Beta
×

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!

India's Proposal For Government Control of Internet To Be Discussed In Geneva

samzenpus posted more than 2 years ago | from the all-your-internet-are-belong-to-us dept.

Censorship 230

First time accepted submitter cvenky writes "The Indian Government is proposing to create an intergovernmental body 'to develop internet policies, oversee all internet standards bodies and policy organizations, negotiate internet-related treaties and sit in judgment when internet-related disputes come up.' This committee will be funded and staffed by the UN and will report to the UN General Assembly which effectively means the control of the internet passes on to World Governments directly."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Oh Boy... (2)

BlueStrat (756137) | more than 2 years ago | (#40024273)

That should work out well for a free and open internet, eh?

Strat

Re:Oh Boy... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40024425)

Power always wants more power. Governments and corporations hate the decentralized anarchic Internet and want to control it. What they don't realize is that the Internet is a concept, an interconnection of networks speaking a common protocol. You can't control it anymore than you can control language. If you screw with the few central pieces (DNS, IP number allocation, etc) we will just replace them with something else.

Do **NOT** forget the Indian diaspora ! (-1, Flamebait)

Taco Cowboy (5327) | more than 2 years ago | (#40024501)

There are a lot of Indians in very high places in many global technology companies. No matter what passport they are carrying, all of them are VERY VERY LOYAL to their homeland, India.

The influential Indian diaspora might just be the key for India to push its _Gag-the-Net_ agenda across the proposed global meeting in Geneva.

Re:Do **NOT** forget the Indian diaspora ! (2)

khallow (566160) | more than 2 years ago | (#40024529)

There are a lot of Indians in very high places in many global technology companies. No matter what passport they are carrying, all of them are VERY VERY LOYAL to their homeland, India.

And do what?

Re:Do **NOT** forget the Indian diaspora ! (1)

GumphMaster (772693) | more than 2 years ago | (#40024567)

Spoken as if the US citizens spread widely across the world are not loyal to the US and its interests. In fact, insert any country you like, it's a vacuous accusation that can be levelled against the "other" anywhere.

Re:Do **NOT** forget the Indian diaspora ! (3, Funny)

Ihmhi (1206036) | more than 2 years ago | (#40025025)

There are a lot of Indians in very high places in many global technology companies. No matter what passport they are carrying, all of them are VERY VERY LOYAL to their homeland, India.

The influential Indian diaspora might just be the key for India to push its _Gag-the-Net_ agenda across the proposed global meeting in Geneva.

Solution: we employ guard cows in every server room. The Indians won't dare upset their sacred beasts. Problem solved!

Moreover, we hire people Dalits [wikipedia.org] (Indian untouchable caste) as security. Now they can't even get into the building!

Hey, ain't nothin' wrong with using a country's ignorance against itself.

Re:Do **NOT** forget the Indian diaspora ! (4, Interesting)

qu33ksilver (2567983) | more than 2 years ago | (#40025141)

Now now, we are getting a bit ahead of the line, aren't we ? "Guard cows", "Dalits", and most importantly your entire last line. I don't know where you get your ideas from, but you see India is an extremely diverse country. Yes, there are some places where cows are considered sacred and some people considered as untouchables, heck, people even kill their daughters for loving a boy of a "lower caste" But that's not the whole picture. Its just a common stereotype that the world has made of us. The rest of India is as "civilized" and modern with any other place. Now if we come to the topic at hand, there are talks going on to block some sites. In fact some service providers have already started blocking torrentz, piratebay, torrenthound etc. But again, a weak attempt. You can get the IP by pinging the site and the IP works ! Just a simple DNS block won't stop people from accessing websites. I only hope that the people trying to set the policies regain their senses, otherwise its the dark age all over again for us.

Re:Do **NOT** forget the Indian diaspora ! (1)

Sperbels (1008585) | more than 2 years ago | (#40025031)

So... there's an Indian conspiracy to place their people in places of influence and power? And then--when we least expect it--pow! India conquers the internets!

Re:Do **NOT** forget the Indian diaspora ! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40025139)

Err...

Are you trolling us? I can't believe for a second that you think what they're proposing is anything like remotely possible, let alone plausible. Ethnicity has fuck all to do with computer science.

Re:Oh Boy... (5, Interesting)

bhagwad (1426855) | more than 2 years ago | (#40024633)

Speaking as an Indian, I can safely say that we as a country don't deserve to have ANY control over the Internet. The US might not smell of roses, but compared to an authoritarian style government like India, they're pretty damn good.

Actually scratch that. The Indian government is not authoritarian. It's just...stupid and uninformed and clueless. Ditto for most of the population.

Re:Oh Boy... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40025089)

stupid and uninformed and clueless. Ditto for most of the population.

Agreed, you are proof of the idiocy. Now shut the fuck up before you embarrass the rest of smart Indians any more. I should know, I work with many of them.

Re:Oh Boy... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40025191)

All of the "smart indians" have left and taken citzenship in other countries. This is a common aspiration amongst the middle class.

Re:Oh Boy... (2, Informative)

MightyYar (622222) | more than 2 years ago | (#40024431)

I could get behind this if it weren't the entire General Assembly, but instead just a selection of governments with some kind of free speech and representative democracy. Letting countries like China, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, and Iran even have a vote seems ludicrous.

Re:Oh Boy... (1)

DigiShaman (671371) | more than 2 years ago | (#40024505)

And the tower of babel shall fall...again.

Re:Oh Boy... (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40024575)

And letting in the US is better ?

SOPA
PIPA
ACTA
Trans Pacific Trade Agreement ?

Give me a break. There is no government, no government on earth that wants a true free internet.
So in my view its better these governments "fight" each other and leave the internet alone (mostly) than have them banded together and destroy it with certainty.

Re:Oh Boy... (2)

MightyYar (622222) | more than 2 years ago | (#40024661)

And letting in the US is better ?

Well, the US controls it now, so...

Re:Oh Boy... (3, Informative)

Ihmhi (1206036) | more than 2 years ago | (#40025059)

SOPA

Failed to pass.

PIPA

Failed to pass.

ACTA

Failed to pass (as of yet), seems unlikely.

Trans Pacific Trade Agreement

If you're talking about this [wikipedia.org] , well, it's still up in the air. My cursory read of the articles tells me that it would mainly be about eliminating tariffs between South Asia countries. The cynic in me says that it's all about setting up cheap and exploitable labor in those countries to reduce costs.

And okay, that's where we failed. Shit like NAFTA has, ironically, put the people it was supposed to help out of business (such as Mexican corn farmers, a lot of whom now grow something else entirely). But our government has always been pretty shitty about stuff like this, but what are you gonna do? It won't affect an everyday American's ordinary life like SOPA, PIPA, or ACTA would, so you won't really see any action against it build up any sort of momentum, unfortunately.

tl;dr: America writes up shitty laws just like nearly every other country in history, but on the ones mentioned we're 3 for 4 in keeping those shitty laws from passing.

Re:Oh Boy... (3, Insightful)

Kreigaffe (765218) | more than 2 years ago | (#40025079)

Letting the US is better?

Compared to N. Korea, China, Iran, Saudi Arabia?

Um, YES, IT IS FUCKING BETTER!

The US isn't perfect, no one is saying that. No one is saying the US is the best. Compared to THOSE countries? Compared to the amount of freedom that can be found on MOST of the planet? Yes, the fucking US is better than that.

Jesus fucking christ and this drivel was modded INSIGHTFUL? You want some real problems with limitations and outright lack of free speech, travel *outside* the US for once in your miserable, small and meaningless little fucking life.

You've got most of Europe, the northern part of North America, Australia, and Japan & S. Korea. The rest of the world is pretty much fucking *shit*, and your rights mean *nothing*.

But hey, I'm sure you're right. I'm sure the US is every bit as much of an authoritarian shithole with no respect for human rights as China and North Korea. Totally.

Fucking idiot.

Re:Oh Boy... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40025103)

North America, Australia, and Japan & S. Korea

Japan, HA HA HA. that's cute. Let me guess, you have never been to Japan. I have been living here for the last 12 years and rights is not something anyone in Japan would say exist in the formal sense of the word. Armchair Idiot.

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

Kreigaffe (765218) | more than 2 years ago | (#40025127)

Find somewhere in Asia that isn't Japan and S. Korea that even pretends to know what rights are.

Somewhere has to be the bottom of the heap of "free" nations, anyway. I should have added Israel to that list, in retrospect -- but Japan and S. Korea still have all the rest of Asia beat, and Africa is just a fucking joke of a continent.

10 years ago I might've included Russia on that list, but... I hesitate, today.

Re:Oh Boy... (3, Insightful)

jd (1658) | more than 2 years ago | (#40024671)

The US is about equal to all those you list in terms of civil rights, meaningful free speech (not just the playstuff that's actually allowed), levels of corruption and levels of actual democracy.

I agree that none of those listed should have a voice, but by the same standard neither should the US. At present, the US has very near absolute power. The GA may have depraved and corrupt elements, but on aggregate it's no worse than the US on any metric and at times is a whole lot better.

Ideally, the Internet would be run by a meritocratic UN group, with all nations recognizing and respecting a group that chooses members by merit and acts on merit. There have been *cough* enough incidents where nations (US included) have actively sought to cripple meritocratic groups that I do not believe such a group could function. It would lack the teeth necessary to impose its decisions and to work it would need Predator X-like teeth.

Re:Oh Boy... (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40024761)

The US is about equal to North Korea in free speech? Hyperbole, much?

By all means, go live in one of those places and the the US and tell me they are anywhere near equal. I'll wait.

The US created the Internet, with all of the assorted freedoms it has right now. I can't think of any other place it could have been created, including most of Western Europe. You may feel butthurt about American hegemony and some of the bad decisions made under that umbrella, but you need a little perspective.

Re:Oh Boy... (2)

fredprado (2569351) | more than 2 years ago | (#40024841)

It is true that the US is still nowhere near North Korea police state, yet, but it is walking at a very good pace in that direction. It won't likely get all the way to there, at least I hope not, but it will probably go far enough in that direction to be a considerable threat to the world, and considering what US can do and what North Korea can do, US is a much greater threat than North Korea could ever dream to be.

Re:Oh Boy... (0)

ravenshrike (808508) | more than 2 years ago | (#40024995)

And yet it's still walking slower in that direction than anyone else.

Re:Oh Boy... (1)

cheekyjohnson (1873388) | more than 2 years ago | (#40025029)

But its destination is the same. "Better" doesn't mean "good."

Re:Oh Boy... (1, Offtopic)

jd (1658) | more than 2 years ago | (#40025215)

The US did not create the Internet. DARPA (quasi-independent) created the protocols, the NSF (quasi-independent) installed the US infrastructure and research institutions in other countries (wholly independent) installed the rest. The US (as in the elected government, or the corporate entities within it) did absolutely bugger all apart from make life difficult.

I didn't say equal in free speech, I said equal in MEANINGFUL free speech. The freedom to speak in the US is absolute provided it can't actually achieve anything. The total amount of influence you, I, or any other individual has is no greater than that of any North Korean. We can do nothing that has any substance, any real material worth, we can only play-act that what we say will do any good. Being able to uselessly scream in the dark might well make you feel better and make you feel like you've done something worthwhile, but you haven't.

Look at the "Occupy" protests. They were massive, they were long-lasting, they were crushed through excessive violence and the political leaders responsible for that crushing have seen their poll numbers RISE as a result of using terror and intimidation on those who were asking only that the 1% pay fair dues. How's a protester getting his head smashed in and left in a vegetative state in Oakland that different from a protester getting his head blown off by a North Korean guard? Both are functionally dead, neither has done any good and neither had any free speech worth a damn.

Sure, the US protestor was completely free to set up a website and colour it pink to protest, because that would have done bugger all. Sure, you can march in protest all day in the middle of Death Valley, where nobody can see or hear you, but protestors in Seattle for the WTO talks there got blasted with tear gas, water canons and probably shot at with the occasional live round. Speech where it matters isn't free in the slightest.

Joe the Plumber only had any impact at all in the US precisely because he wasn't Joe and wasn't a plumber. If he had been, he would have been ignored utterly. It's because he was well-to-do and had connections that he was groomed, positioned and then hyped. How's that different from the way the Chinese government works?

The US control over territories it illegally seized from Mexico is not legally or morally distinct from the Chinese illegally seizing Tibet. Both were criminal acts at gunpoint, both have been supplemented by attempting to replace the indigenous population with imports together with destruction of indigenous traditions and attempts to eliminate the indigenous languages. Both have been justified by the occupying power as having civilized barbaric regions.

To me, that says that perspective isn't on the side of the US on this one. Once a criminal, always a criminal.

Re:Oh Boy... (1)

Man On Pink Corner (1089867) | more than 2 years ago | (#40024895)

The US is about equal to all those you list in terms of civil rights, meaningful free speech (not just the playstuff that's actually allowed)

You know how I know you're a barking idiot?

Re:Oh Boy... (5, Insightful)

geekgirlandrea (1148779) | more than 2 years ago | (#40025047)

Ideally, the Internet would be run by a meritocratic UN group, ...

No. Ideally it wouldn't be 'run' at all.

Look at it this way (3, Insightful)

jd (1658) | more than 2 years ago | (#40024623)

The US has done far, far worse than expected, ICANN has shown that they really can't and the FCC has utterly destroyed any possibility of it doing anything by treating the Internet as not a communication system. The major ISPs are acting like gangsters, using extortion and running protection rackets via the death of network neutrality.

Leaving it where it is WILL kill the Internet as we know it. You WILL lose what freedoms you still have, if power doesn't shift soon.

I don't know if the UN will do any better, but they sure as hell can't do worse and there are no other international organizations capable of the task.

Re:Look at it this way (2)

tnk1 (899206) | more than 2 years ago | (#40024799)

I'm not seeing how some sort of UN group, particularly a GA based one, is going to favorably address any of the points you brought up at all.

And hell yes, the UN can do worse, I mean, there's only one country that *has* controlled the Internet including the time that you think the Internet was any good. So your plan is to say, anyone *must* better than the people who ran it when it did have freedom? I really just don't think you can make a statement like that with any credibility.

If you want to suggest a UN body might be better, by all means, list actual reasons. I'm guessing that when you do, you might actually notice that almost none of them would necessarily get any better under a body that is filled with member countries that are quite happy to set up nationwide filters, including some Western ones. It is certainly not going to stop ISPs from acting like gangsters if you give a vote in the Internet to countries run by actual gangsters and dictators.

Re:Look at it this way (4, Interesting)

jd (1658) | more than 2 years ago | (#40025115)

Well, no, the US didn't control the Internet when it was any good, the NSF did. (No, the DARPA days weren't better, DARPA's screwball decisions are why the Internet protocols are as messed up as they are.) The NSF isn't run by Congress or Corporations. One option would be for the NSF to claim eminent domain, seize all fibre (lit and dark) in the US or owned by US organizations, and run the lot on rational principles.

However, that would only cover the US. The Internet is very global. Even CERN is primarily European. We need a UN body for the global reach, but it would need to meet the following criteria to actually work:

* It needs to be quasi-independent
* Members should be elected purely on merit, not on grounds of money or territory covered
* Officials should be 75% from the academic community and 25% from the InfoSec community, NOTHING from the political or corporate communities
* The organization should be primarily concerned with research, collaborative projects and the information demands of science
* The Internet should be a means to achieve the desired end results, not an end in itself
* Since this limits direct law-enforcement options, it would need to have significant muscle (eg: veto powers in the IMF and WTO) to ensure nations complied

However, let's assume the GA wants to take over and not create a meaningful NSF-like body. Actual gangsters and dictators hold onto power because they know what they can take and when not to push too hard. The KKK was well-known for charity work, not because they gave a crap but because it's by far the easiest way to manipulate the hearts and minds of those peons and fools they needed to be compliant. Corporations hold onto power through smoke, mirrors and legislation. They take it all and don't give a crap about pushing too hard because customers are expendable. I have zero faith in the mob, but that's still far more faith than I'll ever have in a megacorp.

I'd also point to Japan where actual mobsters and criminal gangs ARE in charge of many areas of law enforcement -- the nation has better Internet than the US (eg: gigabit to the home), better medical care, lower levels of (unlicensed) crime, lower levels of overt violence and far better sushi. It's an actual real-life embodiment of Terry Pratchett's Thieves' Guild. (I would not be surprised if Terry Pratchett got the idea from them, since many of his books are sourced in real-world ideas.)

That's far from ideal, and I repeat I have zero faith in it, but my faith in the current system is so far in the negative that zero is a definite improvement.

Re:Look at it this way (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40025049)

Meanwhile, the ITU---an international organization---came up with X.509 and OSI. *slow clap*

Re:Look at it this way (3, Informative)

jd (1658) | more than 2 years ago | (#40025283)

The ITU came up with a hell of a lot more than those. X.25 was the wire protocol used by Europe for a very long time - worked extremely well and was highly robust, compared to its US contemporary which was IPv0.

X.400 was probably heavier than necessary, but 99% of all work to improve on the limitations of SMTP have basically been reinventions of features X.400 had from the start.

X.500 exists today in the form of LDAP + ASN.1 + Digital Certificates + Federated methods of authentication. All these combined still don't cover the full spectrum of X.500 capabilities, but most of what's left wasn't really needed. However, there's nothing done today that wasn't in the standard. Not bad going.

Their other work includes little-known standards like JPEG, MPEG-2, MPEG-4, H.323 and ISDN, along with developing and standardizing technology that you can't possibly have heard of like wavelength-division multiplexing for optic fibre and DSL (yes, it's an ITU product as well).

Yes, they did the OSI model (which is still the basis for most networking) and SDL, but nobody's perfect.

Re:Oh Boy... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40024889)

What "free and open internet"?

They leave it open so you can feed them data and they can feed you ads, but the moment it threatens the status quo, the net will go down. Think it can't happen here? It already has.

Re:Oh Boy... (1)

ewieling (90662) | more than 2 years ago | (#40024983)

I suspect the UN will be as effective at regulating the internet as they are at "peace keeping". I can live with that.

Re:Oh Boy... (1)

Kreigaffe (765218) | more than 2 years ago | (#40025087)

Let's be fair, they might be slightly better -- there's less food to be stolen and local girls to rape inside my computer, so by that fact alone it'd have to be a better job.

Re:Oh Boy... (2)

Ihmhi (1206036) | more than 2 years ago | (#40025017)

That should work out well for a free and open internet, eh?

Strat

Hypothetical example: our worst dreams come true, and everything goes to shit on the Internets. Now everything in monitored and watched.

Solution: do what geeks have always done, and create the Darknet version of BitTorrent. That is, a darknet that is easy to use, cryptographically strong, and damn near impossible to detect.

Even if, well, any government clamps down and does their best effort, it won't matter for much terribly. Look at Iran, China, et. al. and how easily their censorship schemes are bypassed by their people.

Lastly (in the United States at least), we have no problem telling other countries to fuck off when it comes to doing things we're not all that interested in following through with. As an example, there's been multiple proposals in the U.N. for personal restrictions on Firearms (i.e. citizens can't have guns), which basically has about as much of a chance in passing in America as a bisexual, atheist, and Arab President has being elected in 2012.

The U.N. has proved ineffectual time and time again, so there's not really a whole lot to worry about here. Backwards countries like India will do their best to keep their citizens in the dark and fail on every level. The population will get more connected in every way and we'll see less and less bullshit as time goes on. Keep in mind things like how you can easily look up the voting record of any American politican from the comfort of your home and how we didn't have that capability 10 years ago. It's one of many small (but significant) ways in which the people have been empowered by technology, and I only expect them to grow and I also expect politicians' efforts to suppress them to fail due to, ironically, their lack of understanding of technology and the difficulty of the problem.

Hmm... (1)

fullback (968784) | more than 2 years ago | (#40024289)

The problem with things like this is who "develops policies, oversees standards bodies and policies, and sits in judgment" of the UN General Assembly?

well (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40024353)

seeing the fact that its not so much a easy thing to get standards and such made then one might argue that things ONLY will get done if really pushed by the home nations and the people that sit at the top....thus not much will get done until the mpaa and riaa of europe aka ifpi just bribe those people to do what they want.

Fuck Off We Invented It, Its Ours (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40024295)

Its due to the intellectual and economic superiority and might of the United States of America that the Internet was invented by us.

Why the hell would we relinquish control? Who are these people to demand it?

Re:Fuck Off We Invented It, Its Ours (3, Insightful)

InspectorGadget1964 (2439148) | more than 2 years ago | (#40024327)

By the same token, Mercedes-Benz invented the car, why should you have one?

Re:Fuck Off We Invented It, Its Ours (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40024359)

By the same token, Mercedes-Benz invented the car, why should you have one?

Are you fucking high?! America invented the car!

In fact you're lucky we even let you exist, America invented people!

Re:Fuck Off We Invented It, Its Ours (1, Flamebait)

InspectorGadget1964 (2439148) | more than 2 years ago | (#40024407)

Such arrogance! Mercedes Benz produced the first car in 1886, when you Yanks were dragging carts with horses, and with your economy as it is right now, you will be begging to the world to be allowed to exist. If the Chineses stop buying US government bonds, your trembling economy will go to dust!

Re:Fuck Off We Invented It, Its Ours (3, Funny)

MightyYar (622222) | more than 2 years ago | (#40024415)

Is a European lecturing us on fiscal discipline? Let the flame wars begin!

Re:Fuck Off We Invented It, Its Ours (1)

InspectorGadget1964 (2439148) | more than 2 years ago | (#40024441)

Just check this link http://usdebtclock.org/ [usdebtclock.org]

Re:Fuck Off We Invented It, Its Ours (1)

GumphMaster (772693) | more than 2 years ago | (#40024583)

OMG, FlashBlock just had a hernia :)

Re:Fuck Off We Invented It, Its Ours (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40025289)

I have a hernia :(

Re:Fuck Off We Invented It, Its Ours (3, Funny)

MightyYar (622222) | more than 2 years ago | (#40024601)

What kind of a lunatic creates a web page consisting of 94 individual flash animations??? It's like Hamster Dance!!!

Re:Fuck Off We Invented It, Its Ours (0)

the eric conspiracy (20178) | more than 2 years ago | (#40024595)

That's rather ignorant. The US economy, while not robust by historical standards is pretty much the only big one not in recession at this point. Look at the world currency markets. The USD has been gaining on most everything.

http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/341754/20120516/euro-zone-greek-government-austerity-forex-dollar.htm [ibtimes.com]

The US stock market has been outperforming everything major this year as well.

http://www.yardeni.com/pub/PEACOCKGLSTKYTD.pdf [yardeni.com]

Oh, and FYI the Chinese stopped buying US bonds over a year ago and started reducing their holdings. Didn't have any effect.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-05-17/china-trims-u-s-bond-holdings-for-fifth-month-as-debt-approaches-ceiling.html [bloomberg.com]

And as far as the first car goes, Nicolas Joseph Cugnot of France built the first automobile in 1769.

The REAL invention that made cars attractive was efficient production of gasoline, and that was due to an American, William Meriam Burton who invented thermal cracking.

Re:Fuck Off We Invented It, Its Ours (1)

Luckyo (1726890) | more than 2 years ago | (#40024737)

Germany is trotting along quite nicely. Much better then US in fact, and would've been fucked on currency value if not for PIIGS dragging euro down.

Why do you think they keep funding the entire mess? Without it their exports would be much lower due to potential new DM exploding in value.

Re:Fuck Off We Invented It, Its Ours (1)

InspectorGadget1964 (2439148) | more than 2 years ago | (#40024931)

The German economy is doing very well, so is the Chinese economy. As for the US economy, the GDP is about 10% of the value of the total debt plus the unfunded liabilities. As for the first car, I was talking about petrol engines. The French one was just a steam engine.

Re:Fuck Off We Invented It, Its Ours (1)

GumphMaster (772693) | more than 2 years ago | (#40024963)

The REAL invention that made cars attractive was efficient production of gasoline, and that was due to an American, William Meriam Burton who invented thermal cracking.

... and that was due to a Russian Vladimir Shukhov who invented thermal cracking and patented it in the Russian empire (No. 12926, November 27, 1891). The American input was to tweak the technique and patent it in the United States. FTFY.

In this day and age that is called 'theft' but in reality there are precious few, if any ideas, that are not built on those of others whether in the US or elsewhere.

Re:Fuck Off We Invented It, Its Ours (1)

rossdee (243626) | more than 2 years ago | (#40024663)

It wasn't called Mercedes back then, but Daimler and Benz did produce the first internal combustion "horseless carriages"

However the first self propelled vehicle was made by a Frenchman, Cugenot (or something like that) a century earlier - it was steam powered and had 3 wheels. (I think it was a bit top heavy with its large boiler, and overturned and killed the driver, thus making the first fatal automobile accident.

Re:Fuck Off We Invented It, Its Ours (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40024809)

Such arrogance! Mercedes Benz produced the first car in 1886, when you Yanks were dragging carts with horses, and with your economy as it is right now, you will be begging to the world to be allowed to exist. If the Chineses stop buying US government bonds, your trembling economy will go to dust!

Wow...someone missed that by a mile (or approximately 1.61 kilometres if you prefer), I tried to make it obvious with that jab at the end but you didn't even dispute the comment about inventing people. I don't know where you're from but sincerely i hope you're not considered anywhere near the best of the breed.

FYI I'm not American, and just to spell it out for you...I was kidding. (about both the cars and the people)

Re:Fuck Off We Invented It, Its Ours --Nope, Brits (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40024975)

Such arrogance!
Mercedes Benz produced the first car in 1886, when you Yanks were dragging carts with horses, and with your economy as it is right now, you will be begging to the world to be allowed to exist. If the Chineses stop buying US government bonds, your trembling economy will go to dust!

Um, no. Actually is was Brittan,( and I am an American thank you) They invented the first Steam powered cars and buses in the 1840's-50's. Benz made the first vehicle power by gas in 1886. And what many of my lesser educated countrymen get confused on is the Ford Modle A. It was not the first car but the fist MASS produced car. Ford invented the assembly line. Not the car.

Re:Fuck Off We Invented It, Its Ours (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40024469)

What the fuck are you talking about?

The internet isn't controlled by the US.

The internet is controlled by everyone that operates a network. Sure there are IANA and the DNS root servers,but it is only by consesus that we use addresses allocated by IANA and the root servers hosted by ?Verisign?. If they start instituting policies that network operators find unreasonable, they simply won't follow their guidelines. There is no legal mandate to conform with the IANA, nor to point your DNS servers at those root servers.

Re:Fuck Off We Invented It, Its Ours (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40024581)

You like most people don't get it. This isn't about the US controlling the internet as a whole. This is about India wanting to control the content of websites not under their current jurisdiction.

Re:Fuck Off We Invented It, Its Ours (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40024481)

Speaking as an American, I wish we could deport all these people who are still 13 year old boys in their heads, sitting in back of the classroom with their fellow losers and smoking weed afterwards, thus setting up the pattern for the rest of their lives.

Better make room for immigrants who come here willing to work their butts off to achieve a better life for themselves and their families, just like your great grandparents did facing a similar cloud of discrimination.

Re:Fuck Off We Invented It, Its Ours (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40024685)

Shut the fuck up, jackass.

Re:Fuck Off We Invented It, Its Ours (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40024881)

Yes, that's it! The typical American stance.

UN (2)

fnj (64210) | more than 2 years ago | (#40024303)

No. Just no.

Re:UN (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40024387)

Yeah lets leave control of the internet to the usa after all it would never interfere, censor or otherwise abuse the internets! The USA is a beacon of pure and god fearing FREEDOM for everyone*! USA! USA! USA!

* Offer applicable only to white skinned, wealthy christian conservatives.

Re:UN (1)

InspectorGadget1964 (2439148) | more than 2 years ago | (#40024419)

I love to see kindred spirits in this place. Congratulations!

Re:UN (1)

SteveFoerster (136027) | more than 2 years ago | (#40024455)

As warranted as your sarcasm is, it's still better than placing something so important in the hands of the anti-freedom bureaucrats at the UN.

Re:UN (1)

shutdown -p now (807394) | more than 2 years ago | (#40024577)

UN is not going to have control over the Internet, anyway, because it lacks enforcement powers. Suppose the "anti-freedom bureaucrats" decide to block something; now what? The root servers are still hosted in certain specific countries, and said countries can always tell the UN to fuck off on that particular matter.

By the way, this is also why UN as a whole is not a "world government" in any meaningful sense. UNSC is another story, but it doesn't deal with such mundane stuff.

Re:UN (1)

bug1 (96678) | more than 2 years ago | (#40024729)

The point of moving it to the UN is that its harder for them to *try* to corrupt it to any one nations exclusive advantage (they have to fight each other).

And it doesnt matter which overload is trying to oppress the internet, they wont succeed in the long run because the internet empowers individuals more than their masters, all they can do is escalate the arms race.

Its just a matter of time until something better for the majority replaces DNS.

Re:UN (1)

smelch (1988698) | more than 2 years ago | (#40024557)

IP addresses and DNS servers are not the internet. It's the network. And you can build your network any way you like and avoid sending traffic through the US.

Re:UN (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40024659)

It's not a choice of the UN or the USA. Neither should control it.

Re:UN (1)

Score Whore (32328) | more than 2 years ago | (#40024971)

Control what? Control the actual fiber, cables and microwave links? Well the USA doesn't control those. Those are owned mostly by private companies generally subject to the laws and regulations of most every nation in the world. However the physical infrastructure isn't exactly The Internet. The internet is merely a bunch of networks passing traffic back and forth. The US DoC was smart enough to see that for this sort of thing to work there needs to be some point of coordination to allocate addresses and manage DNS servers. Guess what, you don't have to abide by the United States of America's rules on this. Feel free to use any DNS servers you want. Use any network addresses you desire. Just don't be shocked if nobody wants to talk to you once you start talking in -- what is effectively -- your own made up language. Why do you think you have the right to insist that everyone conforms to your preference of coordinating body?

And yes you absolutely can turn that argument exactly around and I completely agree with it. 100%. The United States has no right to insist that other counties follow the our rules. But so what. We put our network out there and it turns out that most everyone wanted to be on it. When whatever agency or country you have an affection for is as culturally and economically significant as the Unites States of America, then they'll be able to call the dance.

Your country is free to do their own thing (5, Insightful)

Sycraft-fu (314770) | more than 2 years ago | (#40024677)

Setup a different set of root servers. Start out by mirroring the ICANN root file to your root authority, and then passing that to your servers. Then maybe talk to ICANN about splitting authority over the root zone so your country/countries run the root for that part, ICANN for the rest.

Oh what's that? It is expensive and you'd rather just tell the US how to run it shit? Screw you then.

See the thing is right now the Internet doesn't have any global law over it, not even the US. It is all just a set of conventions. ICANN has the power because almost all DNS servers trust the root-servers.net roots, and they trust ICANN. However not only can you set up other roots, people have. Look at OpenNIC for one example. So while the US does have nominal de facto control, they have no de jure control and people can start ignoring them and building their own infrastructure any time they wish. It can even be an individual. You can run your very own root service, if you wish.

However, you start making it international law, then it is the kind of thing countries have to enforce, the sort of thing you can't just go your own way on. The people with guns will be saying what goes on.

So how about no, let's not have the UN in on it. Particularly since for all its faults, the US doesn't want to censor speech like China, Iran, and so on do and they all sit on the UN.

World government? (1)

InspectorGadget1964 (2439148) | more than 2 years ago | (#40024319)

Sounds a bit like Orwell's.....

Not The World Governments! (1)

Greyfox (87712) | more than 2 years ago | (#40024343)

Those guys are assholes!

Who pays for the UN? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40024363)

If it's to be funded by the UN, which tax paying factory worker foots the bill for this abortion of bureaucracy?

Don't worry (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40024397)

When all is said and done, much will be said, and nothing will be done. The US will never give up control of the Internet. Isn't gonna happen. We allow the rabble to hold diplomatic conferences every year or two to "discuss" the issue. They'll complain and demand change. We'll politely listen to their pissing and moaning, and then do nothing.

How it goes... (4, Interesting)

gman003 (1693318) | more than 2 years ago | (#40024405)

India: "Hey, has anybody thought we should try controlling the 'net more?"

Korea: "Nah, that's a terrible idea. Maybe a law keeping ISPs from blocking stuff they don't like would be better."

Germany: "Yeah, that sounds good."

Sweden: "Add a clause telling the movie and music companies to stop suing people for more money than some of *us* have, and you'll get my vote!"

Eritrea: "Hear, hear!"

And then the law gets passed and nobody messed with the internet again and we all live happily ever after, the end. ...

Hey, if *they* get to talk about *their* crazy future scenarios, I get to talk about mine.

Re:How it goes... (1)

jd (1658) | more than 2 years ago | (#40024689)

As crazy as it is, it's infinitely more believable than US' Congress saying that (and the Supreme Court has said the FCC can't regulate the Internet unless Congress DOES pass the law you describe).

Re:How it goes... (1)

Shahv (2592571) | more than 2 years ago | (#40025241)

Hope the freedom of speech is not curtailed. Some content on internet can be outrageous but hope government control does not mean political interference. That will be a disaster!

Re:How it goes... (1)

moon19th (2640533) | more than 2 years ago | (#40025281)

We ourselves should control the net more!

Those who want to "rule" the Internet... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40024427)

Amazing that the least free (democratically - yes, I know India is democratic - I mean other nations...keep reading) - the least free, the most authoritarian and the ones that allow the least economic mobility...are the ones that want to "rule the Internet." To all of them I say, "Fuk OFF!!!"

How to select handbags? (-1, Offtopic)

cheap louis vuitton (2641025) | more than 2 years ago | (#40024485)

the color of the bag the single color the better bag had better not exceed 3 kinds, otherwise plus the color of the clothes, the whole people is spent, visual nicer on uncomfortable. Had better choose a single color and then have a little bright color of the ornament, if the bright color also with your body of accessories or clothes on a place in the same color, the perfect. cheap louis vuitton handbags [luxury-louis-vuitton.com]

Who is the worst steward? (2)

manu0601 (2221348) | more than 2 years ago | (#40024509)

For now things are in the hand of ICANN (that is, USA), and it is illegitimate enough that it cannot make crazy moves, otherwise some states will start creating their alternative DNS roots. I wonder if a UN based organization would be more capable of wrecking the Internet without partionning it.

Note that whatever the governing body is, we have no chance of having democratic oversight no it, anyway.

It very much would (2)

Sycraft-fu (314770) | more than 2 years ago | (#40024731)

Most nations take International Treaties as something that has the highest force of law. In the US, that is specified in the Constitution and many other nations have similar provisions. So, if the nations get together and hammer out a treaty that says "Such and such UN body shall have ultimate authority over the 'net and we agree to do what they say," that is pretty binding. Other countries can go after them to enforce it.

So right now if you make an anti-Iran website in the US, there is little Iran can do about it. They can whine but the US says "Sorry, that is free speech here," and that is that. However if there is UN authority and the UN group says "That's mean it has to go down," the US will need to listen to them and make you take it down.

Likewise right now you have companies like Slysoft selling programs (AnyDVD HD) that the US media cartels and by extension the US government really don't like, but there's not much they can do about it because it is legal in Antigua and Barbuda which is where Slysoft is. However with international treaties covering it, the US could ask the UN body to take Slysoft offline.

Remember that right now all the US can do in terms of shit outside their borders is take away domain names registered with US registrars. So if you register a .com domain, they can nab that because Verisign is the authority for .com and they are a US company. They can't take away your IP or server, unless the country they are in cooperates, they can't even take away domain names run by other countries unless that country cooperates, or they were willing to go scorched earth and have ICANN remove the whole TLD from the roots, and even then some of the roots might decide not to listen to ICANN (they aren't all US based).

Sure it is more power than any other country, but it is pretty piddly shit overall. Someone could host something in China on a .cn name that the US didn't like and there is fuck all they could do so long as China was happy with it.

However a UN body that had authority by international treaty? They could do, well, whatever the treaty gave them authority to do.

consent? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40024515)

Why not discuss it in India with as much input from the public as possible and base the direction on public opinion?

Re:consent? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40024619)

Sounds like something that would be about as big a waste of time as possible.

No way no way no way (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40024537)

We don't need more "cooperation."

What keeps the Internet free is the ability to pick up and move across jurisdictions.

UN management is a synonym for nowhere to run and nowhere to hide.

The Internet is among the best inventions in human history because it empowers people to communicate with people. We don't need moralizers, tyrants, bureaucrats, and corporate lobbyists screwing it all up.

There would be limited upside to this and unlimited downside. A global Internet police could theoretically snuff out things like free speech hosting and even Tor.

Internet routes around standard damage (1)

tobiah (308208) | more than 2 years ago | (#40024543)

Internet routes around standard damage originating somewhere in Asia. News at 11

But the Internet already has a king (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40024565)

Me.

Re:But the Internet already has a king (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40024791)

Nope.

Government fxxx off (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40024721)

There aren't any problems or disputes that require the meddling of the government fxxks, independently of where they come from.
And the UN, they're the worst. Defund the fuckers!

Re:Government fxxx off (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40024831)

You do realize, you can type "fuck" on this forum, right?

fuck, fuck, fuck, fuckity, fuck fuck.

Predictable backlash to good idea is predictable (1)

qirtaiba (582509) | more than 2 years ago | (#40024723)

The spin on this story is engineered to make you stop questionning the way that the Internet is run currently. And despite what you may have heard, it is not still run by Slashdot-friendly geeks. Sure, some of the underlying nuts and bolts are, and things are working at that level. But at the public policy level, geeks have no say. That level of Internet governance is controlled by big corporations and rich governments. The hardest thing is, they like to pretend that they are on our side. But they are not. These are the powers that brought forth SOPA/PIPA and ACTA. To put it simply, US and EU policies bought by big business now are the way that the Internet is controlled. This proposal aims for nothing more but to change that.

Don't believe the FUD about the United Nations. Most of the things that Slashdotters hate about the US, are things on which the UN agrees with you about. ACTA could never have happened within the UN intellectual body, WIPO - why do you think that it was deliberately negotiated elsewhere? It is because at WIPO, civil society and developing countries actually have a reasonably good voice. We will speak out against unjust laws and enforcement practices (not always successfully - the WIPO Copyright Treaties still passed - but their US implementation is far worse than the much more reasonable WIPO baseline.) The UN is more reasonable precisely because rich governments and multinationals can't push through their agendas, as they can at the closed-door US trade meetings. They have to reach a compromise with developing country governments and civil society groups.

Make no mistake. To move this level of Internet policy making outside of US control and into a multilateral forum in which the door is open to civil society (which, remember, means you and me) would not make things any worse, it could only make things much better, because it would have to become more transparent, more globally democratic and more inclusive of other viewpoints besides those paid for by big business. That's not to say that there aren't things that could be improved in India's proposal. There are, absolutely. But that's why we should welcome the opportunity to engage with them on it, rather than closing the door on future improvements to the unfair way in which Internet public poilcy is now made. For more reading... [igfwatch.org]

Re:Predictable backlash to good idea is predictabl (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40024849)

I am an Indian and believe me, the government here has no good feelings for the Internet. If you want control of the internet to go out of US hands start supporting alternative DNS systems like opennic, etc.

No it doesn't! (1)

BitterOak (537666) | more than 2 years ago | (#40024781)

which effectively means the control of the internet passes on to World Governments directly.

No it doesn't. Only if the US gives up control of assigned IP addresses and DNS tlds that it controls. Already each country controls their own two letter tld.

I propose that we don't (1)

Shavano (2541114) | more than 2 years ago | (#40024825)

Who needs the UN in everybody's shorts?

Re:I propose that we don't (1)

Qubit (100461) | more than 2 years ago | (#40025175)

Who needs the UN in everybody's shorts?

1) Who the heck wears Internet-connected shorts?

2) Do the shorts run Java?

3) Where can I buy a pair?

4) The UN? In my shorts? It's more likely than you think!

Reclassification of RFC 1984 to historic (2)

WaffleMonster (969671) | more than 2 years ago | (#40024869)

Just WTF do they think they are going to when all Internet standards bodies unanimously refuse to be overseen? Shut down their mailing lists and brand all members terrorists?

Re:Reclassification of RFC 1984 to historic (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40025161)

They'll put them all in prison.

I'll be here all week, folks.

Re:Reclassification of RFC 1984 to historic (1)

Qubit (100461) | more than 2 years ago | (#40025165)

Just WTF do they think they are going to when all Internet standards bodies unanimously refuse to be overseen? Shut down their mailing lists and brand all members terrorists?

Were you under the common yet critically dangerous assumption that any person in political office had the slightest chance of maintaining ownership of his own soul?

As long as the tv shows keep on bellowing forth from the screen and the coca-cola (original recipe, natch) keeps on flowing like sweet, syrupy soma, the proletariat will be satisfied. Dear IETF members: May the odds be ever in your favor!

Let's be realistic ... (1)

MacTO (1161105) | more than 2 years ago | (#40025245)

The Internet is an international medium that needs international agreements in order to operate. Just because there are international agreements in place doesn't mean that it will be reduced to the lowest common denominator either. Radio and telephone systems are prime examples of this. (The governance isn't perfect, but it works.)

Don't do it! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40025291)

The UN is the most corrupt organization in the woprld with no checks and balances!!!

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?