Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

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!

UN Considering Control of the Internet

Soulskill posted more than 3 years ago | from the if-you-strike-me-down dept.

The Internet 402

Dangerous_Minds writes "News has surfaced in the wake of the WikiLeaks story that the United Nations is mulling total inter-government regulation of the internet. The initiative was spearheaded by Brazil and supported by other countries including India, China, Saudi Arabia and South Africa. Drew Wilson of ZeroPaid commented that while the Cablegate story may be bad, attempting to destroy WikiLeaks would only make matters worse for various governments around the world, given what happened when the music industry shut down Napster ten years ago."

cancel ×

402 comments

global standards for policing the internet (5, Insightful)

YrWrstNtmr (564987) | more than 3 years ago | (#34586294)

global standards for policing the internet
Otherwise known as least common denominator. Say what you want about the US, but do you really want China and Saudi Arabia defining global internet standards?

Re:global standards for policing the internet (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34586368)

Lowest common denominator sounds nice. The set of regulations that all nation states can agree on should be fairly lightweight, and the decision making process involved in keeping it up to date far less agile than the network itself. Now if governments also agree not to add their own layers on top this would be total win.

Re:global standards for policing the internet (3, Insightful)

erroneus (253617) | more than 3 years ago | (#34586708)

Indeed. It's a good thing that we can't agree on anything at all, or I would be worried.

Re:global standards for policing the internet (5, Insightful)

JackieBrown (987087) | more than 3 years ago | (#34586986)

Lowest common denominator sounds nice. The set of regulations that all nation states can agree on should be fairly lightweight,

You are assuming they start with an "allow everything" policy. If they start with a "deny everything" policy then "the set of regulations that all nation states can agree on should be fairly lightweight" will result with a very heavily restricted internet.

Re:global standards for policing the internet (2)

poetmatt (793785) | more than 3 years ago | (#34587142)

well, you can enjoy that all you want, but I'll take P2P DNS.

Re:global standards for policing the internet (1)

dragonhunter21 (1815102) | more than 3 years ago | (#34586390)

China and Saudi Arabia and the US and North Korea and South Korea and Liechtenstein and Mexico and Canada and Australia and Britian and France and New Zealand and Japan and Russia and Sweden and Finland and Greenland and all other UN member states, yes.

Re:global standards for policing the internet (2, Insightful)

aliquis (678370) | more than 3 years ago | (#34586492)

China and Saudi Arabia and the US and North Korea and South Korea and Liechtenstein and Mexico and Canada and Australia and Britian and France and New Zealand and Japan and Russia and Sweden and Finland and Greenland and all other UN member states, yes.

Actually? No.

Zero policing is what I want.

Child porn, Islamic terrorists, Joe not-so-much-of-an-sex-pack? Sure.

I can decide where I spend my time myself.

Re:global standards for policing the internet (1)

dragonhunter21 (1815102) | more than 3 years ago | (#34586538)

I agree completely, and I think this is bound to fail spectacularly- but to say that only extremists would decide what would happen is a fallacy.

Re:global standards for policing the internet (5, Insightful)

TaoPhoenix (980487) | more than 3 years ago | (#34586600)

US - China - North Korea - France - Australia - Britain -

Aren't these the countries always hitting YRO for opressive initiatives?

Re:global standards for policing the internet (4, Interesting)

click2005 (921437) | more than 3 years ago | (#34586718)

Only until the UN allows then to block these kinds of stories.

Re:global standards for policing the internet (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34586658)

You think that all the UN member states help make policy? Are you seriously that naive?

A few key member states-- the US included, I must admit-- bully the rest into following their lead.

Re:global standards for policing the internet (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34586696)

The biggest difference between the US and most of the others is that if the US cant get the UN to agree it does what it wants anyway (after convincing idiots like Tony bLIAR to go along).

Re:global standards for policing the internet (4, Insightful)

duggi (1114563) | more than 3 years ago | (#34586422)

What it means in Diplomatese is that they are going to set up a commiteee first, talk to each and every nation about their preferences, and then create a document, laying the bare minimum regulations that need to be imposed. Of course, some countries will not like this, and will not opt-in. A few will opt in, but the implementation will be so broken, that each country will set up its own regulation mechanism on the top of it. As these clash with the UN, the UN regulation mechanism will be completely broken.
The UN cannot tie its own shoe laces. This will only justify the creation of a government approved 'regulation' process, which is often referred to as cencorship.
The Internet was nice while it lasted.

Re:global standards for policing the internet (3, Insightful)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 3 years ago | (#34586510)

The Internet was nice while it lasted.

If the difficulty US law enforcement has had in policing child pornography on the Internet is any indication, any mandated censorship is going to be very difficult to pull off. Every so often, people will get busted, but for the most part free speech online will be difficult to kill. Let them try to censor the Internet; we'll just see an age of common people learning more and more about cryptography, steganography, and computer security.

Not that I think the Internet would be a nice place if everyone had to take those sorts of measures to protect their freedom of speech.

Re:global standards for policing the internet (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34586438)

As sick as it may sound, yes, quite a lot of anguished leftards want that. Makes you want them to have what they wish for, right?

Re:global standards for policing the internet (5, Interesting)

Jason Levine (196982) | more than 3 years ago | (#34586546)

To be fair, a lot of right-wingers want government control of the Internet also. They just differ on what they want controlled. The religious right would love it if everything "harmful to children" (read: anything inappropriate for a 5 year old to read) was taken off the Internet. They've tried multiple times to get laws passed enforcing this but it has always been struck down in the courts. (This coming from the father of a 7 year old and a 3 year old... I'll police how my kids use the Internet, I don't need the government to do my job for me!)

Stop that! (5, Insightful)

killmenow (184444) | more than 3 years ago | (#34586908)

You'll let your kids watch the government approved violence on TV and youtube and we'll protect them from any and all kinds of human sexuality (except the Disney approved sexualization of teen/tween "stars", of course) AND YOU'LL LIKE IT!

Re:global standards for policing the internet (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34586692)

Nah.

Most of the 'leftards' (I assume that anyone from Europe qualifies, given that even the left in the US is right wing by our standards) want regulation (in order to prevent ISPs becoming abusive to their customers), but not censorship. Most of the groups demanding censorship are far right wing groups like the Chinese, Russian and US Governments, and Religious groups.

For the rest of us, having some sort of UN regulation is about trying to minimise their impact - it would be *very* bad for us if the US started seizing control of the internet, given the wildly different political climates.

Re:global standards for policing the internet (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34586474)

Lately I've been thinking China is better than the US..... alright maybe not. (shrug)

If they take-away free speech, then we'll just revive the Usenet and Fidonet and pass our messages/images over the existing phone lines. That's how we did it back in the 80s and 90s. And no it's really not that slow with modern MPEG4 codecs. When I'm stuck in a hotel for business travel, I surf the web without any problem & watch youtube over a 50k line (download it first; watch it 5 minutes later).

As for the UN: The thought that immediately comes to mind is "No regulation without representation." No global laws shall be passed until a People's House is created at the UN level, and also a Bill of Rights including a functional equivalent to amendments 9 and 10 (rights/powers are reserved to the Member States and the People).

And even if the plan is to pass these "block the net" laws at the local level, the US and EU Constitutions both forbid the silencing of free speech, or press, or expression. The higher constitutional law nullifies lower laws.

-C64_love (banned from posting for one day)

Re:global standards for policing the internet (1)

dmacleod808 (729707) | more than 3 years ago | (#34586506)

Revive Usenet? my current 125GB transfer via Usenet for this month alone begs to differ. My wallet also begs to differ with my 30 dollar a month subscription.

Re:global standards for policing the internet (2)

mwvdlee (775178) | more than 3 years ago | (#34586584)

You either have a ridiculous amount of things to freely say or you're not really using Usenet for freedom-of-speech stuff.

Re:global standards for policing the internet (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34586806)

Oh. So it's YOU who defines what "freedom-of-speech stuff" is... Great! Now I know who I should ask the next time I want to say something.

Is "freedom-of-speech stuff" limited to 1 MB/month? What if I want to post gigabytes of high-definition videos of US secrets somewhere?

Re:global standards for policing the internet (0)

C_amiga_fan (1960858) | more than 3 years ago | (#34586740)

WOW.

You must be downloading movies (125GB/700MB == ~150 movies)? My total Usenet download is less than 1 GB per month - all text plus an image or two. Since a dialup line can handle 13GB per month, my usenet usage is not a big deal. Get two or three phone lines and you can grab 2-3 times that amount (and most importantly: avoid the censorship of the ISP).

-C64_love (banned from posting for one day)

Re:global standards for policing the internet (1)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 3 years ago | (#34587092)

Maybe he prefers HD to SD. A 720p H.264 movie takes at least 4GB, and many takes 6GB+. 1080p takes even more.

And while I'm not a avid downloader, 39GB seems awfully limited. I guess I'm spoiled by my unlimited 10mbps package for about $30 (it's $60, but it comes with cable TV and phone with unlimited calls to landlines plus 120 free minutes to cellphones per month. The free calls already pay for the remaining $30).

Re:global standards for policing the internet (1)

malignant_minded (884324) | more than 3 years ago | (#34586514)

Do we really need global standards? If some country says it is illegal to post hate speech or classified documents or what have you that on that country to police for it's citizens. If the citizens do not want those laws, push back, if no change revolt.

Re:global standards for policing the internet (1)

Scrameustache (459504) | more than 3 years ago | (#34586522)

global standards for policing the internet
Otherwise known as least common denominator. Say what you want about the US, but do you really want China and Saudi Arabia defining global internet standards?

I'd answer that but I'm being held in isolation, without bail, on trumped up rape charges, sorry.

Re:global standards for policing the internet (1)

Jason Levine (196982) | more than 3 years ago | (#34586572)

If I know politicians, there will be compromises that make both parties happy, but that make all of us less free. We'd agree to China's speech restrictions (no more mentioning Tiananmen Square, for example) and they would agree to tighten the clamp on IP protection in their country. Their government would walk away happy that everyone will only know the Chinese Government's account of Tiananmen Square (nothing happened) and our government will walk away happy (reporting "Mission Accomplished" to their lobbyist friends). Meanwhile, we'll cry out in anguish... or we would if we were still allowed to...

Re:global standards for policing the internet (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34586624)

or the UN, a bunch of wimpy bureucrats...

Re:global standards for policing the internet (1)

xTantrum (919048) | more than 3 years ago | (#34586944)

Otherwise known as least common denominator. Say what you want about the US, but do you really want China and Saudi Arabia defining global internet standards?

U mean like the US is any better? The US reactions to this wikileaks mess shows their true colours. So whether the US or China it's the same thing in the end. 6 of a dozen....

Only the naive didn't see this coming (0, Troll)

Viol8 (599362) | more than 3 years ago | (#34586306)

You poke a dog with a stick often enough and eventually it'll go for you. Something people in wikileaks and all those naive kids calling themselves Anonymous (or whatever silly name they've thought up this week) and similar groups don't appear to realise.

And anyone who says you can't regulate the internet is dreaming. Ask the chinese.

Re:Only the naive didn't see this coming (2)

dragonhunter21 (1815102) | more than 3 years ago | (#34586348)

I'm sorry, Tor and the myriad other proxy services floating around China would like a word.

Re:Only the naive didn't see this coming (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34586634)

your talking about a minority. no body cares.

Re:Only the naive didn't see this coming (1)

Viol8 (599362) | more than 3 years ago | (#34586646)

I'm sure they would - in the 5 mins they're available before they're blocked.

Re:Only the naive didn't see this coming (2)

Spad (470073) | more than 3 years ago | (#34586392)

Of course you can regulate the internet - you can regulate anything in principle - but enforcing that regulation is something else altogether.

You can't get most countries to co-operate when they're dealing with the big issues; do you really think you're going to be able to get them to co-operate over that guy from country X who posted something objectionable about someone from country Y on that message board hosted in country Z?

Re:Only the naive didn't see this coming (2)

oztiks (921504) | more than 3 years ago | (#34586524)

Regulation will turn into taxation. Taxation will be self regulated. If you fudge your tax returns you go to jail. Wikileaks will be looked upon as a regulation violation and people would be dragged before a judge.

I knew this would be the result of Wikileaks where the end game is now a sped up process which otherwise would of taken the next 10 years to procure if left open-ended and unnoticed.

Wikileaks has set a new precedence welcoming the age of having to hold a broadcasters licence to setup a website.

Re:Only the naive didn't see this coming (1)

Teancum (67324) | more than 3 years ago | (#34586440)

And anyone who says you can't regulate the internet is dreaming. Ask the chinese.

How has that experiment been working out? That isn't exactly regulating the internet so much as doing the equivalent of registering all of the typewriters in a country and requiring a license to own one.

It is still possible to "distribute" anti-government information within China about the Chinese Politburo or to discuss frankly the events of the 1989 Tiananmen square massacre in Chinese. It isn't exactly easy, but it can be done and in spite of insane levels of government interference in trying to deal with the issue it seems to only get harder to stop that from happening.

Such levels of regulation also haven't hit a people who is used to freedom of expression and the willingness to tell off the government in large numbers. This is one genie that is going to be very hard to stuff back into a bottle now that it is out, which is exactly what some of these governments are trying to do.

Re:Only the naive didn't see this coming (1)

oztiks (921504) | more than 3 years ago | (#34586818)

Yes, but this is where self regulation comes in to play. I can issue false tax returns but i'm rolling the dice and taking my chances.

The regulation will come in a form of a Govt Duty which will be attached to the licence.

Sure i can drive my car without a licence but the same risk takes place.

Re:Only the naive didn't see this coming (1)

clone52431 (1805862) | more than 3 years ago | (#34586754)

You poke a dog with a stick often enough and eventually it'll go for you. Something people in wikileaks and all those naive kids calling themselves Anonymous (or whatever silly name they've thought up this week) and similar groups don't appear to realise.

That works the other direction too.

Re:Only the naive didn't see this coming (1)

DrgnDancer (137700) | more than 3 years ago | (#34586890)

The Chinese have had moderate, but by no means total success in in regulating the Internet via means that most Western Nations would find both technically difficult and legally impossible. first you have to have a population that is largely unwilling to do things that the government thinks are bad, which, all jokes about the nanny state aside, most western countries don't have. There are always a few million people here or a few hundred thousand there that will literally do something only *because* the government said it was bad. Then you have to firewall every pipe into the country, which is a Hell of a lot easier when you do it early like China did than now. Australia is kinda "lucky" in that regard, because the continent is so isolated that there's a pretty limited number of pipes in. Finally you'd have to make laws which would be First Amendment violations here and violate lots of Human Rights Charters elsewhere.

Even with all of that, most reports out of China are that other than a few high profile "Look we're enforcing this, really!" raids, most people in China who have a desire to get around the rules can do so trivially, and mostly untraceably. I mean, if i really wanted to do bad stuff on the Internet, all I'd do is use a randomly generated spoofed MAC address on the free wireless at Starbucks (after paying cash for my coffee of course), then use an anonymous proxy. Rotate through places with free wireless and you'd be electronically untraceable. If they really wanted you I suppose they could get tapes from the stores, but that would probably require them realizing that it was the same person at each shop. Pretty unlikely.

Re:Only the naive didn't see this coming (1)

deadweight (681827) | more than 3 years ago | (#34587114)

Hmmmmm........how to stop..............what to do................ I know! Free wireless connections = bullet in head and they aren't too hard to track down. Problem solved.

Re:Only the naive didn't see this coming (5, Insightful)

moeinvt (851793) | more than 3 years ago | (#34586948)

"You poke a dog with a stick often enough and eventually it'll go for you. "

I agree with that, but are you suggesting that the U.S. government is analogous to the dog and Wikileaks and its supporters are poking said dog with a stick? That's how I'M reading your words. It is with a mixture of sadness and frustration that I listen to the argument: "We better behave ourselves, or the government will crack down on the Internet!" I'm not saying that Wikileaks and Anonymous won't be used as an EXCUSE for government attempts to implement greater control of the Internet. That's a certainty. Actually ADVOCATING that we change our behavior to appease the government is the mentality of a serf or a slave. Better not do anything to make the Lord/Master angry because he'll punish us? Not only does that indicate a belief that the government has assumed the role of RULER of the people as opposed to "Representative" of the people, it indicates that the servitude is something that we must accept.

Wow! That thought just blows my mind. It just seems like we've very abruptly crossed a threshold into a whole new paradigm.

Napster was ten years ago? (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34586310)

Holy crap, I'm old!

Drew Wilson? From ZeroPaid? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34586312)

Drew Wilson? From ZeroPaid? Must be a freetard. And why should anyone care about what a freetard says? It all comes down to "I want something .. for nothing. Gimme gimme gimme. Bad people.".

How much more (5, Insightful)

Darkman, Walkin Dude (707389) | more than 3 years ago | (#34586322)

Will nobody rid us of these lawyer politicians, whose only understanding of communication is how it can be used to control others? For countless millenia, these fools have been holding back humanity, calling themselves priests, or the aristocracy, or the upper class, or whatever. Enough! Can we not have a "normal people's congress" on the internet or something. They want to control the internet? I say let the internet control them.

Re:How much more (1)

dragonhunter21 (1815102) | more than 3 years ago | (#34586362)

Just so. The internet is the new forum, or town square, or hairdresser's shop. Trying to censor communication- any kind of communication at all- is wrong.

Re:How much more (1, Insightful)

Beyond_GoodandEvil (769135) | more than 3 years ago | (#34586376)

Can we not have a "normal people's congress" on the internet or something.
Unless "normal people" is code for people who agree with you 100% of the time, no. After all normal people can't set their DVR to record a show, or find a printer on a network. You want "normal people" to decide how technology should be used?

Re:How much more (2)

Darkman, Walkin Dude (707389) | more than 3 years ago | (#34586396)

No, I want normal people to be allowed to determine their own fates and communicate freely with one another without the intervention of those who dream themselves our masters.

Re:How much more (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34586602)

No, I want normal people to be allowed to determine their own fates and communicate freely with one another without the intervention of those who dream themselves our masters.

But normal people don't want freedom. Normal people don't want to live without the intervention of masters - they want to be the masters who "help" all those other poor unfortunates out there. You want freedom to choose. Most people are paralyzed with choice, and elect politicians who offer them freedom from choice. Not because they're naive; because they really want to be ruled :(

Remember the conjugation: I am erotic, you are kinky, they are disgusting perverts.

"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."
- C.S. Lewis

"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule."
- H. L. Mencken

Re:How much more (0)

royallthefourth (1564389) | more than 3 years ago | (#34586648)

Thanks for all that elitist bullshit about how stupid the commoners are

Re:How much more (1)

kyz (225372) | more than 3 years ago | (#34587068)

Thanks for all that elitist bullshit about how stupid the commoners are

Please go read some Youtube comments and Yahoo! Answers! [somethingawful.com] for an hour.

Re:How much more (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34586794)

> But normal people don't want freedom. Normal people don't want to live without the intervention of masters - they want to be the masters who "help" all those other poor unfortunates out there.

Sallust expressed it more succinctly: "Namque pauci libertatem, pars magna iustos dominos volunt."

Re:How much more (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34586614)

Well said.

Re:How much more (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34586402)

Lawyer politicians? Saudi Arabia? You're talking about a totalitarian monarchy there that want's to control the internet. Of course they want the internet regulated.

Brazil is a surprise to me but the other ones, I can see were they want the internet to be regulated in order to keep out information to their populace allowing to keep their control. The only thing I can think of is the ruling elite in Brazil wants to keep their populace from seeing how poor and the obscene disparity between rich and poor there are.

Re:How much more (1)

metrix007 (200091) | more than 3 years ago | (#34586864)

More likely it is to control blasphemous material.

Their greatest trick... (3, Insightful)

copponex (13876) | more than 3 years ago | (#34586750)

Their greatest trick has been making you believe that you aren't in control already, if you live in the United States. They thrive on your apathy. They rejoice whenever some new mindless form of entertainment takes over. That's why Iran left gaming lines open [kotaku.com] during their crackdown of democracy.

Personally, I have no pity for the American public. We are receiving the democracy we are asking for, which is "whatever the powerful are willing to give me." The Tea Party just re-elected the only party that openly expresses more support for millionaires than it does for the middle class. The guy in the House who plays a major part in our environmental policy also quotes from Genesis to avoid discussion of the impact of climate change, because God promised that he wouldn't flood the earth again. (Despite some more barbaric claims in Revelation that He will indeed come back to destroy the world, and the claim that the rainbow is a symbol of God's promise, instead of a result of light refraction.)

Regular Joes can't be bothered to give a shit about extrajudicial assassination, or trillions of dollars wasted on war. Until they can address those sorts of issues, I'm afraid the openness of the internet will be easy fodder for elite control.

Re:How much more (1)

dkleinsc (563838) | more than 3 years ago | (#34586834)

Can we not have a "normal people's congress" on the internet or something?

No, we can't. As we should well know, when it comes to Internet voting, the whole thing is wildly inaccurate. Rounding errors, ballot stuffers, dynamic IPs, firewalls. If you're using these numbers to do anything important, you're insane.

And even more so with politics, where big bucks are at stake and evil bastards trying to snag as much of that cash as possible through possibly illegitimate means. For instance, a corporate employer could require that their employees log a vote for the position that the corporation wants from a company computer (so they can intercept and verify it) as a condition for continued employment. So now that gives the board of that corporation 5000 votes instead of the 10 they should have, because most employees aren't willing to lose their livelihoods on a principle.

Say NO (1)

TheDarkMaster (1292526) | more than 3 years ago | (#34586340)

I are a Brazilian, and I say NO to this.

Re:Say NO (1, Troll)

aliquis (678370) | more than 3 years ago | (#34586520)

I are a Brazilian, and I say NO to this.

They are Americans.

And weeks ago Chinese Internet (and whatever else) censorship was bad.

Now? It's fucking brilliant! Finally a way to make people obey the government and hide anything bad!

Guess the US and Chinese (and everyone else) government isn't that different after all.

You're allowed to say anything you want as long as it's what they want you to say :)

Re:Say NO (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34586588)

I are Baboon, and my finger smells.

time to act? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34586354)

Seriously, wikileaks has exposed world politics for what it really is, and the govts of the world are cracking down, this is possibly the turning point for democracy and real freedom for everyone across the globe, is now the time to stand up and fight back? really? people are far to apathetic these days, we complain about it on slashdot but not one of you would step out of your house, grab a pitchfork and torch and march on your parliament. They have already won.

Re:time to act? (1)

aliquis (678370) | more than 3 years ago | (#34586706)

I've already suggested the Piratpartiet/Freedom of speech/Wikileaks demonstration not on Sergels torg [aname.net] but instead in kammaren [media.ne.se] of riksdagshuset [suan-yong.com] since there's normally not much people around anyway .. Doubt they would get in there, even with pitchforks, but it would had been sweet ;)

The Excuses Worked (1)

Ltap (1572175) | more than 3 years ago | (#34586372)

Now they have an excuse, and all hell is going to break loose.

Sorry for the accidental rhyming.

Anonymous stands ready (1)

Drakkenmensch (1255800) | more than 3 years ago | (#34586384)

These people seem to forget that the more you fight against freedom of information, the harder information (and those seeking to protect it) will push back in return. The internet is powered by the Barbra Streisand Effect.

Re:Anonymous stands ready (2)

Spad (470073) | more than 3 years ago | (#34586436)

Thing is, reality is not a movie. Rarely do the well-intentioned, rag-tag band of rebels overthrow the evil world government and usher in a new era of freedom and prosperity.

Re:Anonymous stands ready (4, Insightful)

paiute (550198) | more than 3 years ago | (#34586532)

Thing is, reality is not a movie. Rarely do the well-intentioned, rag-tag band of rebels overthrow the evil world government and usher in a new era of freedom and prosperity.

Usually, when the well-intentioned, rag-tag band of rebels do win, the resulting government devolves into a totalitarian regime as bad as what was deposed. In the US, our view is skewed because our well-intentioned, rag-tag band of rebels was not headed by such. Recall that some wanted to make Washington King of America, but he bared his wooden teeth at them and refused.

Re:Anonymous stands ready (1)

aliquis (678370) | more than 3 years ago | (#34586618)

Thankfully they have put down all new paving stone [stahl.se] in the city area.

And there will probably be ways around it. The question is why it takes so fucking long for everyone to start using them?

I doubt the average Swede got what it takes to do anything though...

Though some people have proven that they can react:
http://www.svd.se/multimedia/dynamic/00108/16698348_108431b.jpg [www.svd.se]
http://cdnstatic.expressen.se/polopoly/bilder/2007/02/11/1.454042TS1283934948235_defaultImage.jpg [expressen.se]
http://www.fokus.se/wp-content/uploads/2007/11/vfgoteborg.jpg [fokus.se]
http://gfx.aftonbladet-cdn.se/multimedia/archive/00027/deb221_27196w.jpg [aftonbladet-cdn.se]
http://www.bioroxy.orebro.se/bilder/terror.jpg [orebro.se]

The government has to be reminded who's in charge every now and then ..

Re:Anonymous stands ready (1)

Lillebo (1561251) | more than 3 years ago | (#34586748)

Thing is, reality is not a movie. Rarely do the well-intentioned, rag-tag band of rebels overthrow the evil world government and usher in a new era of freedom and prosperity.

You're right, but it does happen every now and then...

  1. The Indian Independence movement [goo.gl]
  2. The French revolution [goo.gl]
  3. Mao and The Peoples Republic of China [goo.gl] (freedom and prosperity may not apply here, but it was an improvement, no?)

So thar.

Re:Anonymous stands ready (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34586712)

People with that mindset think they hold some level importance in the world. Consider, have you influenced voting polls? have you changed the general publics way of thinking? No. You pissed off Tom Cruise for while but then he made a funny movie and nobody cared.

Become a real problem and you'll give the power mongers a reason to exterminate you. Until now you have been nothing more than a fly on the windscreen.

One World (1)

imamac (1083405) | more than 3 years ago | (#34586418)

One World Government, here we come!

Purpose? (1)

Felix Da Rat (93827) | more than 3 years ago | (#34586424)

So what impact would this group have on things such as 'Cyberwar'? A number of the governments mentioned in the article have sunk Billions of dollars into the development of such programs - I doubt they'd be happy to just 'write it off'.

Would this group go after China for hacking the Google servers? Or would it focus on catching nefarious individuals wanted for questioning? (Sorry Interpol - you might do decent things, but you deserve to catch flack for that.)

Would this group ease extradition between countries? If so, aren't there warrants out for the heads of Google and Facebook in Pakistan?

What actual purpose would this working group serve?

All government is the absolute enemy of freedom (2)

evanism (600676) | more than 3 years ago | (#34586434)

Even our own. Threaten their power and they will take us out. It is time to fight back, reassert public control and or natural freedoms. Encryption everywhere, massive obsfuction via dns sprays, dummy requests and TOR. Fight these bastards!!!!!!

Cry, the beloved country. (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34586452)

I'm from South Africa and I cannot believe a government that was once itself censored heavily, and violently when speaking out against such censorship, is now becoming one of it's staunchest supporters. First (draft) domestic legislation regulating what newspapers can publish, and now this.

Freedom? No, it doesn't seem to me like that was the end-goal of the struggle.

Mirrors (1)

Spad (470073) | more than 3 years ago | (#34586464)

There are already over 2000 Wikileaks mirrors [wikileaks.ch] , so it's going to next to impossible to shut it down in the first place.

In the wake of Thursday... (4, Insightful)

Tom Rothamel (16) | more than 3 years ago | (#34586468)

News has surfaced in the wake of Thursday that the UN is mulling total inter-governmental regulation of the internet.

The UN has wanted control of the net for a while now, the WikiLeaks thing is just the excuse of the day for trying to take it.If it wasn't WikiLeaks, it would be some other reason.

Re:In the wake of Thursday... (1)

zakeria (1031430) | more than 3 years ago | (#34586540)

When I said Julian Assange will do the Internet damage I was ridiculed... ummm

Re:In the wake of Thursday... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34587000)

With good reason.

amaç (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34586494)

Now they have an excuse, and all hell is going to break loose . www.konutfirsatlari.com One World Government, here we come!

Yes, yes, /. is all against this, but... (1)

LordNacho (1909280) | more than 3 years ago | (#34586502)

Can someone shed light on whether they can actually control the internet, on a technical level?

Re:Yes, yes, /. is all against this, but... (1)

Even on Slashdot FOE (1870208) | more than 3 years ago | (#34586526)

Well, normally "You and what army?" doesn't mean much, but I'm fairly certain the UN can broker one to show up when you challenge them. Especially since a lot of the members will want more control of their intertubes.

Re:Yes, yes, /. is all against this, but... (3, Insightful)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 3 years ago | (#34586544)

Can someone shed light on whether they can actually control the internet, on a technical level?

Sure they can; the Internet is not like the old Usenet/UUCPNet, where it is controlled by its own users. All the UN would have to do is go after a handful of companies that really run the Internet, and by force of law require them to do whatever the UN wants them to do. Sanctions against a country could suddenly mean a loss of Internet access -- just force the ISPs to drop any route to that country from their routing tables.

The real question is, will they be able to convince the most powerful nations to play along? I am just going to guess that the answer is "yes," since the world's most powerful nations also happen to stand to gain the most from having a controlled Internet.

That's a great plan... (1)

splerdu (187709) | more than 3 years ago | (#34586504)

It'll hasten the spread of P2P DNS by a good bit.

Sure, UN, Sure (3, Insightful)

Publikwerks (885730) | more than 3 years ago | (#34586536)

The UN can't get pisspot dictators to stop comitting genocide, does it REALLY think it's going to be able to do anything with really powerful nations? Especially with the US, we don't want to give up control. So the UN thinks it can force the US to do so?

Re:Sure, UN, Sure (5, Insightful)

Ltap (1572175) | more than 3 years ago | (#34587020)

If you think that the UN taking control of the Internet involves the United States losing control rather than gaining it, you're remarkably ignorant of the true state of international politics.

NO controls (4, Insightful)

Wowsers (1151731) | more than 3 years ago | (#34586566)

Hang on, all these countries that want control of the internet, they are some of the biggest despots out there and love censorship. Why don't they have their own version like China, and keep everyone else that loves freedom and democracy stick to the "Wild Wild West" internet.

The UN are a bunch of retards who's time to disbanding has come. They claim to represent international laws, but enforce them for some countries, and ignore others. Get rid of the UN.

one way to destroy WikiLeaks (1)

doperative (1958782) | more than 3 years ago | (#34586570)

Get the UN to run it ...

speed up dev. on P2PDNS (1)

deviceb (958415) | more than 3 years ago | (#34586582)

Who cares if we break the internet into islands? DNS needs to be a truly distributed system that no 7 people or governments can bend to their will, else we will all end up like China. -Perhaps China was the smartest of all by implementing border-gateway rules long ago? All the so-called free countries our trying to jump on ship! It seems China had more foresight than other countries eh?
I would prefer to switch my DNS scheme and jump to the public internet islands
*facebook is not on my island btw

The UN is far too slow for this to happen (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34586594)

Fortunately by the time UN agrees on anything, the technology ahead of it will have of course moved on several decades ahead of them.

Remember, these are the people who are still debating over which HAM radio frequencies are reserved for government use.

Just Say No (5, Insightful)

Valen0 (325388) | more than 3 years ago | (#34586598)

Let me get this straight: The Emperor was caught with his pants down, some people took pictures and posted it to etc.com, people started learning via etc.com that the Emperor has no clothes on, and now the Emperor wants to ban all knowledge of the incident by destroying the greatest communications invention since the printing press. I think the approach in this situation is completely wrong. Several common sayings such as "we had to destroy the village in order to save it," "shoot first and ask questions later," and "shoot the messenger" all come to mind and none of them should be encouraged.

I propose the following solution to the problem: Do a comprehensive security audit of the information and everyone that had access to it. Find out who leaked the information, how they received access to the information, and how they removed the information from secured storage. In addition, do a comprehensive audit on the classification of documents. Having a minimal amount of classified material will cut down on the risk of loosing it. Document classification should be used to guard national security interests (e.g. the keys to the castle) instead of hiding potentially embarrassing material or promoting a political agenda. When you have successfully identified the responsible party and method of attack, fix the glitch and prosecute the offender to the fullest extent of the law. The Internet does not need collective punishment for the actions of a select few individuals.

Re:Just Say No (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34586950)

Our freedoms are in jeopardy here in the US and our fore-fathers warned and advised how each of us should beware and take precautions to protect ourselves. Ever wonder why liberals sometimes become conservative yet I do not know of any conservatives who have become liberals. If you know of one please let me know.

Re:Just Say No (1)

jbeaupre (752124) | more than 3 years ago | (#34587094)

No, it's more like this:

Emperor A got depantsed. Emperors B,C,SoA, and SaA propose standardizing pants to prevent depantsing.

Common Sense (5, Funny)

cstacy (534252) | more than 3 years ago | (#34586660)

They are merely proposing common sense communication safety legislation. Surely we can all get on board with that? Do you have any idea how many injuries and injustices unpoliced thought caused last year?

I, for one, welcome our powerless overlords (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34586662)

UN has no power at all, so let them "control" the internet.

Better than having someone in charge with the ability to actually do something.

a serendipitous article on the first war on terror (2)

Alan R Light (1277886) | more than 3 years ago | (#34586664)

Serendipitously, this article [reason.com] about the first war on terror - governmental suppression of 19th century peaceful anarchists - was just published by Reason.

The authorities made extensive use of agents provocateurs because the anarchists were too peaceful to be threatening enough. Accidental side effects included the Russian Revolution and the exacerbation of the First World War (which events of course led to the Second World War and the Cold War).

It looks like history is repeating itself.

The end of democracy (5, Insightful)

gmuslera (3436) | more than 3 years ago | (#34586672)

No freedom of information means no freedom of choice. You could hang the label you want over the governments after that gets passed, but none would really be democracy.

Think again (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34586938)

This IS democracy. It just isn't what you dreamed it would be. Quite a rude awakening, isn't it?

I have long believed that democracy is every bit as likely to deteriorate into authoritarianism as monarchy, dictatorship, communism, or any other form of government you can name -- possibly even more likely since democracy removes the element of ownership from government. A king, for example, wouldn't be nearly as quick to risk billions on war, because those billions actually belong to him, and he actually risks losing his royalty forever.

When you're spending other people's money, on the other hand, you have nothing to lose -- and therefore you can exploit that cash flow for personal gain. For those at the top of a democratic pyramid, the more spending the better.

So what can be done? There's only one solution: strict limits on government power and revenue. STRICT limits, as the founders of the US intended. Of course, strict limits on the scope of government is nothing but a pipe dream for radicals and libertarians, right?

They're doing what they know best (2)

geekymachoman (1261484) | more than 3 years ago | (#34586824)

And that is.. controlling people. When things start getting out of hand, they start enforcing and censoring stuff. Like they want to do with internet now, because internet is biggest threat to them. Internet is communication freedom.

Authority never liked that, because it undermines their power to do what they want. Religion... Governments, no difference there. All they want is power. And if people don't rise up now, and let their voices be heard, whatever the cost, we and future generations are properly screwed, because this now is our best chance, and if we miss it, the whole point of internet will be lost soon, and we'll go back to getting tailored info from our masters which suits their interests, not the truth.

I'd rather have anarchy then this dictatorship masked as democracy/freedom shit.

Coincidence? (1)

balaband (1286038) | more than 3 years ago | (#34586902)

That this subject has came up after all of the media hype about Wikileaks?

Told ya. (1)

trollertron3000 (1940942) | more than 3 years ago | (#34586928)

Doesn't anyone else think this is awfully convenient, this whole mess?

Next up... (2)

MadKeithV (102058) | more than 3 years ago | (#34587058)

Next up: UN considering control of gravity, also considering extensions to other laws of physics.

Inclusive ? (4, Informative)

mbone (558574) | more than 3 years ago | (#34587104)

The Internet Governance Forum (IGF) has been grinding along for almost five years, so this is something of late news. Unlike the Australian commenter in the original article, the process is inclusive only as to governments, not people or even NGOs. This has the Internet Society (ISOC) worried enough that they have an online petition on it :

The UN Needs to Ensure an Open and Inclusive Approach to Internet Governance [ipetitions.com]

(Yes, you will get a fundraising pitch at the end, but that's not the reason for this petition.)

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>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...