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!

UN Takeover of Internet Must Be Stopped, US Warns

samzenpus posted more than 2 years ago | from the it's-hard-to-let-go dept.

The Internet 454

benfrog writes "In a rare show of bipartisan agreement, lawmakers from both sides of the aisle warned this morning that a United Nations summit in December will lead to a virtual takeover of the Internet if proposals from China, Russia, Iran, and Saudi Arabia are adopted. Called the World Conference on International Telecommunications, the summit would consider proposals including '[using] international mandates to charge certain Web destinations on a "per-click" basis to fund the build-out of broadband infrastructure across the globe' and allowing 'governments to monitor and restrict content or impose economic costs upon international data flows.' Concerns regarding the possible proposals were both aired at a congressional hearing this morning and drafted in a congressional resolution (PDF)."

cancel ×

454 comments

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

UN takeover must be stopped? (5, Insightful)

dhammabum (190105) | more than 2 years ago | (#40176461)

The only thing they are worried about is that the US would not control it.

Re:UN takeover must be stopped? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40176471)

No-one controls the fucking internet you retard. Fail.

Re:UN takeover must be stopped? (5, Insightful)

Sean (422) | more than 2 years ago | (#40176507)

It's pretty arrogant of you to presume such powerful forces can't successfully intervene in the Internet. Look at the censorship we have today.

Re:UN takeover must be stopped? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40176869)

The Internet is very dependent on central points of failure today. That is you are reliant on your ISP, your ISP is controlled by government, etc. There are few independent web sites that host all the links to copyright infringing material. However with alternative web browsers and anonymity solutions like Tor and i2p much of this is eliminated. Even with a centralised controling entity it is difficult to curb discent. Look at China. It's probably got to be the most firewalled walled off place and yet even the Chinese manage to bypass the censorship with the help of programs like Tor. And they are getting these programs. While it may be person to person the software is getting around the censorship.

I don't want the UN nor US interference !! (5, Insightful)

Taco Cowboy (5327) | more than 2 years ago | (#40176991)

Why can't they just leave us alone?

I mean, why do the governments want to interfere with the Net, a medium whereby people from all corners of the world can share information, and discuss, and plan, and scheme?

Oh, wai ...

Re:UN takeover must be stopped? (2)

lightknight (213164) | more than 2 years ago | (#40176979)

The internet is designed to survive a nuclear strike. The forces of bribery, stupidity, and politics may be able to slow or damage parts of the internet, but those parts are cut-off or rerouted as soon as the damage is discovered.

It should be a bigger worry to those countries who ARE cut off from the internet when everyone else's are not.

Re:UN takeover must be stopped? (0)

Zombie Byte (2652391) | more than 2 years ago | (#40176545)

Nice contribution. The government can certainly control the internet.

Re:UN takeover must be stopped? (4, Insightful)

kdemetter (965669) | more than 2 years ago | (#40176663)

The government can certainly try to control the internet.
They can block a few websites, or even firewall off must parts of it, but people will always find a way to get around it, just like they have gotten around other forms of government control.

The internet is more than the hardware, it's also an idea. And that's not so easy to take down.

Re:UN takeover must be stopped? (5, Insightful)

Impy the Impiuos Imp (442658) | more than 2 years ago | (#40176863)

You mean like tax it?

Like require all content providers to screen things that are posted to pre-approve them?

Like they control the phones? Or newspapers? Or TV?

Nah. I'm sure it'll be fine.

Re:UN takeover must be stopped? (5, Insightful)

DigiShaman (671371) | more than 2 years ago | (#40176497)

Bad, or worse. Pick one.

Re:UN takeover must be stopped? (4, Funny)

ehintz (10572) | more than 2 years ago | (#40176669)

Ok. But, help me out here, which one is bad, and which one is worse?

Re:UN takeover must be stopped? (5, Insightful)

superdave80 (1226592) | more than 2 years ago | (#40176689)

...proposals from China, Russia, Iran, and Saudi Arabia ...

Yeah, I totally want those guys making suggestions about the internet.....

Re:UN takeover must be stopped? (4, Insightful)

Macthorpe (960048) | more than 2 years ago | (#40176817)

I'm sorry, which government was it that started seizing .com domains without warning?

The article itself is full of "could allow", "might allow", "tries to" language that never goes quite far enough to say that things will definitely pan out the way the US government wants you to think it will. The US is scared that it's own control will be eroded by others. Given the way they've abused that control, maybe it wouldn't be such a bad idea to see what other people make of it.

Re:UN takeover must be stopped? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40176829)

So you think that having all of the above-mentioned countries controlling the Internet would be better?

I don't disagree that the US has a deplorable history of behavior towards the Internet, but it could be *a lot* worse.

Re:UN takeover must be stopped? (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40176861)

Prefer the UN rather then the US

Re:UN takeover must be stopped? (5, Insightful)

tnk1 (899206) | more than 2 years ago | (#40176531)

I like how they are already starting to talk about taxing it to pay for it's regulation by them. As far as I can tell, the Internet is working fine without them, so I am not sure what click taxes are going to buy for anyone, other than funding regulations that only certain governments who dislike current liberties on the Internet would be interested in.

This goes to show my usual theory about politicians. They're mostly technically ignorant, but they can usually muster just enough insight to know that they should avoid nightmare scenarios like this. It's more of a survival instinct than anything else.

Re:UN takeover must be stopped? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40176563)

Power is a zero-sum game. The more empowered "the people" become, the less powerful governments become. And vice versa.

Inasmuch as the Internet empowers people, every government in the world sees it as a power sink and wants to put a nice tight leash on it.

Re:UN takeover must be stopped? (5, Insightful)

ktappe (747125) | more than 2 years ago | (#40176589)

The only thing they are worried about is that the US would not control it.

Did you bother reading even the summary? I'm usually pro-U.N. but here they're sanctioning government censorship of the Internet. This is seriously messed up and there is no way the U.S. should support it.

Re:UN takeover must be stopped? (1)

dhammabum (190105) | more than 2 years ago | (#40176659)

I was being facetious - every government wants to control whatever they can. While I would rather no one controls the Internet, and having Russia, China, Saudi Arabia and Iran guiding matters would be disastrous, it is probably only a matter of time when the game will be over, the Internet becomes just another tool of governments and corporations, and we'll all have to go home. I do despair....

Re:UN takeover must be stopped? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40176947)

Governments already censor the internet. Only difference here is an international body says ok.

Such as the US wanting to censor porn? (2, Insightful)

SmallFurryCreature (593017) | more than 2 years ago | (#40176957)

How about US censorship of porn and gambling? Or do you think the .xxx domain will not be used by republicans to make a push in the future to force all porn on to that new domain and then block it everywhere?

How about the DMCA which has been used to censor material considered undesirable by both parties funders?

Censorship comes in many forms. Frankly it is no issue to me if Iranians can't see some stuff, but the DMCA hits everyone in the whole world. The US dictating its laws world wide is far worse then a country dictating its laws to its own people. Let the Iranians get rid of their government if they want an uncensored net. It can be done. But the Iranians can never be rid of the US government and its corporate masters.

Re:UN takeover must be stopped? (5, Insightful)

interkin3tic (1469267) | more than 2 years ago | (#40176595)

They say they're worried that China, Russia, Iran, and Saudi Arabia would gain control.

They're ACTUALLY worried about Sweden or the Netherlands gaining control.

Re:UN takeover must be stopped? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40176839)

I think this is one of those rare cases where what we see on the surface is probably the truth.

Even the media industries wouldn't want this one bit.

Re:UN takeover must be stopped? (1)

jovius (974690) | more than 2 years ago | (#40176705)

...should continue working to implement the position of the United States on Internet governance that clearly articulates the consistent and unequivocal policy of the United States to promote a global Internet free from government control...

It must be the opposite because that's how it says in the resolution.

Re:UN takeover must be stopped? (1)

mwvdlee (775178) | more than 2 years ago | (#40176715)

I don't like the US controlling the internet either, but having the UN control it might be even worse.

Re:UN takeover must be stopped? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40176749)

The only thing they are worried about is that the US would not control it.

Yes. Everyone should realize that internet is not for US to own. And specially not Microsoft.
UN should take control and keep internet equal to all to utilize.

Re:UN takeover must be stopped? (0)

Mashiki (184564) | more than 2 years ago | (#40176819)

Well let's see here. The US is kinda bad, the UN is horrible, no terrible. We have murderous dictators running human rights councils, we have the most oppressive countries running womens rights councils, we have NGO's directly influencing 'racism' conferences with the heads of the UN organizations actively being supportive of the efforts, and in calling for the genocide of other groups of people

Soooooo....you tell me. US or UN? Even if you say US, the US doesn't control near as much as you think.

Certain Web destinations (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40176465)

They're proposing a Google tax?

America the Right (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40176487)

If America cannot own the Internet NOBODY CAN. The UN Summit is most likely to stop the fractioning of the Internet and provide stability and equal sharing. Sorry America- you had your chance to be "for the people... [of the world]" You can complain all you want about "takeovers must be stopped" but when you try it its ok because you are America.

Re:America the Right (0, Flamebait)

0123456 (636235) | more than 2 years ago | (#40176503)

Yeah, because we'll be so much better off if Saudi Arabia, Russia and China control the Internet.

The real question is, why haven't Americans driven the UN into the sea long ago?

Re:America the Right (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40176505)

herp derp I don't read articles. Did it really not cross your tiny brain that even a stopped clock is right twice a day? Read the damn article. My captcha was "stoned". Maybe you are too.

Re:America the Right (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40176661)

Why is it that Americans always use kindergarten proverbs when debating? Just shows how dumb and ignorant you are.
The US government has overtaken the Internet when they started seizing domain names without due process. .com, .net and .org are supposed to be international, but the USA have given themselves the right to seize domains using these extensions, in effect killing the political neutrality of the web.
This is a serious mistakes and the USA deserve to lose their current control of the web over this!

Also, ICANN is corrupt and broken. They're creating new TLDs like it's something amazing, when in fact there's simply no reason not to let anyone name their website whatever they want. And they're charging crazy sums of money for these new TLDs too. .com, .en, .us, .fr, etc. are just part of the name. ICANN just decides each website name has to end in dot-something, and from a technical point of view whether it's .com or .octopus makes absolutely no difference, it doesn't require extra work or extra infrastructure/configuration/whatever. But ICANN just wanted control, they felt it was their job to organize TLDs, and now they want to charge money for giving us the freedom to name our websites.

And I wouldn't worry about China or Russia taking control. If the UN takes control, it means every country will get their say.
And if somehow China manages to pass rules about the web that we don't like, it will be the excuse we've been waiting all these years to nuke these assfucks.

My captcha was "fuck off".

Re:America the Right (2)

houstonbofh (602064) | more than 2 years ago | (#40176543)

America is trying to manhandle the Internet. But the UN could give it the death of a thousand cuts. Of course they will run into the reverse problem when they try and run the US, the fact that almost all of the Internet here is privately owned.

Re:America the Right (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40176655)

You seem to miss the point in which nations like Russia, China, and Iran want the ability to block, etc. This is not a UN takeover, but a takeover by other nations of their sections. And those nations want the right to push their goods and hype on others, but do not want it pushed on them.

RISC (0)

the100rabh (947158) | more than 2 years ago | (#40176509)

The anagram of all the countries mentioned amounts to RISC
Is that some kind of subliminal messaging ??

Re:RISC (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40176981)

It means you have autism.

You fools! (5, Funny)

maugle (1369813) | more than 2 years ago | (#40176511)

You all kept saying that nobody could mishandle the Internet worse than the US, and the UN took it as a challenge!

Re:You fools! (5, Insightful)

houstonbofh (602064) | more than 2 years ago | (#40176529)

Unfortunately, people will mod you "funny" and not insightful.

Re:You fools! (3, Insightful)

Grayhand (2610049) | more than 2 years ago | (#40176581)

Given that the cast of characters demanding control of the internet I would have to agree. Every country named has sought to filter internet content to restrict speech. If they take over I'd say the open internet would be effectively dead.

Re:You fools! (0)

jamstar7 (694492) | more than 2 years ago | (#40176611)

It makes about as much sense as the US demanding ThePirateBay get shut down.

Re:You fools! (1)

psiclops (1011105) | more than 2 years ago | (#40176987)

Given that the cast of characters demanding control of the internet I would have to agree

that would be because it's a biased statement specifically listing nations that should invoke ill feelings when used in a discussion about the internet.

it's not like they combine to form a controlling vote.

The US made it (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40176523)

And they're just letting everyone else use it. If these other countries don't like our rules, they're free to setup their own network and see if anyone comes along. It'd be like if Google and Microsoft decided they didn't think Facebook should have control of Facebook.

Re:The US made it (2, Informative)

qirtaiba (582509) | more than 2 years ago | (#40176601)

The US did not make the Internet. Quoting from this history [nethistory.info] , "The earliest pioneers included a Frenchman, Louis Pouzin, who introduced the idea of data grams and an Englishman, Donald W. Davies, who was one of the inventors of packet-switching. Another of the great pioneers in Britain was Peter T. Kirstein, who went to America at the beginning of the Arpanet in 1969 when it was decided that Davies could not go for reasons of national security." And of course as we all know Tim Berners-Lee, another Englishman, invented the web.

Re:The US made it (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40176635)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_protocol_suite

The Internet protocol suite resulted from research and development conducted by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) in the early 1970s. After initiating the pioneering ARPANET in 1969, DARPA started work on a number of other data transmission technologies. In 1972, Robert E. Kahn joined the DARPA Information Processing Technology Office, where he worked on both satellite packet networks and ground-based radio packet networks, and recognized the value of being able to communicate across both. In the spring of 1973, Vinton Cerf, the developer of the existing ARPANET Network Control Program (NCP) protocol, joined Kahn to work on open-architecture interconnection models with the goal of designing the next protocol generation for the ARPANET.
By the summer of 1973, Kahn and Cerf had worked out a fundamental reformulation, where the differences between network protocols were hidden by using a common internetwork protocol, and, instead of the network being responsible for reliability, as in the ARPANET, the hosts became responsible. Cerf credits Hubert Zimmerman and Louis Pouzin, designer of the CYCLADES network, with important influences on this design.
The network's design included the recognition it should provide only the functions of efficiently transmitting and routing traffic between end nodes and that all other intelligence should be located at the edge of the network, in the end nodes. Using a simple design, it became possible to connect almost any network to the ARPANET, irrespective of their local characteristics, thereby solving Kahn's initial problem. One popular expression is that TCP/IP, the eventual product of Cerf and Kahn's work, will run over "two tin cans and a string."
A computer, called a router, is provided with an interface to each network. It forwards packets back and forth between them.[3] Originally a router was called gateway, but the term was changed to avoid confusion with other types of gateways.

Yes the United States did make the internet. You're welcome.

And diesel made the diesel motor (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40176893)

And so what ? It has no bearing on what happens with diesel nitir/internet now. Furthermore I cotnend that the talk about china/russia or whoever would "take control and kill our freedom" smack of total idiocy. Those 4 country are but 4 out of 193 in the conference, which the US , and other "allies" are welcome to take part and give their feedback and coutnerpoint. It is not as if anything those *4* country would give as proposal would pass. In fact, even if it passes as proposal, any country could simply ignore it. If Russia and China gave a proposal of "stomp freedom" and it passed, all western country could simply ignore it. And that it *if* it passed. 193 country, chance are that they won't be able to come to conclusion on anything before a comitee is formed and thought about it for years. As for the US, between SOPA, CISPA, and whatever else alphabet soup censorship, take down of domain, and the general facist (collusion governement/corporate) turn it is taking, I am not sure I want it longer as *sole* decider of anything whatsoever for the internet or the web. There should at least be a counterbalance.

Re:And diesel made the diesel motor (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40176945)

Your rant has no bearing on the statement of

The US did not make the Internet.

That is all the post addressed.

Re:And diesel made the diesel motor (1)

Albeezzyy (2628575) | more than 2 years ago | (#40176969)

I can't even read this paragraph. Now I feel like Billy Madison--thanks buddy

Re:The US made it (1)

kaws (2589929) | more than 2 years ago | (#40176687)

I don't think he was saying that that the US made the internet. He's more implying that a lot of the internet is based upon the US's network.

Re:The US made it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40176889)

I don't think he was saying that that the US made the internet.

"The US made it".

He even put it in the fucking subject line.

Re:The US made it (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40176827)

The US did not make the Internet. Quoting from this history [nethistory.info],

Exactly - glad to see some actual data.

The original research that led to the internet was almost all done in Europe. Saying the "US made the internet" is like saying "the us invented the automobile". It's only seen as true to Americans raised to think the US did everything.

Captcha; elephant

Re:The US made it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40176879)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARPANET

The Advanced Research Projects Agency Network (ARPANET), was the world's first operational packet switching network and the core network of a set that came to compose the global Internet.

Re:The US made it (1)

registrations_suck (1075251) | more than 2 years ago | (#40176995)

Research is great.

Actually BUILDING something is even greater - and a different topic.

It's also the difference between SCIENCE and ENGINEERING.

Re:The US made it (2)

artor3 (1344997) | more than 2 years ago | (#40176847)

Your quotes don't support your claim. Some Europeans invented a few of the underlying technologies. So what? The first car was made by Karl Benz (yes, as in Mercedes-Benz) in Germany. Would you claim that Germany didn't invent the car because the internal combustion engine was invented elsewhere?

Re:The US made it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40176695)

Ummm... the internet was mostly a European effort, although the US contributed. The entirety of the web protocol cam efrom Europe, as well as most of the original research on packet networks. What people think of as "the internet" came from Europe.

Learn some history.
]

Re:The US made it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40176795)

Just learned some history. You're wrong: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARPANET

Re:The US made it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40176815)

Really [wikipedia.org]

The history of the Internet began with the development of computers in the 1950s. This began with point-to-point communication between mainframe computers and terminals, expanded to point-to-point connections between computers and then early research into packet switching. Packet switched networks such as ARPANET, Mark I at NPL in the UK, CYCLADES, Merit Network, Tymnet, and Telenet, were developed in the late 1960s and early 1970s using a variety of protocols. The ARPANET in particular led to the development of protocols for internetworking, where multiple separate networks could be joined together into a network of networks.

But like all things America leads Europe tries to take all the credit.

Re:The US made it (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40176711)

Needs to be modded down - the US did not "make it", and Europe contributed far than the US more include the freakin World Wide Web which is the same as "the internet" to most ppl.

Re:The US made it (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40176765)

Needs to be modded down - the US did not "make it", and Europe contributed far than the US more include the freakin World Wide Web which is the same as "the internet" to most ppl.

The world wide web is useless without TCP/IP [wikipedia.org] .

The Internet protocol suite resulted from research and development conducted by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) in the early 1970s.

Europe did jack squat towards forming the internet.

Re:The US made it (0, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40176871)

Europe did jack squat towards forming the internet.

You've heard of a little thing called the world wide web, yes?

The thing you're using to post this?

Guess what - it came from CERN.... in case you don't know, that's in the EU.

Re:The US made it (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40176911)

You've heard of a little thing called the world wide web, yes?

Obviously a product of your European education, you cannot read. So I repeat.

The world wide web is useless without TCP/IP

Not to mention html != internet. Of course not that you inferior european mind could comprehend that. And before you say html is not the www.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Wide_Web

The World Wide Web (abbreviated as WWW or W3,[2] commonly known as the Web, or the "Information Superhighway"), is a system of interlinked hypertext documents accessed via the Internet. With a web browser, one can view web pages that may contain text, images, videos, and other multimedia, and navigate between them via hyperlinks.

Now I will explain this in very simple word so your inferior european mind can understand what I am saying. The internet can exist without interlinked hypertext documents.

Re:The US made it (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40176777)

And they're just letting everyone else use it....

That's funny.

The US might have created a ubiquitous communications network but they don't "make" the internet today. What "makes" the 'net is numbers. The net, community, social website, etc. that survives has the numbers. If everybody else but the US quit the internet and created a new one, the US would be on the outside looking in. Kinda weird, but the true I believe.

Re:The US made it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40176811)

Which is why I suggested they go form their own with their new rules. Other countries would be welcome to join which ever network fit them best. Mostly free countries would end up on the mostly free internet, and mostly censored counties would end up on the mostly censored internet.

lolwut? (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40176851)

The world wide web was invented at CERN. The research that led to the early stages of the internet also came from EU nations. The US came along later and claimed it "invented it" just as it did with the automobile and various other things, but it was largely an effort that came from CERN.

This is scary (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40176525)

What a bunch of bullshit. This is a virtual false-flag, and will give a pretext to kill the Internet the way the Patriot Act, etc... killed the soul of the USA.

US not great, UN would be worse (5, Insightful)

JoshuaZ (1134087) | more than 2 years ago | (#40176539)

The US is not great. The US does things like seizing domain names based on minimal cause and then spending years before they give them back. A lot of those seized have been over copyright issues and in some cases they haven't even been clearly infringing. This is similar to how many states in the US have assert forfeiture laws which allow police to confiscate large sums of money or cars under minimal suspicion of involvement with illegal drug dealing, and getting them back is difficult.

But the UN would be worse. The UN contains many countries with little conception of free speech. Even allies of the US like Canada and Britain have substantially less free speech than the US does. In the case of Britain libel although being reformed is still very much a danger. In Canada, speech which specifically targets minorities or criticizes religions can be labeled as hate speech with fines given. And most of the world, is much much worse. Consistently a large fraction of the Islamic countries have tried to push through anti-blasphemy regulations in the UN. So far they've failed. But it is easy to imagine what would happen if they could actually block pictures of Muhammad. Similarly. China would slaver at the thought of not having to do its own censorship but simply have no websites discussing Tiananmen Square at all. Letting even weak internet control get in the hands of the UN is a recipe for disaster. Maybe in 20 or 30 years when the free speech situation has improved. But not right now.

Re:US not great, UN would be worse (5, Insightful)

jamstar7 (694492) | more than 2 years ago | (#40176631)

Maybe in 20 or 30 years when the free speech situation has improved. But not right now.

I seriously doubt in 20 or 30 years the free speech situation will improve. Going by recent history, I'd say it's a full tilt sucker bet that the situation will get worse.

Re:US not great, UN would be worse (2)

Max Romantschuk (132276) | more than 2 years ago | (#40176741)

The UN contains many countries with little conception of free speech. Even allies of the US like Canada and Britain have substantially less free speech than the US does. In the case of Britain libel although being reformed is still very much a danger. In Canada, speech which specifically targets minorities or criticizes religions can be labeled as hate speech with fines given. And most of the world, is much much worse.

While it is completely true that there are many countries in the UN that definitely don't have proper free speech your comment highlights a major difference in the European and American interpretation of the term "free speech". In most of Europe free speech means the freedom to express your thoughts and opinions. Free speech is not considered the freedom to say anything you please.

For example if I were to set up a web site proclaiming that all black people are simply not human and that black women should be raped at will on the streets because they deserve it it would not be considered to be protected under free speech in (most of) Europe. A site like that would be taken down and I would be fined at least.

Frankly I'm not sure how a web site like that would fare in the US. Anyone care to enlighten me?

Re:US not great, UN would be worse (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40176799)

It would stay up, and you'd likely get lots of negative communication from various people, but it's not against the law to say those kinds of things here. If someone actually read your website and acted on your directive they might try to charge you with a crime, but it wouldn't be related to the speech.

Re:US not great, UN would be worse (3, Insightful)

artor3 (1344997) | more than 2 years ago | (#40176809)

It would be legal. The US does have some limitations on incitements to violence, but a webpage expressing the things you described wouldn't fit the bill. You pretty much have to be pointing at a person, yelling "Hey everyone, kick that n*****/f*****/etc.'s ass!" in order for the first amendment not to protect you.

Re:US not great, UN would be worse (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40176849)

And yet I would argue that Canadians are freer than Americans. Sure, Americans might have better protection of free speech, but in return the US is inching closer and closer to a police state, I am not sure that is a trade-off worth taking.

US Control of Internet Must Be Stopped, UN Warns (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40176549)

In a rare show of bipartisan agreement, countries not named United States of America warned this morning that a United States pizza binge summit in December will lead to continued U.S. virtual dominance of the Internet.

UN Retaliates (0)

skirmish666 (1287122) | more than 2 years ago | (#40176553)

UN retaliates by saying the same of the US.

You may like to read (-1, Offtopic)

0123456 (636235) | more than 2 years ago | (#40176555)

Gimp 2.8 Finally Released
Icons That Don't Make Sense Anymore

Totally irrelevant to this discussion, but the juxtaposition of those two titles in the 'you may like to read' list made so much sense that I assumed it was a link to an article about another Gimp redesign: "Gimp 2.8 finally released icons that don't make sense anymore".

A rock and a hard place. (4, Insightful)

multicoregeneral (2618207) | more than 2 years ago | (#40176557)

I think the question lies in what you consider worse. Do you fear unlimited, unaccountable, and unbridled surveillance, like the kind that's being proposed in the US, that effectively covers the entire world... or are you more worried about censorship, virtual toll roads that make the doing business more expensive, and totally unrepresented taxation? Not to mention regional fragmentation, which you'll see in some of the proposals. Neither agenda is good, but which is worse? Personally, I don't think either side of this debate understands the internet at all. If the internet is going to be controlled by anyone, it should be the people who work and live in it. It's mine, damn it.

Re:A rock and a hard place. (2)

ktappe (747125) | more than 2 years ago | (#40176603)

I think the question lies in what you consider worse. Do you fear unlimited, unaccountable, and unbridled surveillance, like the kind that's being proposed in the US... or are you more worried about censorship

Unfortunately it's not either/or. We're all likely to eventually get both.

It's pretty obvious which is FAR worse (3, Insightful)

SuperKendall (25149) | more than 2 years ago | (#40176681)

Who cares if anyone can surveil was is sent across the internet. That is rather the point of a public network, and if you don't want others to snoop then you encrypt.

ANY of the other stuff inherently breaks the internet or at least seals it off to a huge portion of the planet.

It's not even close which is why even in the middle of an election season two diametrically opposed parties are dead set against it, in unison.

Re:A rock and a hard place. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40176691)

Just put Switzerland in control of the web and everything will be fine. They're completely neutral and very respectful of online privacy and free speech in their own country.

Currently Switzerland regularly hosts important meetings between various country, specifically because they are 100% neutral and thus safe ground to meet for anyone who might fear being arrested or assassinated. Switzerland has earned a reputation and control of the Internet - not that they want control as far as I know, but maybe the world should ask them.

Either way, if we're going to have one country in charge like is the case now, better Switzerland than the USA.

Personally I think the best solution is to let the UN control the Internet, however the UN should only ensure the Internet is completely unrestrained. So instead of making laws about what you can't post online, what websites can be blocked, etc. they should make sure every single country lets people post what they want and do not take down or block websites. That would be the safest scenario.

Re:A rock and a hard place. (5, Insightful)

kdemetter (965669) | more than 2 years ago | (#40176699)

I think the question lies in what you consider worse. Do you fear unlimited, unaccountable, and unbridled surveillance, like the kind that's being proposed in the US, that effectively covers the entire world... or are you more worried about censorship, virtual toll roads that make the doing business more expensive, and totally unrepresented taxation?

They are both part of the same thing : finding dissident voices and shutting them up.
And I want neither.

Re:A rock and a hard place. (1)

multicoregeneral (2618207) | more than 2 years ago | (#40176779)

I tend to agree. I keep offering to help my elected representatives with this stuff. None of them seem especially interested. Except Roy Blunt. He's an idiot, but at least he listens to reason.

Not black helicopters after all (1)

asmiller1950 (625539) | more than 2 years ago | (#40176579)

Turns out the black helicopters are actually black wireless routers.

lol butthurt (0)

Alex Belits (437) | more than 2 years ago | (#40176605)

lol butthurt

To Whomever it may concern: (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40176609)

The internet was designed to be open and free. Leave it be.
The internet was designed to be unregulated. Leave it be.
The internet was designed with open access for everyone in mind. Leave it be.
The internet was designed to be unhindered, unfettered, unfiltered, uncapped. Leave it be.

For those bastards who think they have the right and the need to control it, regulate it, tax it, reroute it, filter it, cap it, limit it, contain it - leave it be.

Information wants to be free, it will find a way. The internet, like nature will evolve until it does so.

Re:To Whomever it may concern: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40176729)

So - you are saying it is good the US no longer has a stranglehold?

Nice idea....

Irony... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40176621)

Is a bitch

The internet does have a central authority (5, Insightful)

AlphaWolf_HK (692722) | more than 2 years ago | (#40176623)

It's pretty common to believe that no central source can control the internet - and it's true for the most part - with one major exception: IANA ultimately answers to the US Department of Commerce.

In order for the internet to function, there has to be a central authority who determines who gets what IP addresses and domain names. That authority is under the control of the US. Sure you could create your own internets (yes, plural) with your own name and number rules, however if you can't all agree upon who gets what IP address blocks and domain names, you aren't going to have a very cohesive and universal network like the one we have today.

Honestly, I am perfectly fine with the US having control over that, and in fact would much rather they hold the keys rather than the UN. If the UN had their way, that would mean countries who have heavy influence of the UN (e.g. China) would have their way.

So far, the US has done a great job. Sure, we've had talks about filtering the internet (e.g. SOPA) many times, but unlike 90% of the other countries out there (Australia, UK, Germany, China, Iran, just to name a few,) we haven't acted upon any of them. Granted, we have taken extraordinary and unnecessary if not unethical measures, such as taking down megaupload, we didn't do so by ordering IANA to break the infrastructure.

The best thing about the US having control, is that we've never done anything to dismantle the infrastructure in the name of politics. The UN wants control because they plan on doing exactly that.

"free from government control"? (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40176647)

This is all a bit rich, reading the resolution, considering that is is coming from the country which unilaterally seizes [easydns.org] domains [arstechnica.com] at will [wired.com] .

Don't forget as well that this is coming from the same government that proposed a kill switch [wikipedia.org] for the Internet. Sounds more like "nobody should control the Internet, unless it is us" (well, this arguably applies to the US part of the Internet).

The resolution also says: "Whereas the world deserves the access to knowledge, ... and the informed discussion that is the bedrock of democratic self-government that the Internet provides;"
I thought that WikiLeaks and cablegate were exactly the kind of things which promote a healthy discussion in a democracy, but I doubt that that's what they had in mind when they drafted this resolution, free access to knowledge and all.

This all seems more like a bit of patriotic posturing. Blah blah land of the free blah blah cannot trust anybody else to be as free as we are blah blah. Seriously, it does not matter one bit what will be proposed at this conference; how exactly are you going to *force* the US to relinquish control? Not going to happen.

Still far worse (1)

SuperKendall (25149) | more than 2 years ago | (#40176697)

You mentioned the U.S. seized a few domains. I also think that was wrong.

But the U.N. would block whole CATEGORIES of domains from even existing.

You are worried about a theoretical Kill Switch on the internet. The U.N. wants a Kill Switch on every website...

to be pressed by the Chinese or Russians as they see fit.

And you are seriously arguing against the U.S. on this one? Yes they could improve but you don't seem to be grasping how much worse things could get, very quickly.

Re:Still far worse (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40176899)

Way to misread what I wrote. My only point was that it is hypocritical. If you think that the US is more interested in a free Internet than it is in keeping control of it, you are giving them more credit than they deserve. This is about control, not about a free Internet. If the US had to choose between a free Internet and keeping control of it, what do you think they would decide?

Re:"free from government control"? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40176747)

Woooooooooosh.

Discussion is not "Well the US should take control", the discussion is "Well, so far, the US is the lesser of evils".

Thanks for playing though!

This is a complete fiction (5, Informative)

qirtaiba (582509) | more than 2 years ago | (#40176653)

As any expert will tell you [internetgovernance.org] , none of these pie-in-the-sky proposals about the ITU taxing the Internet or the like have any chance of being pushed through. Even the US government itself doesn't take the risk seriously [internetgovernance.org] , except for political purposes like this. This is all just the latest step in a huge beat-up [theregister.co.uk] about something that could never happen. The motivation is just to distract from the real Internet governance changes that do need to happen, and that are being discussed much more sensibly in other fora (such as at the WSIS Forum last month in Geneva). That doesn't mean that we need to keep an eye the ITU, because it is true that it's a very secretive and closed organisation, but at least let's be honest about the risks.

Better the devil you know (1)

ed1023 (861273) | more than 2 years ago | (#40176707)

Better the devil you know than the angel you don't.

It should be run by an NGO (1)

presidenteloco (659168) | more than 2 years ago | (#40176737)

Ok so DARPA through in some funding, but the Internet was invented at a bunch of Universities, by, you know engineers and boffins.

I humbly suggest that we let a collegial group of senior engineers and boffins (from around the world) govern the Internet, nominated by a vote of an association of qualified computer professionals.

Re: Speeling (1)

presidenteloco (659168) | more than 2 years ago | (#40176743)

Crap. That should be "threw in some funding". Never post after 15 hours of work.

everything is better (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40176759)

than the US controlling anything, that place is run by paranoid idiots! (unlike the UN)

So What .. ?! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40176833)

Mr. Barak Hussien Obama ii has declared by secret executive order the claim on the rite to murder, kill, any human being on planet earth at his discression.

Fuck Barak Hussien Obama ii.

If the internet is so important to the 'executive' killing ability of Obama, then Obama as President should order a stratigic nuclear strike, USAF Nuclear Missles, on the UN and other headquarters, in New York City, Viennia, Stockhom and all elsewhere, if Obama is 'Man' enough.

This 'Obama' is no 'Man' and not 'Man' enough. Well, he may be an idiot, but whether he is a fool, only he will reveal in the upcoming months prior to the November election.

LoL xD

Grey-haired hams (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40176873)

I can just see them, nodding with a look in their eyes that conveys a combination of "I told you so" and "censor this!".

There is a "the" Internet? (0)

0-9a-f (445046) | more than 2 years ago | (#40176875)

About the only consensual requirement for The Internet is agreement on IP address allocation... and even that doesn't need to be globally unique - just look at all that RFC1918 overlap. It all comes down to routing.

Seriously, there's no reason why we can't have 203.2.192.124 in Australia, India, China, AND the USA. Your network provider (y'know, the one that shares routes with its peers) would work out which ones matter, and route accordingly. It just becomes extra admin overhead.

So then you've got DNS issues. Since anyone can run their own DNS server (and lots of people do on a micro scale), there's nothing stopping some commercial entity known for brutal efficiency (perhaps with a share price to defend) from running up a DNS service, making money by selling domains. Bureaucracy confronts market forces...

So if the UN want to run an Internet according to their rules - that's great. I wonder how long it would take before Enlightened Persons just start routing around the inevitable problems.

And then we're back here again :)

Re:There is a "the" Internet? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40176935)

if the routing for 203.2.192.124 becomes a policy decision, partially implemented
by some kind of rule-based DNS, you're adding the exact infrastructure that both the corporate and the governmental
censors are asking for

the most open internet is a globally reachable address, unconditionally

THIS is the only thing that both sides agree on?! (2)

mystyc (561347) | more than 2 years ago | (#40176965)

Those proposals seem like terrible ideas, but it is no surprise given the countries that proposed them. It is just sad to see what it finally takes for the republicans and democrats to agree on something. Maybe if we tell them that the UN is going to forbid countries from implementing a single-payer health system, then congress will decide to implement it out of spite.

Black Kitchen Apparati (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40176973)

While a UN Internet Tax / UN support for nation-wide censoring is bad, does the US not realize how horrible they have been to the freedom of the internet?

It's bad when you hear better things from Romania Internet-wise.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?