×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Europe Proposes International Internet Treaty

Soulskill posted more than 3 years ago | from the it-will-all-be-accessible-by-train dept.

The Internet 116

Stoobalou writes "Europe has proposed an Internet Treaty to protect the Internet from the political interference which threatens to break it up. The draft international law has been compared to the 1967 Outer Space Treaty, which sought to prevent space exploration being pursued for anything less than the benefit of all human kind. The Internet Treaty would similarly seek to preserve the Internet as a global system of free communication that transcends national borders."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

116 comments

Europe? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33637560)

Europe is not a country. You need to clarify what institution in Eurpoe proposed this treaty, the European Union for example.

Re:Europe? (2, Funny)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | more than 3 years ago | (#33639118)

Dude - most of my countrymen have no idea what DIRECTION Europe is, let alone how many political bodies there might be there!

Re:Europe? (2, Funny)

Belial6 (794905) | more than 3 years ago | (#33639530)

No kidding! Just the other day, I had some idiot telling me that if you traveled east, you would get to Europe, and then not 10 minutes later claimed that you could get their if you went west instead.

Re:Europe? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33640030)

Actually from the US yeah Europe is East & West, just depends on how long you plan on traveling for. Also you could go North or South. Have you forgotten the Earth is ROUND!

Re:Europe? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33640354)

the earth is a sphere. essentially the 'idiot' was dead right.

Re:Europe? (1)

Phleg (523632) | more than 3 years ago | (#33640662)

Don't be ridiculous. We all know that Europe is up and to the right.

Re:Europe? (1)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | more than 3 years ago | (#33640908)

Up and to the right might mean a lot of things. If you start shooting up and to the right, you might hit the moon, or the sun. Personally, I prefer nautical terms, like east by northeast. Or, if you prefer, a heading of about 80 degrees should land you SOMEWHERE in Europe, no matter where you launch your ship from an east coast state. On the other hand, if you launch from a west coast state, you may prefer to head west by southwest, until you clear China, then head west, then west by northwest around India and the subcontinent, toward the Suez and into the Med. You'll want to keep a sharp lookout for pirates when you pass by Somalia though! Once you've arrived in the Med, you can take your choice of northerly headings, almost anything will get you to Europe from Port Said. I know, my directions need a bit of polish, I should actually look at a map and write down some headings, right? Ehhh - to lazy, LOL

Re:Europe? (1)

SleepyJohn (1481257) | more than 3 years ago | (#33642566)

Europe is not a country. You need to clarify what institution in Eurpoe proposed this treaty, the European Union for example.

'Europe' is what the unelected, unaccountable European Union, that has never been given a mandate by the people of Europe to rule them, cleverly manipulates the media into calling it, thus implying that it is indeed a country, with its own flag, anthem, ministers, parliament, ambassadors, UN representatives, bureaucracy, legal system, executive, President and all the rest of the paraphernalia associated with being a country, popularly called Europe. Much like the USA is a country, popularly called America.

It is not only a de facto country, however; it is also a de facto dictatorship, whose lawmakers cannot be removed by the people. It is run by a self-appointed political elite crazed with a lust for international power. This is it flexing its muscles, using its 500 million carefully-duped people to elbow the US big boy out of the way, so it can throw its weight about on the top table. Everything the EU does is to this end.

Who is Europe? (2, Insightful)

lyml (1200795) | more than 3 years ago | (#33637570)

What does the article mean when they say Europe proposes something?

The european parliament, the council, some other organisations or perhaps a country from Europe?

The article is a little bit light on detail.

Re:Who is Europe? (2, Informative)

vlm (69642) | more than 3 years ago | (#33637708)

What does the article mean when they say Europe proposes something?

"Council of Europe" a very fuzzy imitation of the EU that does not have binding laws.

I cannot figure out what they do or what their place is. Plenty of fuzzy HR stuff about "whirrled peas" and so forth but nothing concrete about whom does what when to whom.

Re:Who is Europe? (3, Informative)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 3 years ago | (#33637928)

The Council of Europe predates the EU by quite a large margin. It was set up at the end of the Second World War. The organisation proposes treaties, which their members then sign. It covers a much larger area than the EU. You might be familiar with the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), which has been implemented in law in most of the member nations.

Re:Who is Europe? (1)

oldhack (1037484) | more than 3 years ago | (#33638682)

So it's one of those European things.

If Chinese brought something like this, and got it bought by few of their friends, perhaps we can do some bargaining to cook up something concrete, be it "good" or "evil". But I just don't see this happening with this Euro offering.

Best I can see is the Europe leads by example - have the member countries signed up and demonstrate what benefits it brings.

Re:Who is Europe? (2)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 3 years ago | (#33642376)

You might do well to check who is part of the council of Europe [wikimedia.org]. The council of Europe includes all of the European countries, all of the former USSR, and has the USA, Canada, and Japan as official observers. That's a huge proportion of the industrialised world.

Re:Who is Europe? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33638222)

The Council of Europe (founded 1949) is a lot older than the EU, it also contains non-EU-members, such as Russia, Switzerland and Turkey.

Re:Who is Europe? (1)

CarpetShark (865376) | more than 3 years ago | (#33641996)

What does the article mean when they say Europe proposes something?

The european parliament, the council, some other organisations or perhaps a country from Europe?

Isn't it obvious? [heavyharmonies.com]

Fait accompli (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33637588)

A bunch of politicians get together to pass a law to prevent politicians from passing laws that would interfere with the Internet.

Why does this remind me of one of the Star Wars prequels?

Re:Fait accompli (1)

kdemetter (965669) | more than 3 years ago | (#33640300)

This also raises my eyebrows : "political interference which threatens to break it up" .

What do they understand by 'political interference" ?

An internet Treaty , regardless of it's intentions , is in a sense political interference on it's own ( as obviously , they want to enforce something on the internet , if only that everything remains the same ).
Don't get me wrong : there may be a need for regulations ( net neutrality ) , but then they should state this more clearly.

If it is "keep the governments out" I am a yea. (1)

Suki I (1546431) | more than 3 years ago | (#33637600)

If I actually get a vote on this. Do we get a vote? What about the people of North Korea, do they get a vote on this? Even if it passes, do they get internet access since the "world body said so"? Somehow, I don't think so.

Re:If it is "keep the governments out" I am a yea. (2, Informative)

Lumpy (12016) | more than 3 years ago | (#33637750)

It's all posturing and waving in the air. It's as useless as the Space treaty.

Ignore it as some politician trying to get his name in the history books.

Re:If it is "keep the governments out" I am a yea. (1)

MBGMorden (803437) | more than 3 years ago | (#33638358)

I'm about in the same position. The idea - in general - isn't necessarily a bad one, but I'd need to see some specific details (and the text of the treaty) to throw in my support.

In general though, without seeing it, if it's restrictions on what companies and governments can do, then I'll likely support it. If it's restrictions on what people can do, then I'm not likely to support it.

Re:If it is "keep the governments out" I am a yea. (2, Informative)

pugugly (152978) | more than 3 years ago | (#33639950)

Among the few specifics it gets into is formalizing net neutrality and the end-to-end nature of the Internet - if it only accomplished that it would be worthwhile methinks.

Obviously I hope for more, but that it does formalize that as an international standard tends to indicate that's something they agree on.

Pug

Re:If it is "keep the governments out" I am a yea. (2, Informative)

Wonko the Sane (25252) | more than 3 years ago | (#33639070)

Do we get a vote?

In Europe you will if and only if the politicians think that you will vote the "right" way.

If for some reason the popular vote doesn't go their way they'll just pass the same thing without giving the public the option of voting on it next time.

Re:If it is "keep the governments out" I am a yea. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33639518)

It's a trap. With this the governments claim authority over the internet. A treaty which says governments must not interfere politically is political interference. The "internet" doesn't exist. It's an abstract, a concept, an idea. What you do when you connect to "the internet" is make your computer communicate with other computers. There's nothing special about this and no government has authority over it. Communication is a human right, not something for which we have to beg someone to grant it to us.

Re:If it is "keep the governments out" I am a yea. (1)

buchner.johannes (1139593) | more than 3 years ago | (#33641568)

If I actually get a vote on this. Do we get a vote? What about the people of North Korea, do they get a vote on this? Even if it passes, do they get internet access since the "world body said so"? Somehow, I don't think so.

Familiar with the prisoners dilemma?

If everyone says "I won't do it, because others won't", it is a self-fulfilling prophecy. It was the US who didn't sign the Kyoto protocol.

We got to start somewhere. Even if not everyone participates. If the goal is noble, the not participating countries can be made to comply by economic leverage, or making a contract: Nation X doesn't sign a nuclear weapon treaty, because those are its powerful weapons. Nations Y and Z contract with X to help out in case of war. For this to work, however, you need credibility.
I found the book on Harvard's negotiation project an interesting read on this.

Re:If it is "keep the governments out" I am a yea. (1)

buchner.johannes (1139593) | more than 3 years ago | (#33641650)

If it is "keep the governments out" I am a yea.
If I actually get a vote on this. Do we get a vote? What about the people of North Korea, do they get a vote on this? Even if it passes, do they get Internet access since the "world body said so"? Somehow, I don't think so.

What is the difference between government voting and you voting. You voted for this government, so they can represent you. Or at least the majority of your country. Do you oppose what most people of your country vote for? If so, voting directly will not give you a different result.

Protect from whom? (3, Informative)

DeKO (671377) | more than 3 years ago | (#33637606)

Let me guess: by giving total control to corporations (especially in the old-school entertainment industry).

Re:Protect from whom? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33637912)

More likely, the UN or somesuch, surely to be populated by paragons of free society - in the same way the farcical Human Rights Commission is populated. So it would include China, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Australia, etal....

Correction: (1)

Burz (138833) | more than 3 years ago | (#33641406)

...by giving total control to western corporations (especially Hollywood).

Much more accurate now.

Devil in the Details (1)

DrgnDancer (137700) | more than 3 years ago | (#33637626)

AS a sweeping overview, presented in a non-legal and non-technical news source this sounds like a great idea. Whether it turn out to be as good an idea when you get down to the proposed details and specifics is another matter, but so far I like it. It's very easy, in politics, to cover changes that will accomplish one set of goals with rhetoric that claims they will do the opposite. In this case I suspect the devil is very much in the details, but I'd love to see what they come up with.

Good Luck With That! (1)

FurtiveGlancer (1274746) | more than 3 years ago | (#33637628)

Perhaps it will be equally as effective as the Outer Space Treaty of 1967, the efficacy of which is in serious doubt.

"Among its principles, it bars States Parties to the Treaty from placing nuclear weapons or any other weapons of mass destruction in orbit of Earth, installing them on the Moon or any other celestial body, or to otherwise station them in outer space." [wikipedia.org]

I, for one, don't want to see any nukes on the interwebs.

Re:Good Luck With That! (1)

SailorSpork (1080153) | more than 3 years ago | (#33637962)

I, for one, don't want to see any nukes on the interwebs.

Yes, but how does one stop 4chan?

Re:Good Luck With That! (1)

IndustrialComplex (975015) | more than 3 years ago | (#33638020)


I, for one, don't want to see any nukes on the interwebs.

Yes, but how does one stop 4chan?

You've got your terminology messed up.

I'd say they are much more like a disease.

Re:Good Luck With That! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33638166)

The cancer that is killing the non-cancerous part of the web.

The cancer itself has a cancer. Maybe the cancer that is killing /b/ will cause the whole of 4chan to die. Then again, it might just strengthen 4chan and make it even more cancerous.

Re:Good Luck With That! (1)

Patch86 (1465427) | more than 3 years ago | (#33639006)

You can nuke a disease. Patient tends not to survive, but in no way would you still call them "infected".

Re:Good Luck With That! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33638822)

4chan += boxxy

Re:Good Luck With That! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33639022)

I would argue the the Outer Space Treaty has had the highest levels of efficacy when looking at the environmental impact of humanity on Space. The treaty effectively prevents exploitation of space as a resource except in ways that 'benefit mankind'. In other words, only altruistic goals and not any selfish or profitable goals are allowed.

I don't see the US agreeing with this. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33637634)

With so much time spent going against the FCC and what they want for net neutrality, I somehow fail to have any faith that Congress would agree to this treaty.

Re:I don't see the US agreeing with this. (1)

pyrosine (1787666) | more than 3 years ago | (#33638302)

While the US is a large country, if this made it to the UN, they still only have 1 vote against numerous other member states

Re:I don't see the US agreeing with this. (1)

wtbname (926051) | more than 3 years ago | (#33638388)

Would this get as far as the Security Council? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33638956)

IMHO, I don't think so. If it went anywhere, it would be voted on by the General Assembly.

This applies to Europe. Not the US or Friggig A. If Europe (meaning the European Union) decide to legislate this way the only couse of action for the US would be a complaint to the WTO. I can't imagine what grounds they'd use though.
This is to stop European Governments (and there are many different political hues most of which are considerably left of the US Democrats) interfering locally.
Dammed if I know what right the US has in interfering in OUR business. Just like certain US Politicians can get the hell out of trying to make Scottish MSP's appear before Congress. It ain't nothing to do with you Uncle SAM Ok?

What about ACTA? (2, Insightful)

piffey (1627145) | more than 3 years ago | (#33637674)

Wait, wait, wait. What about ACTA [wikipedia.org]? I thought that was supposed to get us all on the same page. The one treaty to, in the darknets, bind them.

Re:What about ACTA? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33637818)

I'm sure ACTA is preciousssss enough to Robert Pisano of RIAAA to follow the draft to it's fiery end in Mount Edna as the european parliament disposes of this atrocious creation.

Re:What about ACTA? (2, Insightful)

mbone (558574) | more than 3 years ago | (#33638402)

ACTA was not supposed to be a treaty, but an Agreement (that second A) - i.e., something the President could do by Executive Order. That it really was a treaty in all-but-name was a large part of the reason why I opposed it.

At any rate, ACTA came from the US. This, isn't. So, based on the limited knowledge we have, I would consider these two efforts orthogonal.

Did We Screw Up? (1)

PiAndWhippedCream (1566727) | more than 3 years ago | (#33638002)

Can we at least wait until the US department of commerce significantly screws things up before we go around demanding international treaties?

Oh good... (1, Troll)

interval1066 (668936) | more than 3 years ago | (#33638202)

...more pseudo-political crap from Europe that we can ignore.

Re:Oh good... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33639386)

They were 'pseudo-political' enough to stop ACTA, unlike corporate-political nations.

Re:Oh good... (1)

Beyond_GoodandEvil (769135) | more than 3 years ago | (#33639454)

They were 'pseudo-political' enough to stop ACTA, unlike corporate-political nations.
Only, b/c they didn't think of it first. Expect to see a new version of the ACTA, this time sponsored by Louis Vuitton, Siemens et al. appearing in Brussles and then it will be the greatest thing since sliced bread.

Re:Oh good... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33640498)

Compared to PURE political crap from the US, I presume?

The enemy of my enemy isn't my friend. He's just another enemy.

Re:Oh good... (1)

VJ42 (860241) | more than 3 years ago | (#33641666)

This is from the council of Europe (the one that gave us the ECHR) not the EU.

Valid everywhere except ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33638254)

... in China, as usual, because they virtually own all of us.

I am without an opinion. (4, Funny)

retech (1228598) | more than 3 years ago | (#33638268)

Until Cory Doctorow chimes in, I'm a blank slate on this issue. I'm sure he'll have a way to sort this out and make the world a free place for hugs and artists.

Note to Cory: (1)

RobotRunAmok (595286) | more than 3 years ago | (#33638816)

He's not serious. He's mocking you. Please, please *don't* chime in. We've got it covered, thanks...

Re:Note to Cory: (1)

retech (1228598) | more than 3 years ago | (#33639656)

This is a perfect example of why we need a [sarcasm] [/sarcasm] tag. Even then, I suspect, the ego of C.D. would trump it.

Note to Robot: (1)

HeckRuler (1369601) | more than 3 years ago | (#33639892)

Here's a pro-tip from the internet: If you don't care for people, don't listen to them. You can't stop Cory Doctrow from commenting anymore then I can stop you from you from bashing Cory. That's one of the reasons that the internet is so awesome.
So quit yer bitchin.

Anyone got the draft ? (1)

mbone (558574) | more than 3 years ago | (#33638342)

Anyone got a link to the draft ? The OA says that they have it, but I don't see a link

Sigh more attempts at making international rights (2, Insightful)

Sirusjr (1006183) | more than 3 years ago | (#33638580)

Just as the declarations of international human rights in the past, even if this is passed, it will be another silly international resolution with no binding effect on individual countries. While I agree with the purpose of this law more than the international declaration on human rights, it doesn't make this any less pointless. I would certainly like to see countries stop regulating the internet but there has to be a better way to go about protecting individual internet freedoms.

Keep the government and politics out... (2, Funny)

NevarMore (248971) | more than 3 years ago | (#33638588)

...of the Internet by having the politicians and governments agree to a treaty.

Lets think this through for a minute.

Re:Keep the government and politics out... (1)

robot256 (1635039) | more than 3 years ago | (#33638744)

Come on, man, cut them a little slack. You can't expect them to ignore the issue completely, can you? They have to at least promise to ignore it. After all, it was politicians who wrote and signed the Constitution that says "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press", and we know what would have happened if they hadn't.

Re:Keep the government and politics out... (0, Flamebait)

NevarMore (248971) | more than 3 years ago | (#33639010)

Agreed.

I just worry when the government gets involved because they only tool they have to solve problems is to legislate and regulate. Even passive "government shall not" regs lead to challenges which inevitably lead to more regulation.

Using your free speech example, in many jurisdictions hate speech is regulated as is "shouting 'Fire!' in a theatre". The point is not to get into a debate as to whether or not those are constitutional, its to show that "shall not" laws are still laws and sooner or later it'll get in the way.

Re:Keep the government and politics out... (1)

DrgnDancer (137700) | more than 3 years ago | (#33639232)

But the alternative is to ignore the issue completely and look completely clueless. Not to mention that some of us believe that there should be regulation of the Internet at least to the point of telling the corporations that exercise passive control of it to leave it alone. As much as it would be cool if the Internet just kept on Internetting, the fact is that a number of entities (governments and corporations) are trying to exercise various amount of control all ready. To just ignore that in favor of being high minded is kind of foolish.

Re:Keep the government and politics out... (1)

Jedi Alec (258881) | more than 3 years ago | (#33639582)

...of the Internet by having the politicians and governments agree to a treaty.

Lets think this through for a minute.

You know what, that makes perfect sense...oh wait.

Who wrote the US constitution again?

Europe has a history of censorship (2, Insightful)

AlphaWolf_HK (692722) | more than 3 years ago | (#33638674)

Whereas the status quo does not. In Europe it is common to have bureaucrats who put into place censorship in the form of hate speech laws which don't have any clear cut boundaries (who gets to decide what kind of speech is hateful?) and I'd rather not have them be enforced for "the benefit of humanity." Besides, I don't see such a treaty being signed by countries such as Iran, China, Cuba, etc.

In other words, this sounds like a bad idea.

Re:Europe has a history of censorship (-1)

polar red (215081) | more than 3 years ago | (#33638756)

censorship applies to opinions, hate is not an opinion.

Re:Europe has a history of censorship (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33639024)

Censorship does not apply just to opinions it applies to facts also. Hate is an emotion based on prejudgement and malice and as you said is not an opinion more like an irrational reaction to a situation or thought.

Re:Europe has a history of censorship (3, Insightful)

shaitand (626655) | more than 3 years ago | (#33639190)

Censorship applies to all communications. Not just facts and opinions. If I want to say something, ANYTHING, and you prevent me. You are censoring me.

Re:Europe has a history of censorship (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33639150)

You Obviously don't watch fox news :P

Re:Europe has a history of censorship (1)

shaitand (626655) | more than 3 years ago | (#33639170)

Censorship applies to all communication. However you can't communicate hate. It can only influence the opinions you form and express.

Hate speech controls are censorship. Period.

Re:Europe has a history of censorship (2, Insightful)

istartedi (132515) | more than 3 years ago | (#33639458)

Censorship applies to speech. Hate is speech.

Opinions may or may not be expressed as speech.

Opinions expressed as speech are protected in the US. Opinions expressed as DEEDs are not.

Why is that so hard for the rest of the world to get right?

Nazi marches down street with swastika flag in US. Protected.

Nazi smashes window of shop owned by Jewish man. Prosecuted.

Simple.

Re:Europe has a history of censorship (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33640458)

Why is that so hard for the rest of the world to get right?

The fact that you seem to honestly think that the US got this right made me laugh out loud.

I'm continuously amazed by the ability of some people to fool themselves.

Europe needs one of those safety signs (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33641782)

"It Has Been [15] Years Since Our Last Genocide"

But hey, don't let us interrupt you; you're surely very busy making lists of thought crimes and speech crimes, then ensuring that your governments are powerful enough to enforce them. That must be very delicate work, seeing as how it keeps backfiring on you again, and again, and again.

Re:Europe has a history of censorship (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33639766)

censorship applies to opinions, hate is not an opinion.

Thanks, I was starting to worry that I might make it through an entire morning without reading something brutally retarded.

Re:Europe has a history of censorship (2, Insightful)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 3 years ago | (#33639770)

Actually, it's a very strong opinion. And, even if I accepted your premise, who would get to decide where to draw the line?

Re:Europe has a history of censorship (1)

sourcerror (1718066) | more than 3 years ago | (#33640652)

The thing is that US has now control about the internet (top level domains) and this can be a powerful tool to push its IP laws on other countries.

Re:Europe has a history of censorship (1)

AlphaWolf_HK (692722) | more than 3 years ago | (#33640988)

The thing is that US has now control about the internet (top level domains) and this can be a powerful tool to push its IP laws on other countries.

Except the US doesn't do this. Theoretically we could shut down enemy countries if we wanted to, but we don't even do that.

Simply put I'd rather leave the internet in the hands of those who have a proven track record of non interference no matter the circumstances, than hand it over to those who have made it clear that they want to interfere.

Re:Europe has a history of censorship (1)

sourcerror (1718066) | more than 3 years ago | (#33641220)

Look, the US threatened Sweden to kick it out of WTO, if they don't act against Pirate bay. I don't see the clear track record.

Oh I am sure those countries will sign on (1)

Shivetya (243324) | more than 3 years ago | (#33642498)

and they will bring forth any violation that others make or they perceive them making but they won't adhere to the same rules or so loosely define their own compliance we will have the equivalent of the UN Human Rights Council.... where the worst of us define the rights of all.

America has a history of illegal wars! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33642594)

Your claim is not only wrong, but based upon Germany's current laws. What history is that?! Europe is not one country, and you have no arguments or proof to support your inaccurate claim!

No, I'd rather have Europeans propose a neutral law than the American bastards that keep attacking and illegally invading other countries! Or proposing treaties like ACTA that will make all countries look like the hellscape that is the US legal mess. Screw the idea of a noble America, they sold that a long time ago!

Good news, or just pretense for more IP thuggery? (1)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 3 years ago | (#33638688)

I'll support this if the intention is to maintain a free internet, with free speech, etc. However, if this is just some thin pretense to enforce some kind of WIPO-esque [wikipedia.org] copyright/"IP protection" scheme at the behest of the RIAA/MPAA and their international equivalents--then forget it. Sadly, I suspect the latter may be the real motivation here, though couched as the former.

Re:Good news, or just pretense for more IP thugger (1)

shaitand (626655) | more than 3 years ago | (#33639224)

Given the stated goal it is probably a way to slip in some form of government control of the internet.

Much like the can spam act here in the states. Supposedly it was to make spam mail illegal. But before the bill all spam was illegal. What the bill did was establish a set of rules under which one could legally spam people.

Regulation? (1, Insightful)

Caerdwyn (829058) | more than 3 years ago | (#33638992)

As ostensibly noble-minded as this is, it's a means of saying "an international body should make internet rules". If they can have authority to force some things to be allowed, that same authority can be used to have other things banned. I would worry over any treaty that allows other nations sovereignty over what I can view or post, as many of my views on individual rights run counter to European governmental values (the freedom to own weapons that are effective against modern police and infantry, and to use them in violent acts of rebellion and insurgency should the need ever arise; the freedom to criticize religious organizations and dogma when they demonize me or attempt to seize secular power; the freedom to keep the rewards of my work rather than subsidizing others who have no intent to work at all).

Thanks, but no thanks. My political speech is already protected, I can already look at jigglers and danglers belonging to consenting adults, and there is no circumstance under which I would permit a European treaty body to have even the slightest authority over me, regardless of its stated purpose. Bureaucracies only grow, and they only do so by expanding their realm of control.

Ugh, terrible comparison (1)

khallow (566160) | more than 3 years ago | (#33639364)

While it's not a huge effect (compared to say, space just being damn hard to do anything in), the Outer Space Treaty has helped hinder the expansion of humanity into space by prohibiting people from owning things in space. If an internet treaty were to have a similar effect, then that's not helpful.

Cybercrime and Internet Freedom (1)

FranckMartin (1899408) | more than 3 years ago | (#33640004)

The council of Europe has for example a treaty on cybercrime [coe.int] that the USA have ratified. So this treaty could be open to non-members too.

So a treaty on Internet freedom for democracries is a very good idea, to avoid some democracies to fall on the dark side...

This is VERY BAD!!! (2, Insightful)

SirAstral (1349985) | more than 3 years ago | (#33640128)

Sad, Sad, Sad...

A Treaty such as this would only accomplished exactly what it is pretending to prevent. Use your brain people!

We already have the power to accomplish what this bill indicates, yet I hear no elected officials even remotely advancing ideas to that end. We only need to get the general ignorant population from voting in people with special interests... namely any candidate from any party! George Washington warned everyone about the evils of a party system in his farewell address, but 200 years later, even after he basically predicted the Civil War, we pay him no heed!

This treaty would only accomplish more control over the internet. You people forget how cunning a government is by making your believe that you are getting more with each bill signed into law, having only been taken!

Never gonna happen (1)

SparkleMotion88 (1013083) | more than 3 years ago | (#33640394)

The difference between the internet and space is that only advanced western states have access to space. All states feel like they need to protect their own resources on the internet from hackers (mostly non-state actors), so they will want complete freedom when deciding how to do that. As soon as western countries believe that Al Qaeda (or whoever we are afraid of at the time) has any change of destroying their satellites, they will pull out of the Outer Space Treaty for the same reason.

Net Neutrality and security issues are present (1)

Khopesh (112447) | more than 3 years ago | (#33640932)

FTA:

The principle of net neutrality will be established in international law, ensuring that the network will not discriminate against the traffic that passes across it. Any discrimination will be left to the end points, the clients, for people to decide for themselves what they censor, what communications they will or will not countenance.

...

It will also force governments to co-operate with one another to tackle the net's security vulnerabilities. It should force them to exchange data about security problems and work collaboratively to solve them and keep net criminals and military aggressors in their animal pens.

Great step in the right direction, those are the two issues I wanted to see addressed. I hope it's strongly phrased so as to strictly prohibit government-sponsored attack vectors like DDoS et al, as it appears from the above paragraph that it's aimed at spammers and other profiteers, completely missing the military possibilities.

As an FYI, here's the WikiPedia article on the Outer Space Treaty [wikipedia.org].

Err, correct me if I'm wrong... (1, Insightful)

argStyopa (232550) | more than 3 years ago | (#33641128)

...but first, you're never going to legislate away nationally motivated cybercrime, so that's out.

Second, as far as I can tell it was the Europeans who started getting all squirrelly about the 'nationalism' on the net when the US wouldn't do what they wanted.

No country worth it's peoples' loyalty is going to voluntarily give its sovereignty to the UN, a non-democratic pack of calumnious backbiters or bored dilettantes, depending on who you're speaking about.

Meh. It's the Internet. The US built it. If you don't like it or the rules it's operating under, build your own.

Re:Err, correct me if I'm wrong... (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33642268)

Meh. It's the Internet. The US built it. If you don't like it or the rules it's operating under, build your own.

Do you know what the Internet is? Please read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet [wikipedia.org].
The US built the current Internet in the same way that the guy who built the first road built all roads.

typical (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33641972)

Every attempt to protect internet from 'protection' is frowned upon by those who claim to represent its intentions the best. Meanwhile, nothing actually gets done for the freedom of information, and even the ancient rusty bureaucracy of politics and capitalistic industries appear to be running circles around us as we argue amongst ourselves who and how our freedom online should be defended.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...