issues? Don't get me wrong, I'm not against women or children but aren't those more domestic issues? These things can be dealt with through a democratic process involving elected congress writing bills or in some cases a constitutional ammendment (ie right to vote). Treaties are papers that are negotiated mainly in secret and then are rule of law even above those laws which are created through democratic means. I think we have enough problems keeping our elected congress accountable, why give more power to the appointed diplomats?

Re:Treaties

[Anonymous Coward]

She seems to get off on how many +5 posts she can get

That is a beautiful thing and perfectly acceptable practice. Everybody in /. needs to get off more, not less.

Re:Treaties

[whitroth]

Every "anti-American" platitude? Even if it's true?

The US signed over 500 treaties with the Native Americans , and didn't keep a single one.

Platitude? Or maybe you should just go back to where your ancestors came from, and hand the country back to the Real Americans?

As a part-Native American friend used to have as a sigfile, "the Native Americans had really *bad* immigration laws".

                mark

Re:Treaties

[Anonymous Coward]

Why didn't you just mention one example where the U.S. 'unquestionably, lost. Failed. Beaten. Destroyed'. Why just the insult? I'm just trying to understand. I did a Google search and couldn't find anything more than battles lost or foreign wars lost. See the problem is subjective. And if you had at least provided one example we could debate whether the U.S. 'unquestionably, lost. Failed. Beaten. Destroyed'. But you didn't and I have to wonder why. girlintraining is frequently 'out there' but you don't look any more informed in your post.

Re:Treaties

[Anonymous Coward]

So does that apply to Canada too? Because we didn't sign that crap either and with good reason.

Re:Treaties

[Quila]

Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty; Signed 1972, withdrawn 2001: Treaty was with the Soviet Union, which had ceased to exist, but we were going on an informal understanding (not ratified) that Russia and a few other former USSR states were the successor. Also, we withdrew according to the withdrawal terms of the treaty itself, so we didn't break the treaty, but followed it.

Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention: I believe we're still in that one. We just couldn't agree on an inspection protocol because we thought it could actually undermine the treaty.

Chemical Weapons Convention: An exemption, if one exists, within the treaty does not make a broken treaty, it means following the treaty with the exemption. In any case, the destruction of chemical weapons has been inspected in the US.

Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty: We have valid objections. Still, we have not tested a nuclear weapon in 20 years, so regardless of whether we have ratified we are still in compliance with the spirit of no nuclear weapons testing.

Convention on Discrimination of Women: It isn't about the rights of women, it's about radical feminism. The committee in charge of this has chastised member states for declaring a Mother's Day, and not having enough kids in state-run daycare. It's not pro-woman, it's anti-family.

Convention on the Rights of the Child: Can't work due to the federal nature of this country. Also, interferes with the parent-child relationship, for example spanking is banned. There are other reaons why it's just not a good idea. Even countries under it signed, but still object to many of its terms.

Mine Ban Treaty: In practice, we already adhere to it with the exception of the Korean DMZ, and we have helped countries around the world clear mines just as if we were in the treaty. But we're not because of the DMZ, where the point of the treaty (civilians being harmed) is irrelevant since civilians aren't allowed there and all mine locations are recorded for eventual demining. As far as future use, we no longer have any dumb mines, which are what kills civilians after a conflict. Ours degrade over time and become inert (and our policy is to record location for demining anyway). About 100% of the effectiveness of this treaty is in conflicts in which the US is not a party to the landmine laying. Joining would at best be symbolic, and still harm national security.

Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court: We pioneered this concept with the Nuremburg and Tokyo trials, so we're not against the idea, but there are serious problems with the ICC, especially with the violation of what we in the US consider to be fundamental due process rights. The risk of politically motivated prosecution is also quite high.

Guantanamo Bay, for example, is a violation of numerous Geneva Conventions: The Geneva Conventions apply to the signatories, or to a signatory country when fighting with another force that has agreed to abide by the Conventions. Those in Guantanamo are neither.

However, I don't think you want to go by the Convention. The main complaint is the fact that the detainees are there without trial, and could be there forever. If we classify them as prisoners of war under the Convention, then we can keep them until the end of the conflict, which will probably be forever. No trial, no nothing. And we can put 'em to work in the fields or the coal mines.

Re:Treaties

[Xphile101361]

... just ask Julian Assange about international treaty law. Or did you forget about him already? :/

Yes, I did already forget about him. I deemed it not worthy of my attention a long time ago.

Re:Treaties

[Steve Baker]

You're right, they're just civilians we kidnapped from their country and put forever into a gulag. That's no violation of the Geneva Conventions -- it's just a violation of decency, and probably our constitution.

Re:Treaties

[Anonymous Coward]

You're correct. The US has not declared war against Iraq and Afghanistan yet invaded both countries with military force.

Re:Treaties

[HornWumpus]

War of 1812. Canada whipped us pretty fucking good.

You never can trust 'em, always eying your beer. We should put more troops on our northern border. Perhaps a moat.

Re:Treaties

[Luckyo]

Did you just try to argue that US has no right to criticize policies of other countries? After all, it's the country that does by far the most of such critique due to it's global reach and amount of relationships because of this reach.

Re:Treaties

[Anonymous Coward]

There is much legal debate over the validity of repudiation clauses against sovereign entities, or even the validity of contracts involving sovereign entities. One detail : a government as a whole is a sovereign entity, the executive most definitely is not. Only the executive government (generally referred to in the US as "the president", in Europe generally "the king") is bound by contracts and treaties. The government as a whole (including the legislative and the judiciary) can do anything it wants, as long as certain procedures are observed. Those procedures mean that, depending on the case, 50%, 66% or unanimity of the elected representatives is required.

The consensus in America is that congress is not bound by any rule other than the constitution. If congress votes the US out of a treaty of an international treaty, they are fully in their right to do so. In Europe the situation is different and, in my humble opinion, extremely worrying. National parliaments do not have the right to violate international treaties, according to precedent. The European parliament certainly does not have that power. The problem is that the European commission, and specifically the leader of that commission, currently Jose Manuel Barroso, has the power to both impose any international treaty, and thus any law, he sees fit, and to break any treaty currently in force. While at the current time compliance with that theoretical situation is lacking at best, it is worrying that there is a singular individual that, legally speaking, has (theoretically) the power to simply declare himself dictator of Europe. While he has not done anything remotely like that, there are several cases where he has abused his position.

Plus at some point this person will be replaced, and his successor will gain the same power. Who's to say what he'll do ?

Re:Treaties

[SomePgmr]

Nah, Canadians are the best. We'd probably do just as well to invite them over for beer anyways.

Re:Treaties

[ShoulderOfOrion]

Wow, wish I could mod you up. Informative, detailed, non-political and accurate. What are you doing on /.?

Re:Treaties

[Elldallan]

Only the executive government (generally referred to in the US as "the president", in Europe generally "the king") is bound by contracts and treaties. The government as a whole (including the legislative and the judiciary) can do anything it wants, as long as certain procedures are observed.

Aside from some lilliputian states the monarch is definitely not a part of the executive, yes many European nations has monarchs as head of state(out of tradition) but they have been deprived of all political power. The only power they typically wield is through whatever influence they have over public opinion(since they are typically quite popular with the public but most of these nations have laws prohibiting the monarch from attempting to influence politics either directly or indirectly).
In nations with monarchs the executive is typically the prime minister(which is democratically elected, comparable to the speaker of the house of representatives in the US), most certainly not the monarch(which is hereditary).

Re:Treaties

[Elldallan]

Have you actually read the Geneva Convention (which one)? You should at least read the first page or two of one of them before you comment. In order to be afforded the protections of the Geneva convention, several things need to happen.

The combatant needs to be a member of the armed forces of a sovereign state that signed the treaty.

No because other parts specifically makes it a war crime to be a combatant without being a member of the armed forces of a sovereign nation.

They need to be in uniform or clearly marked as being in the military.

No because the Geneva Convention specifically makes it a war crime to attempt to not use a uniform or to cover it up.

They need to be carrying their arms openly.

Yes, anyone that is a signatory does but even non-combatants has the right to bear arms for their own protections

They need to be under clear military command and control.

No, if they are part of the military then that command and control is assumed regardless of whether it exists or not.

A state of war needs to exist between the two sovereign states.

No, there are provisions dealing with undeclared wars, the only thing that is required is that there be a military conflict which there clearly is since the US military is invading/occupying parts of another nation.

The terrorists in Gitmo meet none of these conditions.

At the very least they meets the condition of being a civilian in a conflict because the Geneva Convention assumes that there are no combatants that are not part of a military force, therefore they are technically civilians and afforded all the protections civilians are afforded under the Geneva Convention.

If you want to be afforded the protections of a Treaty, you have to follow the rules and meet the conditions of the treaty. Here is a news flash for you: Terrorists don't follow the rules.

No you don't, as long as one nation in the conflict is a signatory of the treaty the manner in which they may behave is regulated by the Geneva Convention regardless of whether the enemy is a signatory or not, some provisions are excluded when the opponent is not a signatory and/or does not follow the Convention but most provisions are still intact and apply with full force to the signatory, especially the parts protecting civilians and governing warfare in areas with a high civilian population, such as cities.

Re:Treaties

[Elldallan]

At the very least Guantanamo Bay violates the Geneva Convention for all prisoners that were not captured during a firefight or directly after, civilians in a war zone has the right to bear arms for personal protection, and as such detaining people for just being in the wrong place and armed is clearly a violation of the protection they are afforded as civilians in a war zone. It gets more muddy if they were taken during or directly after a firefight as the Geneva Conventions assumes that all combatants are members of a nations armed forces, and as such they are assumed to be uniformed and clearly distinct from civilian apparel, there is no provisions covering combatants that are not part of the armed forces of a nation(because the problem didn't exist when the conventions were written)

Despite what it's opponents suggest, the treaties as written only explicitly protect uniform soldiers, and the definition of a "competent tribunal" is not made within the treaty.

No that is simply not true, there are very clear and explicit protections afforded to civilians and everyone who isn't a uniformed member of a nation's armed forces is classified as a civilian, they have the right to bear arms and protect themselves if fired upon, so for example the drone strikes done by the US military are a war crime, those targeted are civilians until it is obvious they're not, aka the second they open fire on your forces.

Re:Treaties

[Elldallan]

>Guantanamo Bay, for example, is a violation of numerous Geneva Conventions: The Geneva Conventions apply to the signatories, or to a signatory country when fighting with another force that has agreed to abide by the Conventions. Those in Guantanamo are neither.

However, I don't think you want to go by the Convention. The main complaint is the fact that the detainees are there without trial, and could be there forever. If we classify them as prisoners of war under the Convention, then we can keep them until the end of the conflict, which will probably be forever. No trial, no nothing. And we can put 'em to work in the fields or the coal mines.

The provisions protecting civilians apply as long as you are a signatory regardless of whether the opponent is or has agreed to follow the conventions. Everyone not bearing the uniform of a nation's armed forces is a civilian until it apparent they are not(as in they open fire on you without provocation), civilians have the right to bear arms in times of conflict for personal protection so you cannot just remove the civilian status of someone just because they were found armed and in the wrong place.

ONLY members of a nation's armed forces(which they VERY clearly are not) can become prisoners of war, you cannot just arbitrarily declare so no you cannot just arbitrarily declare someone as a POW and keep them indefinitely, besides classifying them as Prisoners of War would require and actual declaration of war by the US Congress because there cannot be prisoners of war without there being a war.

Re:Treaties

[Elldallan]

I wish that the International Warcrimes Tribunal would put that law to the test because I very much doubt that the US would actually invade the Netherlands, as that would be a declaration of war with the European Union which would be well very problematic to say the least.

Re:Treaties

[HornWumpus]

If they were 'the best' they would have the sense to move.

Re:Treaties

[Anonymous Coward]

You're totally wrong about this. We agreed to buy the land from them, then we kept it.

Re:Treaties

[phlinn]

You're right, I was overly broad. The third convention involving prisoners of war does place restrictions on who is protected, and many of the prisoners at GB would not qualify. The fourth convention requires humane treatment for civilians, but leaves fairly broad latitude for internment in article 41. Since the 4th convention does not include combatants in it's protections, plain clothes soldiers (or terrorists if you prefer) appear to be protected by neither the third nor 4th, but any individual not directly caught engaging in combat could be interred. There's a reason I specified "arguably" instead of "clearly".

Re:Treaties

[Rakarra]

The War of 1812 is often not seen as a loss for the US, but not a win either. It was not conquered, it suffered some important political building losses (the White House, Capitol Building). US troops also destroyed buildings in Canada, though they were not as high-profile.

Neither side won nor lost territory in the war, in fact, the war served to end border disputes. The real losers in the War of 1812 were the Native Americans. They lost -big time- as a result, and while historians can disagree on whether the US, Canada, or GB won the war of 1812, everyone can agree that the Indians were the real losers.

Re:Treaties

[Quila]

The provisions protecting civilians apply as long as you are a signatory regardless of whether the opponent is or has agreed to follow the conventions

If they are civilian, we can put them on trial and lawfully execute them according to the Convention. IMHO, the tragedy of the situation is that all of the trials should have been done with long ago, the guilty imprisoned or executed. However, several lawsuits and political pressures delayed this for years.

indefinitely, besides classifying them as Prisoners of War would require and actual declaration of war by the US Congress because there cannot be prisoners of war without there being a war

Here you give up any credibility. The ONLY purpose for the "declaration of war" thing is a balance of powers, the President cannot wage war without the consent of Congress. The Constitution does not lock down consent to any formal "declaration of war" format. Consent takes whatever form Congress wishes. Since Congress has given its consent in an authorization for the use of military force, there is absolutely no issue here.

The issue of a declaration of war is completely irrelevant to the Convention too, because requires only that an armed conflict exist. Are we in a conflict? Is it armed? Ta-da, the Convention applies, they are prisoners of war, or civilians who can be tried and executed.

Disappointing lack of conviction

[Anonymous Coward]

Too bad the U.S. is acting by inaction, instead of proposing a proper treaty that spells out our position, we just refuse to sign one that we don't like.

Re:Disappointing lack of conviction

[Rockoon]

Too bad the U.S. is acting by inaction, instead of proposing a proper treaty that spells out our position, we just refuse to sign one that we don't like.

An opinion based on the unfounded assumption that there needs to be a treaty.

Why did the ITU propose a treaty that nobody noteworthy is willing to sign? To quote one article on this, the ITU Director General said that he was "surprised" by the dissent. The lesson we can take from this is that the ITU is obliviously out of touch.

Re:Disappointing lack of conviction

[jythie]

The US is not inactive in this regard, our government simply isn't going the 'open treaty' route. They have, however, been sending diplomats to various nations pressuring them to implement US friendly internet laws, and they have been using the US's place both among financial institutions and internet infrastructural to basically set the rules for the internet in other countries. Where countries are more oppressive, we have even been funding darknets to help subvert their own government....

The US is against this treaty (well, ok, there are many reasons since it isn't a good treaty) in part because it codifies the rules and gives other countries a say. Right now the US pretty much unilaterally acts as the internet ruler, spreading US law across it, free to do and change whatever they want whenever they want without any judicial review. Pretty sweet deal.

Re:Disappointing lack of conviction

[MightyMartian]

The US did invent it after all. Other countries are free to build their own networks.

Re:Disappointing lack of conviction

[Anonymous Coward]

> The lesson we can take from this is that the ITU is obliviously out of touch.

So what else is new?

For now...

[Anonymous Coward]

...we're safe.

The current status quo is preferable to an entirely new system which, if this treaty would have been ratified, was to be in control of an 'independant' organization and nations themselves. Yes, it has to change, but not in the way proposed at this conference.

I'd rather have the US spying on me than China, Russia and Arabia forcing the world to split up the internet into national networks with no external access.

Re:For now...

[logjon]

it has to change

Why?

Re:For now...

[Anonymous Coward]

While at the moment it's an issue of choosing for the lesser of two evils, the US still has too much power over some fundamentals of the internet - Or rather, the federal government has too much say about it. Patriot Act excuses come to mind, where all the top TLD's can be seized without warning and regardless of what country they're used from. This is now how 'an independant entity' should be run.

Congrats to Obama

[onyxruby]

You finally had the epiphany to realize that not all treaties are good treaties. Now if Obama could get his head out of his ass about all the various **AA treaties that he keeps trying to get everyone to sign.

Re:Congrats to Obama

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm an alcoholic and I find your post offensive. You do realize sir, that this means war.

Re:Congrats to Obama

[Anonymous Coward]

I dun believe that you, slir, are in fact alci...alca....a drunk. You er ohfenshist, an' your posht ish a war. I'll *hic* shee you on...the...watchamacalle...the battle-thingy. Thash right. You an' me....aaand that other guy. I propoze a drinking dool at whatever time it is in whenever I wake up!

Disappointing lack of knowledge:

[Hartree]

The treaty was a result of proposals from many different countries including the US that were voted on in the meetings over the last several days. The language that is most being objected to was inserted in a late night session just before the end.

Attempting to force a whole US written treaty on the proceedings outside of the normal UN channels would be a far greater act of disregarding the ITU process than just refusing to sign the final version.

There's an amazing amount of misunderstanding in your post for it being so short.

So go buy your own!

[pla]

FTA: "In particular many attendees believed it was an anachronism that the US government got to decide which body should regulate the net's address system as a legacy of its funding for Arpanet - a precursor to the internet which helped form its technical core."

Yeah, that makes perfect sense, I can't imagine why the US didn't sign. "Hey, that thing you paid for, developed, and turned into a thriving platform for social and commercial activity? We don't like that you own it and we don't, so would you mind handing it over?".

Re:So go buy your own!

[Anonymous Coward]

Well yes, but there's a difference in culture between the US and some other places that impacts how this is viewed.

In the US it is all about the individual. Collectivism is frowned upon. Europe is more socialist, which is a point part way between the US and countries like China, where in China the group is everything and the individual is nothing.

The more collective your outlook, the more it makes sense to take from the individual WHEN that is for the greater overall good. Europe strikes a balance between the extremes of the US and China. Point is, if it would improve the greater good for something to be taken away from an individual (in this case, an individual country), that should be considered.

The problem here is that it isn't clear taking it away from the individual IS better for the common good. Europe didn't buy into this treaty either. But there probably is some other way to go about this which will be better for the common good than either US control, or the form of control proposed by the UN. When that happens, you can be certain that the US will lose control or end up marginalized, because Europe has no love of the US controlling DNS and other key elements of the internet infrastructure. Countries have come to depend on it, so having the US in control is seen as unwise.

Re:So go buy your own!

[ta_gueule]

Come on, the Internet is not a thing "paid for, developed and a thriving platform", it's a fucking convention. It's a protocol, like a language if you prefer. It's not a "thing". There are several other network protocols and there has been several other protocols since way before the internet. In France we were surfing on transpac and X25 before we joined the internet. The world now uses the Internet, precisely because it is very simple and open. If you really wanted to call it your own, then have fun surfing on your own web site. If the British went around calling the English language their own, the world would juse use esperanto for good.

Re:So go buy your own!

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey, that thing you paid for, developed, and turned into a thriving platform for social and commercial activity?

Possibly Tim Berner-Lee and CERN could dispute those honors in one way or another ...

Furthermore: should Italy demand that all number plates are to be registered with them, because they were the first ones to designate chariots by number?
Or would that be the right of France, because they were the first to do that for cars?

Re:So go buy your own!

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem with a lot of that is that 'the collective' or whatever is purely a subjective thing - it only really exists in peoples minds. Society is ultimately nothing but a group of individuals - anything more than that is all in peoples heads.

Socialism/Collectivism epitomize the attitude of "We need to destroy the village in order to save it" - because 'the village' is not a reference to actual individual people going about their lives in close proximity to each other, but instead some pretentious dumbass's romanticized vision of Society/The Collective/The Common Good etc.

Re:So go buy your own!

[phlinn]

The worst part about that particular complaint is that there is nothing about the internet that requires that other countries use the US's root DNS servers. They are free to implement their own.

Re:So go buy your own!

[pla]

Come on, the Internet is not a thing "paid for, developed and a thriving platform", it's a fucking convention.

Absolutely true! And if you want to roll your own internet, hey, we've done the groundwork, feel free to implement those protocols (hell, feel free to just take the already-implemented public domain code) and you can have your very own internet, domestically controlled. But as the real problem here, you don't want "an" internet - You want America's internet. You even say as much:


In France we were surfing on transpac and X25 before we joined the internet.

Before you joined the internet. Good choice of phrasing. But hey, now that we've kindly let you use it, can we just hand over the keys so you can run it, too?


If you really wanted to call it your own, then have fun surfing on your own web site.

You mean "web", not "site". And I can live with that - With the exception of the BBC, every single website I visit on a regular basis comes from the US. You, however, can't live with that, because most likely the majority of websites you visit (*cough* Slashdot *cough*) also get served from the US - Even the French language ones, just one more rack in a SoCal CoLo.


And honestly, I appreciate having you on the internet, I think it makes it a better place for both of us, sharing ideas across cultures like this. But at the end of the day, we own the ball, and we will take it home with us. And I consider it pretty damned insulting that the rest of the team has pulled a stunt like this, trying to "vote" the ball as no longer ours.

Re:So go buy your own!

[Anonymous Coward]

In that case, the French must all speak Esperanto.

Re:So go buy your own!

[idontgno]

This is nothing about DNS. The slippery slope argument (for good or ill) the major Internet powers used to justify refusal is that treaty language implies that signatory governments have a mutual international obligation to do content monitoring (e.g., deep packet inspection). These clauses were argued to be non-content-neutral, and (for instance) coud allow Iran to insist that the US prohibit blastphemous content (for Shiite Muslim definitions of "blastphemy").

DPI and other content-based restrictions have nothing to do with how you find the address of the other end of the wire, and everything to do with the actual packets going through the wire. DNS isn't a player in this consideration.

In truth, DNS is the least useful control mechanism for restricting access. It's blunt, easy to circumvent, and otherwise full of holes. It works well enough as long as the clueless mob doesn't hear about the workarounds, like DNS aliases for "prohibited addresses". This treaty, as perceived by the holdouts, cuts right to the gold standard of internet repression: content monitoring.

I sound all wishy-washy because I'm restating the stated objections of the holdout nations. I am not completely convinced in the sincerity of those objections. Am I the only one who finds an American government opposing content monitoring somewhat hard to believe? Certainly, there are constituencies within the governments of the holdout nations that are in love with mandatory content inspection.

It may be as simple as "we'll do content monitoring because we want to, and not because Iran wants us to, and we'll do it the way we want to do it."

Re:So go buy your own!

[ta_gueule]

I understand you are probably trolling but let me get some facts straight. Yuo didn't "kindly let us use it", we decided to use it, because it was open and free. Nobody ever required the permission of anybody to use it. Except Slashdot, every single website I visit on a regular basis comes from France. I'm not even using Google.com if you want to know, I have a local version of it. It's not America's internet that we want to use, it's the global one. And we could not do that without the US or it would be a Global minus the US instead of a global internet. The US can not do that either. For your information there are alternatives to the ICANN, that are in use today. The rest of the world could very well decide to vote for another root domain and use it without US permission.

Re:So go buy your own!

[emt377]

Come on, the Internet is not a thing "paid for, developed and a thriving platform", it's a fucking convention. It's a protocol, like a language if you prefer. It's not a "thing". There are several other network protocols and there has been several other protocols since way before the internet. In France we were surfing on transpac and X25 before we joined the internet. The world now uses the Internet, precisely because it is very simple and open. If you really wanted to call it your own, then have fun surfing on your own web site. If the British went around calling the English language their own, the world would juse use esperanto for good.

The U.S. should trademark the word "Internet". If one tuple isn't in the U.S. it shouldn't be called the Internet. It should be called "Internet-like", or "Internet-compatible", or "using the Internet method". Especially in France. They can call it Telepac-Plus or whatever. There's no reason they should be able to just take what we've created and popularized. It's OUR heritage, not theirs. OUR language, not theirs. The French should stop stealing our refined and superior culture.

Re:So go buy your own!

[Anonymous Coward]

As has been pointed out before, nothing stops any given tin-pot dictatorship from building their own version of the Internet that connects to the rest of the Internet, and, indeed, if they have Internet then all the infrastructure is already in place. They're just too lazy or too cheap to do so, or afraid that they could find themselves on the opposite end of the street, being locked out of the rest of the world's Internet. When Italy and France control the world numbering system of vehicle license plates with no one else willing to build a competing system, then they can demand all license plates be registered to them. Until then, fuck off and leave the Internet as it is.

Re:So go buy your own!

[tbird81]

Well listen. We don't want the UN controlling it!

The UN is a corrupt organisation. It will only cripple the internet, make it illegal to offend anyone, and try to implement a world-wide selection of laws.

Fuck off ITU.

Re:So go buy your own!

[phlinn]

Quoting the article "In particular many attendees believed it was an anachronism that the US government got to decide which body should regulate the net's address system..." emphasis added. At least one complaint by the countries that wanted UN control was about DNS. It's a stupid argument. That's the only point I was responding to. I actually agree with the holdout countries on content restrictions. I don't find it hard to believe the US government here, because at it's worse it's been better than, for instance, China.

Re:So go buy your own!

[Guy Harris]

As has been pointed out before, nothing stops any given tin-pot dictatorship from building their own version of the Internet that connects to the rest of the Internet,

If it "connects to the rest of the Internet", it's not "their own version of the Internet", it's a subnetwork of the Internet.

They're just too lazy or too cheap to do so,

If it "connects to the rest of the Internet", they don't have to buy their own protocols or whatever it is you're thinking of. They might have to pay for the hardware and software, but everybody has to do that.

Re:So go buy your own!

[Guy Harris]

The worst part about that particular complaint is that there is nothing about the internet that requires that other countries use the US's root DNS servers. They are free to implement their own.

And many of them have..

The problem is that the root zone is controlled by the US Department of Commerce ("National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) - which is an office within the United States Department of Commerce - authorizes changes to the root"), so their root servers serve up information that's ultimately US-controlled.

Re:So go buy your own!

[ta_gueule]

100% agreed. THAT is a good argument. "It's our own" is a boggus argument and does not stand.

Re:So go buy your own!

[Guy Harris]

This is nothing about DNS. The slippery slope argument (for good or ill) the major Internet powers used to justify refusal is that treaty language implies that signatory governments have a mutual international obligation to do content monitoring (e.g., deep packet inspection). These clauses were argued to be non-content-neutral, and (for instance) coud allow Iran to insist that the US prohibit blastphemous content (for Shiite Muslim definitions of "blastphemy").

As per this post at the Center for Democracy and Technology, there's an ITU-T Recommendation "Y.2770: Requirements for Deep Packet Inspection in Next Generation Networks", which is "restricted to TIES users", where "TIES (Telecommunication Information Exchange Service) is a set of networked information resources and services offered by ITU without any charge to ITU Members (Member States, Sector Members, Associates, and Academia) to support their participation in the activities of the Union." Not being a Member State, a Sector Member, an Associate, or a member of Academia, I have no idea what that recommendation says; it might be Very Nice if somebody who did have access to it were to upload it to wcitleaks.org.

Didn't we BUILD the damn thing?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why would the US give up control of the Internet? We built it, it's ours.

Don't forget kids, we are all here having fun on a network who's foundations were laid by the DEFENSE DEPARTMENT!
It's all likely been a sneaky way to spy on everyone in the world by getting them to voluntarily give out information on themselves.

Re:Didn't we BUILD the damn thing?

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually you developed part of the internet and started the large scale infrastructure. You don't own routers and lines in other countries. Also www was invented at CERN as were numerous other things, which last time I checked is not in, nor from, the USA.

Re:Didn't we BUILD the damn thing?

[Dunbal]

We built it, it's ours.

No see when I pay for something it's not yours anymore, it's mine. I realize that this is an archaic notion and every day the people who build things are trying to retain control of their cars/smart-phones/computer software/etc. But I'm an older person and not afraid to tell young whiper-snappers to get fucked. Don't worry, I'll be dead soon. By that time you'll realize what the next generation has cooked up just especially to screw you. We each get our turn.

Re:Didn't we BUILD the damn thing?

[Anonymous Coward]

I hate this stupid myth, Arpanet has fuck-all to do with the internet.
Both of them shared a separately created system, packet switching, to route data around it. THAT IS IT.
And packet switching doesn't exactly take a genius to figure out, it was already pretty much done on other lossy signal wires under other names to ensure safe arrival, just not specialised for packets in the internet sense.

I find it more embarrassing that those idiots even in the UN think that!
Even DoD doesn't agree with it! Arpanet and Internet are two completely different beasts.

Not only that, it is impossible for any one single country to create "the internet", hint, the inter means international.
Intranet would be a more correct term, and there were plenty of countries with those being researched all around the same time, separately.
Internet was a joint creation with US and UK after they figured out they were working on similar systems and decided to scale it across seas. Then a few other countries (Canada and France I think) joined in when they ironed out a bunch of the low-level edge cases where it could fall apart, and so on.

Re:Didn't we BUILD the damn thing?

[mikael]

Every workstation and network technology vendor had their own network protocols at some time or another (DECnet, TCP/IP, ...) Eventually they all decided to adopt a single theoretical model (ISO) to help standardize their designs by splitting everything into layers. Ultimately TCP/IP won out for the upper layers, allowing all sorts of different standards to exist at the hardware level (wi-fi, ethernet).

Bulletin Board Systems adopted Fidonet, which allowed long distance messaging.

Re:Didn't we BUILD the damn thing?

[Anonymous Coward]

Correction:
The "inter" means INTERNETWORK.

In other words, a method of connecting networks together.

It has nothing whatsoever to do with nations.

Re:Didn't we BUILD the damn thing?

[Anonymous Coward]

Inter means between. An internet provides communication between other networks.

IT DOES NOT MEAN INTERNATIONAL!

IT was a joint venture between the Defense Department and American Universities. It was originally paid for with American tax dollars.
Sure maybe you guys had similar stuff, you gave it up because you wanted to use our stuff. So sense you came to us asking for IP addresses and TLD, and connectivity, it means you asked us to handle it for you. We did. I will not let you force us to make OUR internet follow YOUR fed up rules.
If you do not like it MAKE YOUR OWN DARN INTERNET! I don't care if you stay or go. There are very few international pages that I visit, I would not miss them.

Re:Didn't we BUILD the damn thing?

[Anonymous Coward]

You may disconnect your routers whenever you so choose.

Re:Didn't we BUILD the damn thing?

[Guy Harris]

I hate this stupid myth, Arpanet has fuck-all to do with the internet. Both of them shared a separately created system, packet switching, to route data around it. THAT IS IT.

Many networks use packet switching. The ARPANET used, and the Internet uses, the same protocols to implement packet switching (except for protocols that didn't exist yet at the time the ARPANET went away, such as IPv6). TCP and IP were originally developed for use on the ARPANET.

Arpanet and Internet are two completely different beasts.

Yes. Given that the ARPANET no longer exists, and the Internet does, it would be very difficult for them to be the same.

Internet was a joint creation with US and UK after they figured out they were working on similar systems and decided to scale it across seas.

The ARPANET ceased being US-only in 1973, when NORSAR joined. If you're thinking of JANET, that existed at the same time that some UK sites were already on the ARPANET; eventually JANET offered an IP-based service.

Re:Didn't we BUILD the damn thing?

[Guy Harris]

Why would the US give up control of the Internet? We built it, it's ours.

Who's "we", and what does "built it" mean? If you mean "researchers paid by the US government developed many of the protocols", yes. If you mean "all of the infrastructure on the Internet was paid for by the US government and US individuals and organizations", no. If you mean "all of the work on all of the protocols used on the Internet was done by people paid by the US government", no, not even if you mean the core protocols.

Ever thought that the sentiment may be deserved?

[Anonymous Coward]

And what's this about Star Wars needing references? Are you too young to remember Ronnie's SDI? What about the recent release of info about the USA wanting to put nukes on the Moon in the early days of the space race?

Really, all you have is "If you're going to say nasty things then I'll dismiss them as angry rants". Tell us, oh pratt-face, how do you say nasty and deserved things about someone without someone being able to call it "hate"?

US REFUSES TO ALLOW ASSWIPE REGIMES . .. .!!

[Anonymous Coward]

There !! Fixed and ribbed it for your pleasure !!

Pay us rent then.

[Anonymous Coward]

"Your" internet is on OUR land.

Pay rent, sucker, and backdated.

It's our land.

PS give us back the languages, the TV, the Telephone, Electric lighting, the internal combustion engine, writing, arithmetic, medicine and so on. It wasn't invented in the USA.

Hell, the FRIGGING WHEEL wasn't invented there. Take off ALL your wheels (and cogs and springs) and give them back. WE INVENTED IT.

PPS I'm ASSUMIUNG you meant "invented". Because if you mean "built", then hand everything back to Taiwan/China, where it was fucking built you leech.

Re:Pay us rent then.

[jon3k]

"Your" internet is on OUR land.

It's there because you begged us for it. You're welcome. Feel free to disconnect from it and throw the cables back into the water anytime you'd like :)

PS give us back the languages, the TV, the Telephone, Electric lighting, the internal combustion engine, writing, arithmetic, medicine and so on. It wasn't invented in the USA.

We bought or licensed all of those things, or were given then directly or via emigration.

You're not a bright man, are you?

My control is better than yours

[Mister Liberty]

That's what this is all about.

Perhaps you should bother reading those treaties.

[Anonymous Coward]

It is only a war crime if it happens during an armed conflict - which requires a state of war - the terrorists don't qualify.

What is it with you MTV generation?

[Anonymous Coward]

Really, do you have NO SKILLS or MEMORY ***whatsoever***????

Germany have a warrant for a US soldier for crimes committed in Germany. The soldier got back to base before arrested and was sent back home and is refused to be extradited to Germany FOR QUESTIONING even.

The UK wanted several US pilots to come over to testify in a case, not face charges, and the USA refuses.

McKinnon, Abu Hamsa and three Muslims have all been deported.

Do you know what native americans are?

NAFTA. Signed by the USA. Abrogated in an illegal levvy on Canadian softwood lumber imports.

WTO. Signed by the USA. Abrogated in internet gambling.

These have ALL been reports in the news in the past year and on slashdot.

But I guess you never read a discouraging word. Which means that any citation given would not be read either.

Re:What is it with you MTV generation?

[bossk538]

Obviously you don't read all the news, AC. The UK refused to hand over Gary McKinnon. Ditto for Switzerland and Roman Polanski. The EU will not hand anyone over to the USA in cases where the death penalty may be sought.

WTF with the title

[Like2Byte]

Seriously? "US Refuses To Sign ITU Treaty Over Internet Provisions" is the title of this piece?

From what I could tell, even TFSummary mentions multiple countries refuse to sign. But, "OMG! Teh Un1t3d 5t4t3s refusors to p3n h4x moar documents! Roooaarrr!!1"

A more sensationalist title I've not seen on /. for a while.

How about a more neutral tone for story summaries? Maybe, I don't know:

Multiple countries fail to agree on ITU Treaty
Multiple countries disagree on ITU Treaty content
Differences still exist between countries involved in ITU Treaty
ITU Treaty content to undergo more revisions

sheesh.

Re:WTF with the title

[Anonymous Coward]

WTF is with your misplaced angst? This is America, pal. Our headlines are first and foremost for Americans. You want headlines about mounties and limeys not signing the treaty, go live in Canuckistan. America first! Love it or leave it!

Illogic is yours: Ad hom.

[Anonymous Coward]

He is a comedian. But that doesn't make what he says WRONG.

You will see a lot of "George Carlin had it right". Bill Hicks made a LOT of social commentary too. What about Colbert?

Indeed the fool is often the only person who can tell the truth when a despot is in power. And you americans ARE under a (willingly allowed) despot. This one AND the last one were despots.

But you seem to want to complain MERELY because he;s a comedian, he must be wrong.

Ad hom.

Prove your assertion.

Another way to look at it

[Ran_Sasson]

It seems like the Final Acts of ITU at WCIT2012 will be remembered as crimes against humanity, no less. Read the act: http://www.itu.int/en/wcit-12/Documents/final-acts-wcit-12.pdf If you'll realize the the consequences you'll get the real tragedy: Governmental supervision on content in the name of "security & anti-spam"; the 'Free-Riders' (Google , Facebook, AWS & likes) will keep 'riding' on our infrastructure paid by our taxes; no mention of net neutrality & freedom of content even. As I see it, despite all the american 'Woo-Ha', the USA sold our freedom to China & Russia against the green dollars of the 'Corps'. It's about time Google will listen to Forbes: http://www.forbes.com/sites/sap/2011/09/02/google-needs-to-drop-its-do-no-evil-thing/ Sad day for our planet.

Re:Another way to look at it

[Anonymous Coward]

Google has betrayed its users and dropped its slogan several years ago by giving access to some countries allied with the US to all the data of users residing in them. Those countries are as bad as China when it comes to human rights issues...

Re:Perhaps you should bother reading those treatie

[backslashdot]

No it's a war crime, crime against humanity etc,. It's a matter of can you recognize that. For example, the declaration of Independence would have no validity by British law .. yet it is valid by innate human rights granted by God. In the same way, all human beings have a right to fair trials and not to be tortured. It's a matter of are you willing to recognize that right. And the argument that terrorists dont have the right to a fair trial is just silly. How do you know if someone is a terrorist without a trial? What if they were they were setup by a neighbor or forced onto the battlefield because of threats to their family etc. ? Everyone deserves a reasonable chance to explain their story and be released if it can be verified. Also, if you are going to hold prisoners without certainty of their guilt/innocence you should at least not torture them.

Re:Perhaps you should bother reading those treatie

[backslashdot]

Also want to point out that the Bill of rights/constitution does NOT grant us our most important rights .. it merely respects and acknowledges them. Our rights (and those of all humans) come from the Creator/nature. If you read certain amendments you can tell from the wording that the right is something pre-existing and the document is only forbidding its infringement. For example, -- where is the right to bear arms granted? It's not. "The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" It doesn't grant us that right .. because we already have it -- from God. It's not something you are provided with. Or amendment 4 "right of the people to be secure [..] against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated" .. again .. we see that the right is not granted .. merely respected. Amendment 7: "the right of trial by jury shall be preserved". Amendment 8 "nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted" .. we can see that the government is forbidden and neutered from inflicting those things .. it's not granting the right .. it's preventing government from doing something it shouldn't and it's respecting rights we all have.

Yeah, it was Richard O Dwyer

[Anonymous Coward]

And of course there's the Nat West Three.

The U.N. is worthless.

[Anonymous Coward]

U.N. (1948): "Never again!"

Dictators (1948-present): "LOL!!!"

The U.N. has consistently failed at its primary purpose, which is to prevent genocides. All this outrage over the U.S. not signing on to some paltry and misguided attempt by less free nations to get their censoring mitts on arguably the most free medium mankind has ever known. No outrage against the U.N. when some regime starts slaughtering civilians by the thousands. Again. And again. The U.N. is nearly as worthless as the League of Nations it replaced.

Re:Perhaps you should bother reading those treatie

[HornWumpus]

Read what the Geneva convention says and has always said about spies. Shot on the spot. Happened in all the world wars.

Torture has been defined so far down the average police interrogation qualifies.

There was a reason the VC wore black pajamas. It was a uniform.

Power to the People

[Anonymous Coward]

So they claim. The US, UK, and Canada have a long history of completely ignoring the will of the people when it comes to internet regulation. Not signing for that reason is complete and utter bullshit.