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!

Following Huawei Report, US Rejects UN Telecom Proposals

Unknown Lamer posted about 2 years ago | from the doubleplus-good-for-freedom dept.

China 150

jjp9999 writes "The Epoch Times reports that on Monday, the same day the Intelligence Committee released its report cautioning against Chinese telecom companies Huawei and ZTE, the U.S. said it will reject major changes to telecom at the World Administrative Telegraph and Telephone Conference in Dubai this December. The UN conference will be the first of its kind since 1988, and its members are pressing the U.S. to hand control of governing the Internet over to the International Telecommunication Union (ITU). Huawei and ZTE are both members of the ITU. Terry Kramer, the U.S. special envoy to the conference, said the US opposes proposals from some of the 'nondemocratic nations' that include tracking and monitoring content and user information, which 'makes it very easy for nations to monitor traffic.'"

cancel ×

150 comments

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

How dare you! (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41607003)

Terry Kramer, the U.S. special envoy to the conference, said the US opposes proposals from some of the 'nondemocratic nations' that include tracking and monitoring content and user information, which 'makes it very easy for nations to monitor traffic.'"

This quote is so rife with arrogance that it makes me vomit, coming from a
government that does nothing but blatantly spend money and spy on it's people.

Re:How dare you! (5, Insightful)

MightyMartian (840721) | about 2 years ago | (#41607085)

And yet the Internet is still safer in American hands than being handed over lock, stock and barrel to the UN. As bad as the US may be on occasion, it's still better than handing the keys over to the likes of China and Saudi Arabia.

Re:How dare you! (3, Insightful)

cs2501x (1979712) | about 2 years ago | (#41607149)

Perhaps not necessarily. Most nations practice some kind of censorship to their media forms--and have since the dawn of their use. Content that a majority of individuals find objectionable, such as child exploitation images, are the low hanging fruit examples of such activities. It is the case, perhaps, that some countries feel the ideologies of others (including sexual expression, gender equality, etc) are in fact 'offensive'. When queried, many folks in China feel that censorship is actually good for the people--perhaps in the same way some citizens feel about censoring images related to child exploitation. There is a gradient here--and it's unfortunately slippery at both ends.

Re:How dare you! (4, Insightful)

poetmatt (793785) | about 2 years ago | (#41607315)

The second the internet leaves US control (as much as spying is idiotic and unacceptable), even the concept of free speech is over. Instantly.

So think about how internet is in russia, china? If they hand control over you get that globally. So basically the US needs to stop doing a shit job managing the internet - but giving it up to the UN will make things worse.

Re:How dare you! (3, Insightful)

felipekk (1007591) | about 2 years ago | (#41607807)

So think about how internet is in russia, china? If they hand control over you get that globally.

Well, that escalated quickly... Why do you think that? We're closer to having that right now where is the government of one country that controls everything than if it is given to the UN, where they'd go through a voting involving several nations...

Re:How dare you! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41608579)

Nations, the majority of which, are *NOT* democratic.

Re:How dare you! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41609321)

Wrong. The majority of the countries in the world ARE democratic (by name, at least)

By the USA's metric? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41610099)

And on the world freedom ranking chart, the USA are pretty low down on the list.

So if it's all about how democratic and free the controlling country is, then maybe Norway should get control of the internet.

Re:How dare you! (1)

DarkOx (621550) | about 2 years ago | (#41609349)

voting involving several nations..

and that would be far less democratic (at least for us in the USA) than it is now. Just look at what happens with the EC.

Trust me Washing politicians would love nothing more than to be able to shield themselves from accountability to their electorate, by hiding behind the actions of some politician appointee at the UN, they can pretend to disagree with later.

Re:How dare you! (3, Insightful)

Catbeller (118204) | about 2 years ago | (#41607843)

Chinese companies make almost every circuit board, CPU, and radio comm chip in the world. They've had backdoors in "your" internet for over a decade. This happened in the name of reducing labor costs and breaking unions, and increasing profits for American companies. Now we really don't "control" anything with electrons flipping about anymore. You don't ever know what hidden capabilities are built into devices; they could lie hidden, sleepers, until needed. So who controls what is moot. We gave up control a long time ago.

Re:How dare you! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41609369)

Truth. Maybe the NSA will now open up their chip manufacturing plant to the rest of us (of course with their own backdoors included).

Re:How dare you! (2)

rtb61 (674572) | about 2 years ago | (#41607915)

Oh crap and bullshit, it's all about who gets to profit from the core domain names and not just locally within individual markets but upon a global basis. No matter the delusions, the US will not retain control over the core domain names in other countries, that will inevitably come to an end. Not to forget any country that tortures, murders by remote control, ignores justice when even it suits and, enters into war based upon corporate greed can lay claim to freedom of anything. For the last forty years the US has year after year sunk to new lows in selling out it's own populace, in abandoning democracy for campaign dollars and kick backs, in exercises of homicidal mania across the whole face of the planet, in the global corruption of democracy and free speech in favour of corporate for profit mass media control. Name the country who has killed more people than the US in the last decade or even 1 tenth that number.

Re:How dare you! (1)

cayenne8 (626475) | about 2 years ago | (#41610039)

Name the country who has killed more people than the US in the last decade or even 1 tenth that number.

Yeah...but most of them had it coming.

And not that they will be missed all that badly....

Re:How dare you! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41607463)

There is a gradient here--and it's unfortunately slippery at both ends.

What, are you saying that sliding/falling towards freedom is a bad thing? Screw that! And screw the Chinese, and anybody else who thinks censorship is a good thing. We must never let people like that ever have any control over any communication system. I don't care if they have a 99.999% of the majority. Censorship is bad, no matter what anybody thinks. We have to make the internet technically uncontrolable. No matter what it takes, and no matter what it costs. Freedom is paramount over all else.

Re:How dare you! (1)

oic0 (1864384) | about 2 years ago | (#41608367)

In China when someone smiles and asks for your honest opinion on anything government related, you smile and agree. Its trained in to them in a country where anyone who sticks out gets nailed.

Re:How dare you! (1)

DarkOx (621550) | about 2 years ago | (#41609297)

No there is no gradient here. I don't think any information or expression should be subject to censorship ever. Which is not to suggest the government can't or should not try and keep some state secrets.

Even things like CP should not be restricted. Now the production of it should be illegal. It should constitute "rape of child" and it should probably be a capital crime; but the mere possession of a photo should not be.

Re:How dare you! (3, Insightful)

damaki (997243) | about 2 years ago | (#41607169)

Why? Is my data safer when monitored by NSA made backdoors than by Chinese ones? Are the American ones of higher quality?

Re:How dare you! (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41607273)

well, yes.

Re:How dare you! (4, Interesting)

Samantha Wright (1324923) | about 2 years ago | (#41607291)

Given that they cost somewhere in the vicinity of a billion dollars [wikipedia.org] , I hope so?

Re:How dare you! (0)

damaki (997243) | about 2 years ago | (#41607361)

I should have made myself clearer: I am not American , therefore the potential backdoors may be harmful to my country.

Re:How dare you! (5, Insightful)

Reeznarch (2465314) | about 2 years ago | (#41607599)

If you don't like our internet, you are perfectly free to implement your own. Don't let the backdoor hit you on the way out.

Re:How dare you! (4, Insightful)

bigtomrodney (993427) | about 2 years ago | (#41607647)

Okay, enjoy our World Wide Web.

Yours sincerely,
Europe.

Re:How dare you! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41607665)

fantastically awesome

Re:How dare you! (1)

Catbeller (118204) | about 2 years ago | (#41607763)

"OUR" internet? Are you under the impression that the US owns the internet?

Re:How dare you! (1)

Reeznarch (2465314) | about 2 years ago | (#41607889)

No more so than Stephen King owns 'his' books.

Re:How dare you! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41609363)

Again, if you don't like it, pound sand.

The first thing that will be attempted will be rules to block from the Internet anything that speaks ill of religion, and that is a DO NOT WANT.

I'll break it down to you, I do not want countries telling me what I can and cannot say online. So NO. I do not want anyone else to have any say over it, cause even if we give trusted allies some control, it will just open the door for more oppressive regimes to wedge a foot in the door.

If you do not like it, make your own internet.

Re:How dare you! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41609667)

Again, if you don't like it, pound sand.

The first thing that will be attempted will be rules to block from the Internet anything that speaks ill of religion, and that is a DO NOT WANT.

I'll break it down to you, I do not want countries telling me what I can and cannot say online. So NO. I do not want anyone else to have any say over it, cause even if we give trusted allies some control, it will just open the door for more oppressive regimes to wedge a foot in the door.

If you do not like it, make your own internet.

I hate to break the news but even now in the good ol' US of A, there is no freedom of speech on the internet. And you want to know why ? That's because everything that you post online is on someone else's private server. Corporations, ISPs etc... don't give a flying fuck about freedom of speech. The government says jump, and the ISPs etc... all jump in unison, and you my friend remain fucked.
Unless private corporations ARE BY LAW required to guarantee freedom of speech you won't get very far.
Hell my friend, you have more freedom of speech in real life than on cyberspace. But if you wish to think the contrary be my guest. Just don't be surprised when your democratic country shuts off the light.

Re:How dare you! (2)

cayenne8 (626475) | about 2 years ago | (#41610111)

That's because everything that you post online is on someone else's private server. Corporations, ISPs etc... don't give a flying fuck about freedom of speech.

Well, still, you are free to set up your own computers as peers on the internet today...your own servers with your own rules.

Create your own email servers, ssh servers, news servers, chatrooms, irc, hell...create your own private social network with your rules.

You might have to pay a bit more and get a business connection so the ports aren't blocked, but hell, I have one of those for only $69/mo....no caps, all ports open, all the servers I want to run...all from home.

If the UN gets control of things...I'd have to guess one of the basic tenets of the internet about every computer on it being a peer...would likely be done away with. You'd likely have to register and get a license.

Hell, if you want..create and run a freenet node or the likes....nym servers, or be a tor node....if you want to keep private and prevent snooping of everything.

Re:How dare you! (1)

zlives (2009072) | about 2 years ago | (#41610077)

since al gore built it, yes

Re:How dare you! (1)

Samantha Wright (1324923) | about 2 years ago | (#41607603)

The best part about Trailblazer is that it doesn't care who or where you are—it knows anyway!

Re:How dare you! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41607627)

They have an interest in making sure your data is safe and not using it unless there are lives on the line, there is a diplomatic cost to using the data in any other case, so unless you are a terrorist they may gather but will not steal so obviously. Remember if you live in a democracy leaking the fact that they have been getting and using such data, except in the most vital cases, will hurt the American government, but not the Chinese ect. This does not mean that your data is safe with them, if you are going to do something that will for instance damage America commercially, but it is much more safe than it would be with others because there is a cost to using it.

Re:How dare you! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41607853)

Yes, your data is safer when monitored by the NSA. Because if the Internet is handed over to the UN, you will be monitored by the Russian government, the Chinese government, the Iranian government, the North Korean government, the Australian government, and any other government that wants to monitor you, i.e. all of them. And by the way, IT WILL STILL BE MONITORED BY THE NSA!

I sure hope you weren't planning on saying anything bad about Mohammed. Or saying anything good about Nazis. Or mentioning Tiananmen Square. Or calling Taiwan a country. Or browsing for porn. Because these would all be illegal once the UN took control.

I don't like what the US has done with its stewardship over the Internet, but I see it as the lesser of far more than two evils.

Re:How dare you! (1)

FireFury03 (653718) | about 2 years ago | (#41609449)

Yes, your data is safer when monitored by the NSA. Because if the Internet is handed over to the UN, you will be monitored by the Russian government, the Chinese government, the Iranian government, the North Korean government, the Australian government, and any other government that wants to monitor you, i.e. all of them. And by the way, IT WILL STILL BE MONITORED BY THE NSA!

I sure hope you weren't planning on saying anything bad about Mohammed. Or saying anything good about Nazis. Or mentioning Tiananmen Square. Or calling Taiwan a country. Or browsing for porn. Because these would all be illegal once the UN took control.

I don't like what the US has done with its stewardship over the Internet, but I see it as the lesser of far more than two evils.

Whilst I hate the idea of being monitored, if we're going to assume that we're going to be monitored whatever we do, I would prefer the playing field to be levelled - if the US gets to monitor everyone then so should everyone else.

Re:How dare you! (3, Insightful)

Hentes (2461350) | about 2 years ago | (#41607947)

Simple monitoring can be circumvented by encryption, and opensource software is safe from backdoors. It's much easier to defend against spying than censorship.

Re:How dare you! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41609659)

There is no crypto that is publicly known that NSA cannot break. Hate to break the news to you.

Re:How dare you! (2)

Shatrat (855151) | about 2 years ago | (#41610073)

Don't believe everything you see on TV. If there are secret easy-button crypto-breaking computers out there, why is cryptography illegal for export?

Re:How dare you! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41607171)

And yet the Internet is still safer in American hands than being handed over lock, stock and barrel to the UN. As bad as the US may be on occasion, it's still better than handing the keys over to the likes of China and Saudi Arabia.

how so?...

what is your basis of that premise? :)

captcha: barges

Re:How dare you! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41607319)

The basis for any argument against handing over control is that the US control is a known quantity and the UN control isn't so.

Would you prefer the stability of having a neighbor you know walk in and take a cup of sugar from time to time or a stranger off the street do the same?

What confuses me to a certain extent is that these countries that we don't want influencing our internet typically try to push their own version. Why do they care so much about what we do with our section or do they want to push their ideals?

Re:How dare you! (1)

FireFury03 (653718) | about 2 years ago | (#41609485)

What confuses me to a certain extent is that these countries that we don't want influencing our internet typically try to push their own version.

The countries that we don't want controlling our internet, are typically those who already do (US, UK, etc.)

Re:How dare you! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41607189)

The internet has grown in such a way (being an agent of globalization) that it being controled by a single nation (whatever their agenda is) is madness...

Re:How dare you! (3, Insightful)

Catbeller (118204) | about 2 years ago | (#41607351)

That is an article of faith. However, it is baldly evident that it no longer is uncontrolled. The internet has been brought to heel, and will soon be locked down to the atomic level.

Quantum computing will come after that, and there will no longer be Too Many Secrets, Marty, because they will be able to crack any key-based encryption. This is a long game.

There will be encrypted comm, of course, using quantum-entangled computers, but WE will never see that. It will, by the mechanics of power, be reserved for the government and associated corporations to use. One law for me, and another for thee.

The end result will be a prison for us, with guarded, monitored, recorded internet services, and a closed secret world for our, let's just say it, masters. We've the social and governmental DNA for it already; we've already accepted secret wars and blacked-out war zones. We're okay with phone and car tracking. There's nothing to stop this.

Re:How dare you! (1)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | about 2 years ago | (#41608423)

Quantum isn't the end of encryption. It's the end of a lot of existing encryption, but there are other mathematics that can be used. Symmetric key is less vulnerable than assymetric, so if you have a way of establishing initial trust it becomes almost easy.

Re:How dare you! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41609141)

You're welcome to build your own internet. You did not invent this one, you did not build this one. You want another one, free and open for you and your friends? Go build it yourself.

Re:How dare you! (1)

circletimessquare (444983) | about 2 years ago | (#41609637)

the day after quantum computing renders traditional crypto obsolete, you will see the rise of quantum crypto

it's an arms race. same as it ever was, same as it ever will be

Re:How dare you! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41607221)

And yet the Internet is still safer in American hands than being handed over lock, stock and barrel to the UN. As bad as the US may be on occasion, it's still better than handing the keys over to the likes of China and Saudi Arabia.

Shit is still shit, wether done by bible-thumping-christian-fundamentalisits-us republitards or demotards or coran-crazy western-hater-muslim countries.

There is no good side to choose. Only weep in despair.

Re:How dare you! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41607247)

And yet the Internet is still safer in American hands than being handed over lock, stock and barrel to the UN. As bad as the US may be on occasion, it's still better than handing the keys over to the likes of China and Saudi Arabia.

I am European (Greek) and i trust USA way more than China and Saudi Arabia, but i also trust some European countries, some of them more than the USA - so i think the internet will be safer in American AND European hands.

Re:How dare you! (4, Insightful)

Catbeller (118204) | about 2 years ago | (#41607279)

Ask Wikileaks, Assange, and anyone who supported them financially about how much better it is. "Better" depends entirely on whether or not you are fucking with American power. The Chinese do the same with whomever fucks with their power. This is about an empire taking over the internet at its core. DNS and so many other things should be decentralized and encrypted. No power base in the world will let that happen - they need to monitor us to maintain power.

Re:How dare you! (2)

scamper_22 (1073470) | about 2 years ago | (#41607939)

All true... and back to the question that matters.

What power would you rather be ruled by?
The Americans, The Chinese, The Russians, The Arabs?

Yeah, sorry... I'm still going with the Americans.
Perhaps there is a utopia out there somewhere where power is distributed and no one rules. Until that time, the best we as people can do is keep perspective to choose the best power to rule us.

Heck, I'd even choose the Americans over the EU. The Americans value free speech more than than EU who'd probably move quickly to ban offensive speech.

Re:How dare you! (5, Insightful)

rabtech (223758) | about 2 years ago | (#41608003)

Ask Wikileaks, Assange, and anyone who supported them financially about how much better it is. "Better" depends entirely on whether or not you are fucking with American power. The Chinese do the same with whomever fucks with their power. This is about an empire taking over the internet at its core. DNS and so many other things should be decentralized and encrypted. No power base in the world will let that happen - they need to monitor us to maintain power.

I hate to break it to you but you can't take over something you invented and were the primary driver of. Many other countries have made huge contributions but the Internet was invented in the USA and it was US universities, companies, etc that made it what it is today.

The open nature of the Internet is due to the open nature of US and other western universities, along with some of the strongest free-speech protections to be found in any country of similar size or position.

Given all the options, and much like democracy as a form of government, US control seems like the "least worst".

Re:How dare you! (1)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | about 2 years ago | (#41608455)

DNS is centralised by nature. It has to be. Someone has to be in charge to decide who owns what domain. That is why it should go. The concept of domain names is wonderfully useful, but also far too controllable. There are other ways to run a network. Copy-paste is a useful thing.

Assange *is* better off (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41609131)

Ask Wikileaks, Assange, and anyone who supported them financially about how much better it is. "Better" depends entirely on whether or not you are fucking with American power.

Really?

Unlike fucking with Isreali power
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mordechai_Vanunu [wikipedia.org]
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mossad#Belgium [wikipedia.org]
    http://www.axisoflogic.com/artman/publish/Article_21935.shtml [axisoflogic.com] (wtf?)

or fucking with Russian power (and ignoring pre-2000 years),
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Litvinenko_poisoning [wikipedia.org]
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikhail_Khodorkovsky [wikipedia.org]

or fucking with Chinese power (widespread, mostly internal),
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Re-education_through_labor#Statistics [wikipedia.org]
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I8Mg1hG16c0 [youtube.com]

so yes, Assange is "better" off than if he fucked with any of the above. He would be dead already, not simply having some pressure exerted on him.

false equivalency (1)

circletimessquare (444983) | about 2 years ago | (#41609763)

every country in the world does bad things. you have to quantify

legal and social status of political expression is dramatically freer in the US than in china

legal and social status of sexual expression is definitely freer in the US than in china

perfect in the USA? absolutely not. are there some countries that do better than the USA? yes. on some kinds of expression, not all

such that keeping control of the internet in the USA is a good option if you are concerned with internet freedoms. the best option? maybe not. but certainly better than handing over the keys to a power structure where countries with much more repressive policies have influence

such that if you are honestly interested in freedom in the internet, you want control retained in the USA, for now. is it the ideal option? no. and it is not an ideal world

you want control retained in the USA, for now, if you are an honest advocate for freedom on the internet rather than some cotton headed idealist who wants perfect right now even though there is no realistic way to get exactly what you want in today's world

you work with what you have, rather than demand perfect and stomp your foot like a pouty child if you only get 90% or 99%. it doesn't mean you lose your idealism, it means you understand it takes work to get to a better place, and, wisely, you go with the least worst option rather than demand the perfect option that does not exist

Re:How dare you! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41607821)

[Citation needed]

To be fair, as a European, I'd much rather live in the US than in say China or Saudi Arabia, but that comment the parent quoted really does make me vomit just a little as well. It seems all our governments are very much into spying on their citizens (and everyone else, really), and while I have no doubt the US' reasons for it are far less sinister than China's, but I still feel like it's a false argument. Also, the UN doesn't exactly equate to "the likes of China and Saudi Arabia".

Re:How dare you! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41608029)

And yet the Internet is still safer in American hands than being handed over lock, stock and barrel to the UN. As bad as the US may be on occasion, it's still better than handing the keys over to the likes of China and Saudi Arabia.

This right here is why I changed my mind a few years ago on the issue. As hypocritical and asshole-ish as the US has been in governing the internet, they're nothing compared to what it would be if MOST of these nations get their hands on it. It's not like we'd be handing it over to Norway and a bunch of other upstanding, international citizens, the people who'd get a far bigger say in what to do are way more anti-freedom than the US even on its bad days.

I think the US has pretty strong reasons for it anyway, they designed and built the infrastructure, initially, it can viably be considered something the US Federal Government should be leveraging for the economic benefit if its citizens.

Appeal to emotion (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41608165)

As if the UN was shackled at the feet of China or Saudi Arabia. When in reality the shackling is by the security council... Which can pretty much overrule everything. And who is on the SC ? Yeah the USA (among other). OTOH small group like ITU are not being "overruled" by China or whatever.

This is pure BS american political fear mongering.

Prove it. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41608311)

Go on, show your evidence that "the Internet is still safer in American hands than being handed over lock, stock and barrel to the UN".

Or is this yet more pleading bollocks because USA FUCK YEAH!

Okay Let's Examine the Possible Scenario (1)

eldavojohn (898314) | about 2 years ago | (#41607227)

Terry Kramer, the U.S. special envoy to the conference, said the US opposes proposals from some of the 'nondemocratic nations' that include tracking and monitoring content and user information, which 'makes it very easy for nations to monitor traffic.'"

This quote is so rife with arrogance that it makes me vomit, coming from a government that does nothing but blatantly spend money and spy on it's people.

Well, maybe you should read this proposal by China Mobile [ietf.org] to split up the internet via "DNS Extension." Aside from the obvious criticisms [domainincite.com] and assuming we just blindly said "yeah, sure, China, whatever you want" let me ask you this: Will the situation improve for US citizens? Will the situation get worse for Chinese citizens? I think you have to agree that the answers to those questions are no and yes. Whether or not the United States spies on its own citizens is nothing more than an ad hominem attack to ruin this discussion about putting control of the internet into the hands of other nations that do not have laws against spying on its own citizens and, in fact, are places where unannounced and confusing censorship seems to be the norm.

Re:How dare you! (3, Informative)

macraig (621737) | about 2 years ago | (#41607289)

Why is this marked as Troll, when the Congress of the United States passed a law, which the President then signed, that granted legal immunity to American telecom corporations for illegally conspiring with the NSA and other agencies to monitor and collect the communications of the entire nation? How exactly is that so very different from what is alleged that Huawei and ZTE are or might be doing?

The not so implicit point of the parent comment is that the United States would like to maintain its "right" to monitor and track and control and deny the ability to any other government that it perceives as hostile. Isn't that quite hypocritical of this government to consider other governments as hostile when it is repeatedly treating its own citizens as hostile with excessive secrecy, acts of Congress, Presidential orders, creation of whole new intelligence bureaucracies, legitimization of wiretapping, and more?

Re:How dare you! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41608611)

As opposed to China and Russia that don't even bother to pass such laws because they don't need them?

Re:How dare you! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41608099)

Yea. go ahead and vomit. I'll give you a bucket and keep your hair out of the way. Meanwhile, if handing over control of the Internet to the likes of the UN doesn't make you want to PROJECTILE vomit then you really need some serious mental help. The UN is perhaps the most singularly corrupt and hideous organization in the world, filled with vile and terrible people in its so-called leadership and giving voice and credence to governments that at best should be carpet-bombed and retrograde programs like virtually unsupportable trillion-dollar slush funds to "fix" global warming. Meanwhile, 95-98% of the world is struggling through grinding poverty and the UN wants an AMEX Centurion Card to take to Peter Luger's.

The sooner the UN building in New York goes condo the better.

The internet routes around you (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41607055)

The internet isn't governed by anyone, you fucking parasites. It can't be "handed over" to anyone, because it's just autonomous networks choosing to cooperate. If you do something with DNS or BGP that I don't like, I can IGNORE you and keep my network connected to other networks that IGNORE you. FFS, can't politicians keep their grubby hands off anything?

Re:The internet routes around you (1)

firesyde424 (1127527) | about 2 years ago | (#41607217)

No.

Re:The internet routes around you (1)

killmenow (184444) | about 2 years ago | (#41607231)

FFS, can't politicians keep their grubby hands off anything?

No, they can't.

Re:The internet routes around you (2)

Chrisq (894406) | about 2 years ago | (#41607349)

FFS, can't politicians keep their grubby hands off anything?

No, they can't.

That's why I wear a tinfoil jockstrap

Pot & Kettle (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41607091)

So let me get this straight. The US is only against NONDEMOCRATIC countries that officially and openly spy on their citizens. If you give your citizens what appears to be a choice every four years, then it's OK to spy on them.

Re:Pot & Kettle (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41607281)

So let me get this straight. The US is only against NONDEMOCRATIC countries that officially and openly spy on their citizens. If you give your citizens what appears to be a choice every four years, then it's OK to spy on them.

The US is democratic and still has institutionalised the use of torture, has indefnite detention based on "made up" charges, shits all over the law of the land. Despises its own constitution AND spies on its citizens. Oh yeah, all the american telecom companies that aid in that spying business, well they are intouchable, courtesy of the US government. Shall we talk about the end aroud the court system known as National Security Letters ?
My dear friend, the freedom you have in the US is a false kind of freedom. Pure Illusion. Go peacefully against the government, using the rights granted by your constitution and see what happens to you.

Re:Pot & Kettle (1)

rvw (755107) | about 2 years ago | (#41607517)

So let me get this straight. The US is only against NONDEMOCRATIC countries that officially and openly spy on their citizens. If you give your citizens what appears to be a choice every four years, then it's OK to spy on them.

The US is democratic and still has institutionalised the use of torture, has indefnite detention based on "made up" charges, shits all over the law of the land. Despises its own constitution AND spies on its citizens. Oh yeah, all the american telecom companies that aid in that spying business, well they are intouchable, courtesy of the US government. Shall we talk about the end aroud the court system known as National Security Letters ?
My dear friend, the freedom you have in the US is a false kind of freedom. Pure Illusion. Go peacefully against the government, using the rights granted by your constitution and see what happens to you.

You're absolutely right. And still I prefer the US over China or Saudi Arabia or Russia. I don't know if the UN could handle this better.

What the fuck is all this China stuff? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41608497)

Where is the proposal that CHINA gets control of the internet? Where?

NOWHERE.

What about Russia.

Nope, still not.

Saudi Arabia? No.

And one other whiny shitbag proclaims with true unthinking idiocy: "Why would anybody in their right mind want to give even the smallest bit of control to those whose track records have a history of abuse of power?"

Uh, it already IS in the control and entire control of those who have a history of abuse of power. THE USA.

The USA get more say in the ITU than Saudi Arabia does. Probably more than Russia now too. About only China would have a similar level of say in the ITU's processes.

But I guess the USA doesn't believe that anyone else is allowed democracy. They aren't allowed a say in the taxation of the root DNS. No representation of their views, despite the taxes levvied.

The USA is a known problem. And a bigger-than-average problem to boot.

ITU isn't and therefore there's no reason to expect it to be any worse than the average and that is better than the USA.

Re:What the fuck is all this China stuff? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41609739)

The USA is a known problem. And a bigger-than-average problem to boot.

Nope, bigger then average problems include: Russia, China, Iran, North Korea. Of those larger then average problems, two of them have veto rights. Sure governments monitor web usage, thats another battle for another day. Right now the concern is that these larger then average problems might push for rules disallowing free speech. How would you feel if your site was blocked because something you said didnt jive with an arab country.

Re:Pot & Kettle (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41607329)

It's only going to get worse. The common folk are busy fighting with each other over which side of the monopoly political party we have is best. There hasn't been this much of a division in the people since the American civil war. They're eating it up as fast as the politicians are shoveling it out and begging for more. It's like the Sunnis versus the Shiites with about as much logic.
 
the USA is lost until there is a real crisis.

Oh wait... What?!? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41607109)

USA! USA! Oh we just failed today...

This is how the Romans felt...

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

captcha: gulped

yeah, right (5, Insightful)

hype7 (239530) | about 2 years ago | (#41607145)

said the US opposes proposals from some of the 'nondemocratic nations' that include tracking and monitoring content and user information, which 'makes it very easy for nations to monitor traffic.'"

yeah, because the US would never do that [wired.com] .

Since the UN countries didn't invent or deploy it. (0)

gestalt_n_pepper (991155) | about 2 years ago | (#41607157)

They can go suck eggs. Or create their own alternate internet.

Re:Since the UN countries didn't invent or deploy (2)

cs2501x (1979712) | about 2 years ago | (#41607183)

There is no internet without the voluntary collaboration of networks.

Re:Since the UN countries didn't invent or deploy (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41607207)

woosh!

Re:Since the UN countries didn't invent or deploy (4, Funny)

Cimexus (1355033) | about 2 years ago | (#41607223)

"the UN countries"?

Isn't that, like, almost every country? Including the US?

Re:Since the UN countries didn't invent or deploy (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41609689)

"the UN countries"?

Isn't that, like, almost every country? Including the US?

Taiwan, Kosovo, and the Vatican are not members of the UN.

Re:Since the UN countries didn't invent or deploy (1)

Chrisq (894406) | about 2 years ago | (#41607325)

They can go suck eggs. Or create their own alternate internet.

Seriously the fact that they might do this is one reason why you want a generally accepted governance. At the moment you remove piratebay from a DNS server and everyone is affected. If each company has its own DNS servers then you just remove it from one country and have to get court orders all over the place. Your email to sheila@hotgirls.com might get to one person if you are in the USA but someone entirely different in Europe if the web is fragmented.

Re:Since the UN countries didn't invent or deploy (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41607703)

Good thing everyone accepts UN governance. That's why we've never needed embargo, security actions, etc etc. Not to mention that the UN seems to go out of its weigh to be fair to everyone by picking the worst leaders available. Syria on Human Rights? Azerbaijan on Security? Why not give China control of the internet?

IOIIITUSA (4, Insightful)

Catbeller (118204) | about 2 years ago | (#41607173)

said the US opposes proposals from some of the 'nondemocratic nations' that include tracking and monitoring content and user information, which 'makes it very easy for nations to monitor traffic.'"

What... sheer... motherfucking... hypocrisy...

IOIIITUSA : It's OK if it's the USA

Re:IOIIITUSA (1)

HPHatecraft (2748003) | about 2 years ago | (#41607437)

Sure. However, from business standpoint, using network gear with a built-in backdoor to the PRC is probably not a great idea assuming you want to hold on to your IP, or otherwise wish to limit your network attack surface. Chinese espionage costs the US around 1 trillion dollars article here. I'm not certain over what period of time, but for any reasonable length of time, that's pretty bad in the aggregate, and downright awful for individual companies. I think it's apples and oranges, granting that both fruits are rotten :)

Re:IOIIITUSA (1)

HPHatecraft (2748003) | about 2 years ago | (#41607543)

article here [times247.com]

Re:IOIIITUSA (1)

sFurbo (1361249) | about 2 years ago | (#41608739)

As opposed to an american one, where the NSA probably have a backdoor and is eager to help with industrial spionage? I know, if I get one where the hardware is made in China and the software in the US, my company can get spied on by BOTH the US competition AND the Chinese competition!

I love the arguement here. (1)

hubang (692671) | about 2 years ago | (#41607205)

"makes it very easy for nations to monitor traffic."

Mr. Kettle, you are black. Sincerely,
Mr. Pot.

P.S. We need all you nations that are worried about dissent to worry about copyright infringement instead.

Fuck off (4, Informative)

Aryden (1872756) | about 2 years ago | (#41607243)

I'm still trying to understand this "hand over" thing. How do you hand over an abstract? DO all server farms and cloud services have to move to Switzerland?

Re:Fuck off (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41608567)

It's far more devious than that. If the US had to "hand over" control of the internet, it would become apparent that there isn't actually any means to control the internet. The closest you get is control over some high level domain name controllers and international proxy routing. While it is possible to cause a lot of mayhem with those resources, you can't do the kind of precision-censorship that more restrictive countries want without rebuilding many of the standards.

So unlike the telecoms in the US! (2, Funny)

Gizzmonic (412910) | about 2 years ago | (#41607271)

Thank goodness those US telecoms stand up for their customers' constitutional rights! They'd never stand for unconstitutional surveillance on their networks!

then we are all moving to namecoin (1)

fredan (54788) | about 2 years ago | (#41607407)

Dear U.S, UN and the ITU.

We, the rest of the world, are tired of you screwing with us, so we are moving everything over to Bitcoin and Namecoin.

monitoring ip (1)

Meniconi,Nando (666243) | about 2 years ago | (#41607413)

Instead monitoring traffic on behalf of corporations to find out who's watching the latest 30 Rock without paying Hulu is perfectly acceptable.

I'd rather have America in control of the internet (1)

Reeznarch (2465314) | about 2 years ago | (#41607567)

I haven't seen or heard of any instances where America has harassed, persecuted, censored, or arrested ANYBODY because of the opinions they expressed online, or the information they spread. This is not the case in China: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship_in_the_People's_Republic_of_China#Arrests [wikipedia.org] [wikipedia]. Why would anybody in their right mind want to give even the smallest bit of control to those whose track records have a history of abuse of power?

Re:I'd rather have America in control of the inter (2)

Cigarra (652458) | about 2 years ago | (#41607977)

Here [huffingtonpost.com] :

the government put Mehanna away for ... translating a book (a 2003 Saudi text, 39 Ways to Serve and Participate in Jihad, that was "intended to incite people to engage in violent jihad"); distributing a video showing the brutal treatment of dead U.S. military personnel in retaliation for a rape in Iraq; and giving a friend a film about jihadi fighters...

Sentenced to 17.5 years in prison for spreading information. Sorry for bursting your bubble, but it had to be done. The US of A you think about it doesn't exist anymore.

Seriously, what's the alternative? (1)

taz346 (2715665) | about 2 years ago | (#41607583)

OK, I am far from a supporter of many things the U.S. government does or wants to do online. That said, the level of democracy that does exist, combined with public pressure in the U.S., and in the European Union, for that matter, has made it possible to block things like SOPA. Things don't work that way in countries like Russia and China, and there's no way I want the governments of those two countries to have the power to decide how the Internet works for everyone else. It's a non-starter. So what's your alternative? Yeah, you can say things like, "Turn it over to something like the FSF." That ain't gonna happen. So, again, what alternative to U.S. governance that stands a chance of happening does anyone here propose?

First of its kinds! since the last time we did it (1)

BitZtream (692029) | about 2 years ago | (#41607677)

Seriously, stop trying to make things out to be a bigger deal than they are.

The US did INVENT the internet (1)

aclarke (307017) | about 2 years ago | (#41607809)

The internet is under US control because the US invented it. Geez. If other countries don't like the fact that the US controls DNS, they should invent their own internet. This is sort of like how the Europeans are creating Galileo as they don't like the US control of GPS. Good for them.

I'm speaking as a non-American, but it seems to me that it's the Americans' right to keep control of DNS, as it's theirs.

Re:The US did INVENT the internet (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41608301)

The internet is under US control because the US invented it.

That's why cars are globally controlled by the Germans ...

Re:The US did INVENT the internet (1)

FireFury03 (653718) | about 2 years ago | (#41609715)

The internet is under US control because the US invented it. Geez. If other countries don't like the fact that the US controls DNS, they should invent their own internet

I guess the US will be inventing their own world wide web then?

It's hypocrisy all the way down (2)

rickb928 (945187) | about 2 years ago | (#41607815)

"'makes it very easy for nations to monitor traffic"

This is already easy in the U.S. Just ask the carrier(s) to give you some closet (literally) space, and you're in business.

Sadly, we now live in a technologically enabled world. where if it's possible, it is considered both acceptable and dutiful to do so. Kinda like the earlier days of the Internet when courts started posting documets online. These were always poubic records, but the hassle of going to the court office and the gatekeepers there kept much of this out of easy view. There are a few sites out there that make a living exposing this public but obscure data. And sometimes, someone gets all wee-wee'd up that this 'got posted'.

Then again, our police are engaged in a massive expansion of surrveilance, just because it got affordable and relatively innocuous.

We are going to have to limit that, somehow.

Most of the rest of the world has little if any options for addressing such grievances. I'm not inclined to give them the pwoer to make policy worldwide. Bad enough they do it to their people.

I have figured it out... (1)

nitehawk214 (222219) | about 2 years ago | (#41608921)

So go along with all the posts expressing suprise that the United States' Government would be on the side of privacy in a debate. I have found the way to manipulate politicians into protecting internet privacy. Just say China and Russia are against privacy... ARE YOU?

aw HELLZ nah (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41609577)

nah, we're good. you all work amongst yourselves 'rest-of-the-world'. we'll keep the keys to THIS 'car' so you wont go stealing it when we aren't looking.

Demand (1)

ThatsNotPudding (1045640) | about 2 years ago | (#41609647)

I insist my hypocrisy be labeled 'Made in the USA'!
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

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

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

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

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>