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!

EU Passes Resolution Against ITU Asserting Control Over Internet

samzenpus posted about 2 years ago | from the hands-off dept.

EU 133

An anonymous reader writes "Today, the European Parliament passed a resolution that condemns the upcoming attempt from the International Telecommunications Union (ITU) to assert control over the Internet, and instructed its 27 Member States to act accordingly. This follows an attempt from the ITU to assert itself as the governing body and control the Internet. From the article: 'The resolution, which was passed with a large majority, included Members of European Parliament (MEPs) from all major party groups, and the Pirate Party’s Amelia Andersdotter had been playing a central role in its drafting, together with MEPs Marietje Schaake and Judith Sargentini from the Netherlands, Sabine Verheyen and Petra Kammerevert from Germany, Ivailo Kalfin from Bulgaria, and Catherine Trautmann from France.'"

cancel ×

133 comments

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

Proud to be European (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42071599)

Despite all the failing and shortcomings, mother Europe still delivers.

Re:Proud to be European (5, Informative)

SplashMyBandit (1543257) | about 2 years ago | (#42072125)

Commissioner Nellie Kroes is particularly good and has stood up for the rights of users (against pressure from Big Business). Let's recognize and applaud the people that are on 'our' side (I'm from New Zealand, and the decisions she makes as EU Commissioner on digital rights influence countries around the World):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neelie_Kroes [wikipedia.org]

Re:Proud to be European (1)

Luckyo (1726890) | about 2 years ago | (#42072409)

Kroes is a snake. But surprisingly, in spite of her history, she's something of a "people's snake". Or more accurately, competitiveness' snake.

Yeah right (-1, Troll)

SmallFurryCreature (593017) | about 2 years ago | (#42072979)

it was this whore who allows the dutch railway to not count routes it didn't want in their performance figures, allowed them to not count a canceled train as a delay and conduct their own customer satisfaction surveys were they can drop low results as being unrepresentative.

She is a VVD whore who sells voters to big business everytime she gets the chance. Just that sometimes her true masters interests seem to coincide by accident with those of the average man. But when she was a minister she was a disaster and the railways are still a mess thanks to her policies.

Re:Yeah right (4, Informative)

lordholm (649770) | about 2 years ago | (#42073221)

To be frank, after having travelled with railways in many places. I must say that the Dutch railways are probably the best working ones on the entire continent (except for when it is snowing).

Re:Yeah right (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42073657)

I've been to Netherland several times in the last two decades and lived there for some time and I do have to say that while the Dutch railways were the best and still do work well, the legendary punctuality of Dutch trains is just a fond memory now..

Re:Yeah right (1, Informative)

sosume (680416) | about 2 years ago | (#42073357)

'a VVD whore who sells voters to big business everytime she gets the chance'
[citation needed]

Looks like someone didn't vote for one of the current government coalition parties and is now grumpy!

Re:Yeah right (4, Insightful)

jareth-0205 (525594) | about 2 years ago | (#42073369)

it was this whore

Starting with a stupid sexist accusation like that makes me and many other people ignore the rest of your comment. Perhaps you have a valid point about her behaviour in office, but if you're unable to make it without a completely unjustified sexual slur, then you don't deserve to be heard.

Grow the fuck up.

Re:Yeah right (3, Informative)

captainpanic (1173915) | about 2 years ago | (#42073519)

The Dutch railroads are among the best in the world, with huge double-decker passenger trains between major cities with the frequency that some large cities don't even get on their metro lines. The cost of a ticket on Dutch trains is significantly lower than on the French or UK trains, and they are easier to get (from the machines), without the need of a stupid reservation. Even if a train is delayed, this delay is mostly measured in mere minutes. Only real accidents or failures will result on longer delays. And snow. Snow f***s everything up, because the Dutch don't invest enough to avoid that. But this is a sensible choice, not a failure. It just happens that it snowed in the last 2 years.

I never understand why the Dutch complain so much about their train system. I guess this is just because they never take the trains abroad.

The VVD may be wrong on many things, but they haven't messed up the trains.

Re:Yeah right (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42073765)

You are right, the dutch railway system is one of the best in the world (if not the best). People here just feel that it would have been even better if we hadn't privatized it. Whether that's justified I don't know.

Re:Proud to be European (5, Interesting)

Hentes (2461350) | about 2 years ago | (#42072697)

To be honest, while I don't like the ITU either I think we shouldn't give our support to the US for free. We should try to exploit our leverage in this situation and tell the Americans that if they want us to support them keeping their 'net they have to govern it more responsibly. Particularly the area of gTLDs is one where there's lots of room for improvement, and Europe shouldn't give up its bargaining positions for free.

Re:Proud to be European (0)

zakeria (1031430) | about 2 years ago | (#42072909)

Your not British them!

Re:Proud to be European (1)

M0j0_j0j0 (1250800) | about 2 years ago | (#42073111)

What!?

Re:Proud to be European (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42073207)

Poster thinks all British are anti-europe based on ruling party's actions, and reading the daily mail probably.

Re:Proud to be European (1)

MightyMartian (840721) | about 2 years ago | (#42073873)

And probably the fact that after poll suggests a majority of Britons are at least moderate Eurosceptic.

I wish (1)

MurukeshM (1901690) | about 2 years ago | (#42071601)

we had Andersdotters here in India. Young politicians here are 40+, most are 60+ who can't understand tech if their lives depended on it. hence the facebook-post-arrests seen recently.

Re:I wish (4, Funny)

tehcyder (746570) | about 2 years ago | (#42072327)

we had Andersdotters here in India. Young politicians here are 40+, most are 60+ who can't understand tech if their lives depended on it. hence the facebook-post-arrests seen recently.

I don't see anything wrong with arresting someone for using facebook. A few more cases pour encourager les autres and with any luck we could get the whole fucking thing shut down.

Re:I wish (2)

chthon (580889) | about 2 years ago | (#42072489)

Hm, this reminds me a little bit about non-cooperation, non-violence and peaceful resistance. These people seem too old to understand tech, and too young to understand how Ghandi obtained Indian independence.

Re:I wish (2)

Grumbleduke (789126) | about 2 years ago | (#42072837)

I wish we had a few hundred more Ameila Andersdotters in the the European Parliament and in legislatures and governments across the world. While most politicians I have met want to do the right thing, she's one of the very few (if only one) who seems to know enough, be sharp enough and care enough to do it.

On the other hand, she does make the rest of us look bad...

Ouch... That has to sting. (4, Insightful)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about 2 years ago | (#42071605)

I'm pretty sure that having the EU tell you "STFU and leave it to the yanks" is one of the harsher put-downs that a multinational treaty organization can suffer...

Re:Ouch... That has to sting. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42071947)

I'm pretty sure that having the EU tell you "STFU and leave it to the yanks" is one of the harsher put-downs that a multinational treaty organization can suffer...

I don't think that anything in their resolution suggests that "the yanks" have or should have any special role in internet regulation.

Re:Ouch... That has to sting. (4, Informative)

renoX (11677) | about 2 years ago | (#42072051)

> I don't think that anything in their resolution suggests that "the yanks" have or should have any special role in internet regulation.

Well, that's the current situation, so that's implicitly the result..

Re:Ouch... That has to sting. (4, Informative)

TheRaven64 (641858) | about 2 years ago | (#42073339)

No, that's not the case. What the rest of the world wanted the ITU to do was create a framework for decentralised control of the infrastructure that the US nominally controls, and in particular stop ICANN from doing its current TLD-whoring. What ITU proposed instead was to create an international framework for censoring the Internet.

Re:Ouch... That has to sting. (4, Insightful)

SplashMyBandit (1543257) | about 2 years ago | (#42072159)

I think the Europeans recognize that a move to the ITU regulating the Net would result in a situation where all sorts of shennanigans could happen. Yes, the ITU has done a fine job up to now, but that is because they set technical specs and didn't have much power. If they got power then companies and countries would almost certainly corrupt this body to the detriment of ordinary citizens (who have no way of opposing or correcting the regulations that are produced - at least in the US you can take organizations to court, and the EFF often does).

The EU has seen the dangers and has done well to prevent possible problems in the future - such as the ITU being subverted. Just think of the Microsoft orchestrated voted stuffing of ISO in the Open XML fiasco a few years back; we don't want similar things to break the freedom of the Internet. For example, think of the move to ban criticism of religion, which is exactly opposed to free speech principles of the important freedom to criticize and even offend.

Re:Ouch... That has to sting. (2)

horza (87255) | about 2 years ago | (#42072451)

ETSI have done a fine job until now. The IETF have done a fine job until now. When was the last time ITU did anything good? Apart from being a mouthpiece for Microsoft or trying to do a power-grab over the Internet?

Phillip.

Re:Ouch... That has to sting. (4, Insightful)

jcdr (178250) | about 2 years ago | (#42072833)

Perhaps the main problem is not the organisation itself, but how much political are the problems there deal with. "Control over Internet" is something that is now highly political. ITU is an organisation that historically faced some political problems and have show how complex there can be. Not certain that others international organisations will better face the same complexity. The political questions are complex, regardless the organisation where there take place. See for example the ISO, that have also faced some highly political problems, for questions that was simple in comparison..

There isn't any (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42072165)

regulation from America. It leaves the countries themselves to regulate it which is open and free. That's all they're saying

good thing. But we have to keep knocking these douches out as they keep coming back like one of those psychopathic children in a fight that doesn't know he's beaten..

Re:Ouch... That has to sting. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42073917)

And here I thought the un 'was' the united states. You know due their permanent, unmuteable, unoveridable veto powered seat on the main council. The security council.

What's the catch? (2)

History's Coming To (1059484) | about 2 years ago | (#42071607)

It actually makes a lot of sense, even when you're reading the legalese, the influence of having the Pirate Party on board (and actually drafting a lot of it) shows.

calls on the Member States to prevent any changes to the International Telecommunication Regulations which would be harmful to the openness of the internet, net neutrality, the end-to-end principle, universal service obligations, and the participatory governance entrusted to multiple actors such as governments, supranational institutions, non-governmental organisations, large and small businesses, the technological community and internet users and consumers at large

But as with all things of this nature, I can't help but wonder where the catch is - sensible sounding legislation always comes back to bite us doesn't it?

Re:What's the catch? (5, Informative)

jarkus4 (1627895) | about 2 years ago | (#42071629)

its not really legislation as it has no binding power whatsoever. Its pretty much "Hey, we dont like this idea" shout from them.

Re:What's the catch? (1)

ledow (319597) | about 2 years ago | (#42072233)

With the caveat that those people saying that eventually get a veto vote on any law they don't like.

So although it doesn't mean it it *mustn't* happen, the chances of any change not respecting that opinion are unlikely to make it into law in the end. It's a warning. "You can waste years of drafting law if you want, but we get the ultimate say when any of this is actually challenged and our opinion currently is..."

Re:What's the catch? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42072933)

With the caveat that those people saying that eventually get a veto vote on any law they don't like.

So although it doesn't mean it it *mustn't* happen, the chances of any change not respecting that opinion are unlikely to make it into law in the end. It's a warning. "You can waste years of drafting law if you want, but we get the ultimate say when any of this is actually challenged and our opinion currently is..."

But no law is required for national governments to agree whatever they like with the ITU. And it isn't true to say the EP gets a veto on any law anyway, they only get a veto on EU wide laws. If national governments wanted to support the ITU in this and needed legislation to do so then their own parliaments could enact suitable laws. All the EU can do is prevent there being actual EU wide legislation on the subject. They can't even stop the member states adopting a common position between them let alone stop them acting independently.

Re:What's the catch? (5, Insightful)

Sir_Sri (199544) | about 2 years ago | (#42071643)

It's both a giant stab at the ITU and the US. They don't want a single entity in control, and they want to make sure all stakeholders are considered collaboratively (which is what the ITU is anyway, but at a different level). In other words, we don't like the current setup, but we thing the ITU being in charge could be worse.

It plants itself firmly in the camp of open internet, something the US has consistently stood against in one way or another (blocking foreign sports betting, arresting Kim Dotcom, Going after wikileaks payments etc.).

Now what will plan B look like...

Re:What's the catch? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42071695)

It's somewhat amusing that you'd go so far out of your way to try to turn this into something negative about our country. More so with examples that don't really illustrate what you were getting at.

Re:What's the catch? (4, Interesting)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | about 2 years ago | (#42071725)

Anonymous Douche fails to understand GP's points. An open internet would prohibit and prevent the abominations of "justice" that have been perpetrated on Kim Dotcom and on Wikileaks. The United States has gone out of it's way repeatedly to prevent an open internet. ACTA and NPP are two fine examples of that. In effect, both are government blessings on corporate attempts to strangle the internet.

Re:What's the catch? (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42071809)

An open internet would prohibit and prevent the abominations of "justice" that have been perpetrated on Kim Dotcom and on Wikileaks

I don't think so. "Open" does not imply anarchic, nor does it reach beyond the virtual borders of the Internet. Visa and Mastercard would still have blocked payments to WikiLeaks, Amazon would still have kicked WL of their S3 network and New Zealand's police would still have raided Dotcom's home.

None of those events have anything to do with the openness of the Internet. If anything, the likelihood of those events is larger with an open Internet because with a regulated Internet the MAFIAA c.s. would have had more opportunities to intervene.

Re:What's the catch? (5, Interesting)

AlphaWolf_HK (692722) | about 2 years ago | (#42071957)

These aren't things that would change if the US didn't hold the keys to the internet.

The control of the internet lands on one organization: IANA. Right now, IANA delegates its powers to ICANN. IANA is merely responsible for deciding who gets what IP addresses and domain names. The ITU wants to usurp that power for themselves, for who knows what ends, or why they think the status quo is wrong.

In any case, even if say the ITU, the EU, China, or even nobody at all had the keys to IANA, the US would still be able to go after Dotcom and Wikileaks due to pre-existing treaties and strong arming tactics that don't require the internet to even exist in the first place.

Regardless though, there is no such thing as an "open internet" in your definition of the term. SOMEBODY has to decide who gets what names and numbers. There are theoretical ways of decentralizing DNS, (which in my opinion will be riddled with problems, although it will at least perform the intended function) but you CAN NOT decentralize IP address assignments without introducing a whole mess of other problems. It would be akin to not having a regulatory authority on who gets licenses to any given RF spectrum.

Re:What's the catch? (2)

drinkypoo (153816) | about 2 years ago | (#42072213)

you CAN NOT decentralize IP address assignments without introducing a whole mess of other problems

This is something that should probably be addressed in further detail. Geographical routing, I suppose? You already have to trust your gateway so nothing changes there.

Re:What's the catch? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42072379)

There are theoretical ways of decentralizing DNS, (which in my opinion will be riddled with problems, although it will at least perform the intended function) but you CAN NOT decentralize IP address assignments without introducing a whole mess of other problems.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Namecoin [wikipedia.org]

Re:What's the catch? (1)

Pinhedd (1661735) | about 2 years ago | (#42073411)

Don't forget that ICANN gets its authority from a contract with the US Department of Commerce and the DoC can still exert veto power or sidestep IANA should it choose to do so and has done so in the past. Then there's also the root zones which the DoC still has complete control over

Re:What's the catch? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42072351)

the abominations of "justice" that have been perpetrated on Kim Dotcom

Boo fucking hoo for the poor multi-millionaire douchebag. It's just a pity the NZ police didn't kill the cunt for resisting arrest or something..

Re:What's the catch? (1, Offtopic)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | about 2 years ago | (#42072457)

No, boo fucking hoo for crybabies like yourself, who seem to believe that writing a few words or a few notes should give you a guaranteed income for the rest of your miserable life.

If you're an entertainer, then entertain people. Stop signing stupid fucking contracts that guarantee that only douches can ever profit from your work. I don't even like the fat fuck, but he was breaking no law that made any sense.

Re:What's the catch? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42072471)

No, sir, only a tiny, practically insignificant, percentage of files hosted on Megaupload infringed someone's copyright. The overwhelming majority of files were legally there.

Even NASA and the GREEN BERETS contracted with Megaupload for document and file storage.

Re:What's the catch? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42072003)

Plan B?

P2P DNS and blackholing any country that decides to block it.

Or, you know, mesh networking and make your own damn internet to get away from their regulation entirely.

Re:What's the catch? (1)

jjbarrows (958997) | about 2 years ago | (#42071717)

the catch is the copyright trolls still run the internet

Re:What's the catch? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42071791)

But as with all things of this nature, I can't help but wonder where the catch is - sensible sounding legislation always comes back to bite us doesn't it?

Amen.

Nope (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42072185)

"sensible sounding legislation always comes back to bite us doesn't it?"

it just appears that way. The same people that want som d-bag international telco to control everything will be the same people that abuse the shit out of the internet spreading terrorism so that people eventually ask for the international telco company to take over. Unless we start killing/exiling these muppets if/when they want to raise the stakes

Re:What's the catch? (2)

Troed (102527) | about 2 years ago | (#42072397)

It actually makes a lot of sense, even when you're reading the legalese, the influence of having the Pirate Party on board (and actually drafting a lot of it) shows.

I do hope everyone applauding this initiative make sure to vote for their local Pirate Party [wikipedia.org] (represented in over 40 countries). Sweden did in 2009 and our two representatives have been doing great work in parliament ever since.

Re:What's the catch? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42072687)

I do hope everyone applauding this initiative make sure to vote for their local Pirate Party

This would be the Pirate Parties that haven't any manifesto beyond "movies should be free"?

What is their policy on replacing Trident? Maintaining public green spaces? How will they fund these?

No, I will not be voting for them.

Re:What's the catch? (2)

Troed (102527) | about 2 years ago | (#42072737)

This would be the Pirate Parties that haven't any manifesto beyond "movies should be free"?

Strange claim, since it's very far from the truth :) I suggest going through the manifestos and policies of both the German Piratenpartei as well as the Swedish Pirate Party - both having been elected by voters into local and international parliaments.

German (in English): http://www.piratenpartei.de/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/parteiprogramm-englisch.pdf [piratenpartei.de]

Swedish: http://annatroberg.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Piratpartiets_principprogram.pdf [annatroberg.com]
(to be updated with results from the autumn conference just held - see https://mote.piratpartiet.se/forumdisplay.php?f=825 [piratpartiet.se] for the results of individual motions and propositions)

Good (5, Insightful)

gweihir (88907) | about 2 years ago | (#42071619)

The anti-innovation, anti-competition strategy of the telcos must be stopped. The only thing as dysfunctional was the old USSR planned-economy model.

Re:Good (4, Insightful)

Bearhouse (1034238) | about 2 years ago | (#42072381)

The only thing as dysfunctional was the old USSR planned-economy model.

How about the "unplanned" international banking crisis?

Re:Good (1)

mdragan (1166333) | about 2 years ago | (#42073077)

> How about the "unplanned" international banking crisis? It's actually quite "planned". Pulling the ropes of the monetary system is one of the few things that is still heavily "manipulated" to influence the economy by governments all over the world. That's why we have National Banks (or the FED, or whatever it's called in your country) that have a monopoly on the production of money and some serious strings to pull on the economy.

Laughable (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42071673)

Today, the European Parliament passed a resolution that condemns the upcoming attempt from the International Telecommunications Union (ITU) to assert control over the Internet, and instructed its 27 Member States to act accordingly

The EU Parliament can instruct whatever it likes but it has no power over the member states. It might as well instruct all other world governments to agree as well, instruct the ITU to change track and instruct the weather to improve.

The most an instruction from the EU parliament to nationals governments can achieve is to raise enough outrage from nationalists that they take the opposite stand. In practice though nobody's likely to do more than roll their eyes at them.

Re:Laughable (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42071903)

Despite the ludicrous summary, the actual wording of that part was was:

[The European Parliament] calls on the Member States to prevent any changes to the International Telecommunication Regulations which would be harmful to the openness of the internet, net neutrality, the end-to-end principle, universal service obligations, and the participatory governance entrusted to multiple actors such as governments, supranational institutions, non-governmental organisations, large and small businesses, the technological community and internet users and consumers at large

Obviously that's not an instruction.

Re:Laughable (1)

Luckyo (1726890) | about 2 years ago | (#42072445)

It is. EP has no power over governments and their stance. They're sovereign. It can only take an "advisory" vote on such issues, which is non-binding.

Re:Laughable (2)

lordholm (649770) | about 2 years ago | (#42072153)

No, the vote signals the stance of the EP, this is important as the council is more aware of the current mood in the parliament and they need to take this into account when negotiating new rules in the council and the commission since the rules must go through the EP in a final vote anyhow. It is not just related to the specific question on hand.

Re:Laughable (1)

Luckyo (1726890) | about 2 years ago | (#42072453)

While it is true that vote will eventually have to go through EP, EP has no power to set the issue itself (which is what it is trying to do here). It can only vote on the issue presented before it.

This issue was not presented before it, therefore vote is purely advisory and has no binding effect on member states.

Re:Laughable (1)

MightyMartian (840721) | about 2 years ago | (#42073925)

Hub? Each of the EU members has passed enabling legislation giving laws by MEPs the force of domestic law.

Can the EP take over my country, please? (3)

icebraining (1313345) | about 2 years ago | (#42071737)

Seriously, between the shittiness that is our national government and the shittiness that is the European Commission (fairly well demonstrated by having put my countryman Barroso in "charge"), the European Parliament seems like the only sane institution around here.

Re:Can the EP take over my country, please? (4, Insightful)

Xest (935314) | about 2 years ago | (#42071989)

It's because it's elected by proportional representation.

That's what happens when you have politicians who actually have to represent the people who vote them in, and this is why all governments should move to a porportional system if they genuinely want to class themselves as democratic societies and legitimate representatives of the people.

People think electoral reform in most countries is just a fringe side issue, but it's the single most important issue in improving accountability and hence decreasing corruption and increasing quality of representation IMO. Things still wont be perfect with true proportional representation, but as the EP shows, they're a damn sight better than many of the individual national european governments by themselves and than the likes of the EC.

Re:Can the EP take over my country, please? (1)

Grumbleduke (789126) | about 2 years ago | (#42072827)

It's because it's elected by proportional representation.

It also works through compromise and agreement (rather than divisiveness and opposition), is much harder to lobby (due to there being MEPs from all different areas) and much harder to pressure (mainly because most people don't know/care what goes on).

There's also the fact that MEP elections tend to have much lower turnouts, so a much higher percentage of voters know what's going on, and don't just vote for the party they like the sound of.

Re:Can the EP take over my country, please? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42073355)

It also works through compromise and agreement (rather than divisiveness and opposition), is much harder to lobby (due to there being MEPs from all different areas) and much harder to pressure (mainly because most people don't know/care what goes on).

Lobbying is indeed more difficult. The CEO of Vivendi-Universal had to get his wife, Janelly Fourtou's, in as an MEP so she could push for draconian intellectual property protections. It was agreed all round though that Fourtou's behaviour was not a blatant conflict of interest. She reassured us that her husband (CEO of a major IP company) and herself had better things to talk about over breakfast than her repeated forays in to IP protections that would, if successful, give the music/movie industry what it's been crying out for in its lobbying in other quarters. I doubt he even knew what his wife was up to. He was probably the last guy to hear about her directive that file sharers should be locked-up for four years.

Yeah, lobbying is difficult. Hopefully such blatant disregard for propriety, and the public perception of it, is rare.

Re:Can the EP take over my country, please? (1)

icebraining (1313345) | about 2 years ago | (#42072885)

Yes, but my country has proportional representation and yet has been government by shitty, corrupt parties since the 70s, when we transitioned from a fascist to a democratic state.

I think it has much to do with the electorate and culture of the institutions.

Re:Can the EP take over my country, please? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42073583)

Well, I think the whole "only people who took millions of 'campaign donations' (aka bribery / buying politicians) get to ever get into any government" thing has something to do with it too.

Really, how the fuck is that not treated as treason, resulting in 10 years of jail time? How did the US get from its founding fathers to that?

And more importantly: How can I help to undo it?

This is good thing, right? (4, Interesting)

EzInKy (115248) | about 2 years ago | (#42071835)

Despite the US still being conservative compared to the progessive world, it is definetly far more liberal than nations such as Saudi Arabia where everyone citizen has to belong to the state sanctioned religion and women barely get by with showing their faces in public. Sure the current situation isn't ideal, but the ITU's solution is far worse.

Re:This is good thing, right? (4, Interesting)

AlphaWolf_HK (692722) | about 2 years ago | (#42072061)

In my opinion, the US isn't conservative, more like individualistic. Yes, there are religious loudmouths, but they aren't common, you just hear about them more because they are loud where the others are not. Most people, republican or democrat, have religious views on the back of their mind but don't proselytize them. Except, of course, politicians like Jesse Jackson Jr. or Rick Santorum.

Conservatives say ban sex from the internet. Progressives say ban anything that somebody might consider offensive, even going so far as to put harmless internet trolls in jail. Individualists say that if you don't like what you see, change the channel.

The US, by and large, is the later of the three. We don't ban pornography, and we don't have hate speech laws. Freedom of speech is more absolute here than anywhere else, pretty much the only limit is speech that causes physical harm.

Though the left likes to claim that deregulation and austerity is conservative, and so does the media at large, it isn't. It is very much libertarian.

Re:This is good thing, right? (1)

SplashMyBandit (1543257) | about 2 years ago | (#42072199)

Great post! I'm not from the US and from my point of view it is the individualism and protected free speech (including the right to offend - a critical freedom) that are one of the greatest features of that country, and set it ahead of many of its critics (including the pussies, ignoramuses and bleeding hearts in my own country, New Zealand).

Re:This is good thing, right? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42072369)

Yeah, poor old Kim Dotcom was just exercising his individual right to free speech and breaking the law to make large amounts of money. The problem with the rabidly right wing US is precisely its psychopathic worship of the almighty dollar. The one thing that would make the internet useful and meningful again would be the abolition of all elements of commerce from it. As it is now, I hope some corporation does gain control of the whole fucking thing and finally turn it into the world's biggest shopping mall.

God bless America.

Re:This is good thing, right? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42072215)

Though the left likes to claim that deregulation and austerity is conservative, and so does the media at large, it isn't. It is very much libertarian.

And yet social conservatives are the ones who argue the hardest for deregulation, because the best way to solve any problem under the sun is to leave it to the 'never erring invisible hand of the free market'.

Re:This is good thing, right? (3, Informative)

tehcyder (746570) | about 2 years ago | (#42072317)

Individualistic is just a nicey-nice way of saying selfish. The roots of conservatism lie in the proppping up of existing power structures, whether they're religious, economic or political.

So-called libertarians who say they are "fiscally conservative but socially liberal" are, in plain English, conservative.

By deifying freedom of the individual to do as they wish above everything else, you are simply ensuring that those in power continue to do what they want while living like parasites on the body of society as a whole.

"Deregulation and austerity" are indeed libertarian, which is to say conservative, as they sit the agenda of those in power perfectly. It is sad that all you rugged American individualists are so blind to this obvious truth.

Re:This is good thing, right? (1)

interval1066 (668936) | about 2 years ago | (#42072439)

Because its not truth. Your point is hardly accurate, and obviously full of agenda. Let me know when you decide to project a more objective truth.

Re:This is good thing, right? (1)

Attila Dimedici (1036002) | about 2 years ago | (#42072639)

No, individualistic is saying that I can better determine the best way to make use of my money to address the problems that I think are important than some bureaucrat.

By deifying freedom of the individual to do as they wish above everything else, you are simply ensuring that those in power continue to do what they want while living like parasites on the body of society as a whole.

Whereas you apparently think that you can somehow limit the ability of those in power to do what they want while living like parasites on the body of society as a whole by giving them more power. That seems counter-intuitive to me.

Re:This is good thing, right? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42073313)

Individualists as a block have no bargaining power. Libertarians want lower social spending, but larger overall larger budgets through increased military spending, no rights for women, and restrictions on speech. They want these because they selfishly and without regard to electoral outcomes keep lumping their votes together with fundamentalist Christians.

Re:This is good thing, right? (1)

peppepz (1311345) | about 2 years ago | (#42072647)

In fact, even in the USA, whenever "individualism" and "freedom" come to clash with the interests of those in power, then we see that governments re-discover themselves as interventist in a bizarre "reverse socialist" way, and here come all kinds of imaginary property, patents, bailouts for the banks, suspension of civil liberties - so much for the principles of free market and laissez faire.

Re:This is good thing, right? (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | about 2 years ago | (#42073283)

So-called libertarians who say they are "fiscally conservative but socially liberal" are, in plain English, conservative.

That depends, do they mean conservative or neoconservative? A libertarian is basically a more anarchist person than a liberal or a conservative, as they want less government control over both business and your bedroom habits. A conservative's fiscal view is that business can look after itself, but their social view is that morality should be regulated. If they actually believe that both business and morality should be regulated, then they're more a fascist than a conservative.

Re:This is good thing, right? (1)

Bongo (13261) | about 2 years ago | (#42072399)

Related to that, one idea is, when people wonder, why is there poverty? or why is there this or that problem? the left blames the system, whereas the right blames the individual. So the left wants to fix the system, make it more fair, whereas the right wants to fix the individual, make him or her more capable.

Add the older or newer strategies, like pre-modern and modern, or 'conservative' or 'progressive', and you can have a oldy style right winger who says religion is the moral guide to stamping out personal sins of lazyness and lust, or a new style right winger who is liberal with sex and money but is clear that the individual has to work hard to earn it in free competition. So typically, reduce taxes to increase incentives, and don't mind too much who ends up losing.

Meanwhile the oldy style left might also be pseudo-religious in wanting people to come together to give and eradicate poverty, help the needy, etc., or a modern style lefty who is into deconstructing phallo-logo-sexist-racism in society, is a feminist campaigner, anti-big-business, or anti-corporations, or anti anything that oppresses someone unfairly, even if it means siding with very obese people suing restaurants.

I'm not saying this covers every combination but it is one way of looking at it. So you can kinda see why an environmentalist might think that Chinese authoritarianism is a good thing, because it gives the government the draconian powers to force people to stop consuming, force a one child policy, etc., which is more of a pre-modern left stance, ie. religiously fix the system, even if it means abolishing modern democracy. Meanwhile the pre-modern right wing environmentalist might prefer to get rich enough to move to a quiet pretty privileged village and keep the riff raff out and keep their precious view, so they'd be against windfarms, but "pro rural conservation", so long as the feckless fester in the cities.

Re:This is good thing, right? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42072431)

Most US Liberals are more conservative than most EU conservatives.

Re:This is good thing, right? (1)

etash (1907284) | about 2 years ago | (#42072691)

that's true. A conservative european politician would be considered "socialist" in the states. A "socialist" european politician would be considred communist in the states.

Re:This is good thing, right? (1)

jcdr (178250) | about 2 years ago | (#42072861)

The parent say exactly the opposite.

Re:This is good thing, right? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42072873)

Yes, there are religious loudmouths, but they aren't common, you just hear about them more because they are loud where the others are not. Most people, republican or democrat, have religious views on the back of their mind but don't proselytize them.

When looking from the far north of europe, where we generally tend to be atheists, all your politicians seem like fanatic believers. The ones you think of as fanatics seem to be ready for mental institution.

Re:This is good thing, right? (1)

misexistentialist (1537887) | about 2 years ago | (#42073575)

Unfortunately this is seen as the old-fashioned, obsolete way of doing things by most people.

Re:This is good thing, right? (1)

interval1066 (668936) | about 2 years ago | (#42072419)

...but the ITU's solution is far worse.

I'm still left wondering what the problem is.

Women in control? (0)

Skinkie (815924) | about 2 years ago | (#42072223)

When I saw the list of names, I was positively surprised about the high number of women protecting our civil freedoms.

Re:Women in control? (-1, Offtopic)

tehcyder (746570) | about 2 years ago | (#42072287)

When I saw the list of names, I was positively surprised about the high number of women protecting our civil freedoms.

That'll probably be because you're a misogynistic fuckbag.

Re:Women in control? (1)

Skinkie (815924) | about 2 years ago | (#42072347)

I guess compliments always get wrongly interpreted. Totally reminds me of Anglo - Dutch translation guide [xanga.com] .

Re:Women in control? (2)

Sesostris III (730910) | about 2 years ago | (#42072551)

It was probably more of a (positive) comment on the number of women who seem to be involved in the issue / in the EU Parliament.

Found an interesting document from my parliament (warning - PDF): http://www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/SN01250.pdf [parliament.uk] . From this it seems that 35% of the EU Parliament are women. (The corresponding percentage for the UK is 22%. No idea what it is for the US after the recent elections, but according to the document in 2010 it was 17%).

Still could be better, of course. Only two parliament has either more women than men or the same number - Rwanda and Andorra! Given the figures globally I can't think that a positive observation on the role women are playing in any parliament can be considered misogynistic.

Alternatively, was the work you were looking for misandristic?

Re:Women in control? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42072875)

Why would it matter at all what gender a member of parliament is?

Re:Women in control? (1)

hey! (33014) | about 2 years ago | (#42073093)

Why would it matter at all what gender a member of parliament is?

The gender of an *individual* member of parliament shouldn't matter, but the *aggregate* number of women who are influential in some political process that is *not* specifically a "woman's issue" matters if you are keeping score on political equality of the sexes.

The point where women routinely take leadership roles on issues that aren't "just women's issues" is a significant milestone on the path to political equality. We weren't there twenty years ago, when it wouldn't raise any eyebrows to have an all male committee making decisions about things like women's health care. Democracy works better when there's political equality, especially (but not just) for the people who used to be grasping the short end of the stick.

Re:Women in control? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42073197)

No, actually YOU. ARE. A. SEXIST. PIECE. OF. SHIT.

Yes, you. And using the world "misogynistic" means you're twice as much of it.

Re:Women in control? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42073501)

You're busy, so I'll apologise to Skinkie on your behalf.

Skinkie, I'd like to apologise for jumping to conclusions. I care a great deal about equality, which I'll admit can make me a little defensive. I read your post and initially thought it condescending. On reflection, I realise that you were expressing positive surprise that women aren't being pushed to the sidelines.

My day started badly. I caught a glimpse of myself in the mirror (normally I drape a towel over it), bringing with it floods of revulsion and insecurity. I wasn't always this way. I was born in to a loving family. Somewhere along the way I took a wrong turn. As adulthood beckoned, I found myself increasingly unable to relate to people who'd once been my friends. I retreated to my safe world of Internet and masturbation. I tried to relate to mom (I'm all she has now), it failed. I told her about all the Internet friends I have and the debates I've won. I thought she'd be proud. Now I sit her looking for people to insult, while mom sits alone clutching a tear-stained childhood photo of me.

I don't care much about myself. Maybe that's the problem. She cares so much about me and I hate what I'm doing to her.

I'm going to step away from the keyboard, go downstairs and hug her. Since pop passed I'm all she's got. That's not a lot. Skinkie, I'm not a bad guy. If we met in a bar we'd probably have a good chat and enjoy a beer. I'd better change out of this semen-soaked t-shirt. Mom needs me.

As usual, people don't understand the internet. (2)

Mauvaisours (660152) | about 2 years ago | (#42072293)

I have a naive and maybe stoopid question : If ITU wants to grab the authority that IANA has now, how the hell are they going to enforce it ?

Root servers are not going to magically change overnight, and people in the US and Europe are certainly not going to switch to whatever the ITU decides, just because the ITU decides.

It would be nice for the ITU to remember that the Internet works because everybody agrees with it. If people start to disagree, it will only lead to a split in the internet, and I'm pretty sure the ITU fork will not be the winner, given the history of the slug.

Re:As usual, people don't understand the internet. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42072713)

exactly

Re:As usual, people don't understand the internet. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42072943)

They could start by restricting the DNS servers people from a certain geographic area can access.
So for Europeans, you have this, this and this DNS server. Try any other ip address and it's blackholed.
Same goes for the US, South America, Asia etc... The start of new balkanized internet, with the compliment of the ITU and cooperative governments.

Re:As usual, people don't understand the internet. (1)

Zak3056 (69287) | about 2 years ago | (#42073399)

They could start by restricting the DNS servers people from a certain geographic area can access.
So for Europeans, you have this, this and this DNS server. Try any other ip address and it's blackholed.

I think you completely missed what the GP was saying. Sure, the ITU can decide that DNS servers will be regional. So they pass their resolution and go to, for example, Telekom in Germany, and say, "You will blackhole all traffic on port 53 sent to hosts outside of Germany." At which point, Telekom will reply, "Who the hell are you to decide this? Fuck off."

Re:As usual, people don't understand the internet. (1)

Jason Levine (196982) | about 2 years ago | (#42073855)

Good point. And if a country doesn't play nice (e.g. opposes a new rule the ITU decides on like "don't criticize religions"), they could route that county's DNS servers to a special "black hole" server that doesn't route at all - effectively knocking out Internet until that country complies. They might not have the clout to push around the US to start with, but they could bully smaller countries into submission and work their way up.

Re:As usual, people don't understand the internet. (1)

Jason Levine (196982) | about 2 years ago | (#42073819)

I was wondering this as well. Suppose the ITU gains control tomorrow and, with their first act, confirms everyone's worst suspicions and bans all religious criticism online. I doubt the US would go along with it and - given the EU's resolution - the EU might stand with them. How, then, would the ITU enforce the "don't criticize any religions" rule on the Internet as a whole? (Granted, I wouldn't want them to get in that position whether they could enforce that rule or not.)

GOAT (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42073565)

Hot on the 4hels of

DNS was setup all wrong (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42073685)

We need to put a stop to this nonsense.

The only TLDs we need are country codes. ICANN should have just given control of these to their respective countries and left their root server list uncluttered.

Country governments can use the .gov.* and .mil.* for themselves, give state/province name and abbreviations to their respective local entities, and lease anything else --for a hefty multi-million per year fee-- to commercial registrars (ie: Verisign). The registrars of major high-level-domains (HLDs) would presumably lease their names from several different countries' TLDs.

When it's time for Slashdot to pay the rent, it goes to directly to Verisign's dotORG department and register the "slashdot.org.us" domain. Since Verisign would likely own the org.?? domain for most, if not all, country TLDs they might offer a multi country discount (but really, this is Verisign we're talking about...)

So if Amazon wants to be their own TLD... they'd have to buy an island and declare state sovereignty. But if they'll settle for being their own HLD, they could go to one or more country TLD operators, pay their steep lease rates, and then do whatever they want with the *.amazon.?? name. The .us .eu .uk and .au operators probably wouldn't have any issue with it; but .br might reject their application.

There, problem solved.

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>