Slashdot Mirror
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."
Norway is also refusing to sign
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.
"His name was James Damore."
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".
AntiFA: An abbreviation for Anti First Amendment.
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.
-- "So they told me that using the download page to download something was not something they anticipated." - Bill Gates
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.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
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.
This space for rent!
The types who have been following news on things like Guantanamo.
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.
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.
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?".
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/
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.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
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)
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.
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
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.
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.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
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.
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.
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.
To make laws that man cannot, and will not obey, serves to bring all law into contempt.
--E.C. Stanton
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.
Your "fair share" is NOT in my wallet.
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.
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
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
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.