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
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!
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/
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.
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.
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.