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!

Internet Freedom Won't Be Controlled, Says UN Telcom Chief

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

Censorship 158

wiredmikey writes "The head of the UN telecommunications body, Hamadoun Toure, told an audience at the World Conference on International Telecommunications (WCIT-12) in Dubai on Monday that Internet freedom will not be curbed or controlled. 'Nothing can stop the freedom of expression in the world today, and nothing in this conference will be about it,' he said. Such claims are 'completely (unfounded),' Toure, secretary general of the International Telecommunication Union, told AFP. 'We must continue to work together and find a consensus on how to most effectively keep cyberspace open, accessible, affordable and secure,' UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon said. Google has been vocal in warning of serious repercussions, saying that 'Some proposals could permit governments to censor legitimate speech — or even cut off Internet access,' noted Google's Vint Cerf in a blog post."

cancel ×

158 comments

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

Reading between the lines (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42173315)

Google has been vocal in warning of serious repercussions

...such as the inability to lobby congressmen for favourable treatment.

Really? (5, Insightful)

Millennium (2451) | about 2 years ago | (#42173319)

If the goal is not to curb internet freedom, then why are the foxes the ones at the forefront of the effort to build a henhouse?

Re:Really? (4, Insightful)

Attila Dimedici (1036002) | about 2 years ago | (#42173347)

That is exactly what I was thinking. I am confused as to why the people who are most vocally calling for the ITU to take active control over governance of the Internet are representatives of the governments with the strongest history of actively suppressing freedoms if the only reason for this discussion is to ensure that the Internet remain open.

Re:Really? (0, Troll)

bug1 (96678) | about 2 years ago | (#42174661)

why the people who are most vocally calling for the ITU to take active control over governance of the Internet are representatives of the governments with the strongest history of actively suppressing freedoms

why the people who are most vocally calling for the ITU to not take active control over governance of the internet are representatives (or fanbois) of the US government which has the strongest history of international domain name seizures, and RL invasions and seizures of foreign property.

Re:Really? (2, Insightful)

tbird81 (946205) | about 2 years ago | (#42174973)

I'm not. I live in NZ.

I would rather have the US "controlling" the internet, than a bunch of Saudi Arabians!

Every country is not equal. Some care more about freedom than others. Germans don't. Russians don't. The scores of Islamic countries certainly don't.

Fuck those countries. They can make their own internet. The UN can make its own internet, try to charge excessively to pay for the exorbitant lifestyles of its member politicians, and see who uses it.

Why do they think they can take over something that does no belong to them? Fucking Nazis.

Re:Really? (3, Insightful)

SplashMyBandit (1543257) | about 2 years ago | (#42176201)

Kia Ora cuz! I live in New Zealand too (for the benefit of everyone else).

I wholeheartedly support your sentiments. For me the thing is is, ICANN has to obey the laws and courts of the US where Free Speech is protected (vigorously, but outfits like the EFF and supported by the courts). Once the UN gets its mitts on the Internet there is no way anyone can try and influence it. Furthermore, the UN is corrupt in the sense that the resolutions that get passed don't actually match its founding ideals - yet there is nothing the citizens of the World can actually do about it.

Corruption of the UN
Why is the UN this way? unfortunately it is due to past and future conflicts (a legacy of the Cold War, and now influenced by the rise of global Jihad and Salafism). I refer you to this video for an overview (mid-way describes how the Non-Aligned and Islamic movements have joined to form a voting bloc to defeat the interests of the US, Israel and much of the 'Western' World):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j7Mupoo1At8 [youtube.com]

Case History - reasons to oppose the move
Now some on these forums have argued that the ITU has been good at what it does. This is entirely true. However, I would argue that this was precisely because the ITU held no power that it has avoided the manipulating interest of special groups. Once the ITU actually got power could those special interest groups warp the normal process and corrupt the ITU in the same way that voting the UN General Assembly has been corrupted by voting blocs? Well, I'll give two examples for consideration:

  • ISO was a pretty respected organization. However there was a fiasco several years back where Microsoft essentially stuffed ballots for voting on the Office OpenXML document standard (despite ISO already having adopted the Open Document format as its standard). Lots of 'first time' voters registered for this, chairman barred any dissenting questions from being raised and the standard was forced through. A clear case of a single corporation warping a standards body for its own interests (and arguably, against the interests of the general population of document users, who had a preference for truly open standards).
  • Second example. The UN is working on making criticism of religion equivalent to hate speech. This means you can't say that the beheading of criminals under Islam's Sharia Law is barbaric, because Muslims will almost certainly wail that they have been offended by your statement. It is an essential part of Free Speech to be able to criticize, even to the point of offense. It is no surprise that the anti-Free Speech advocates who pushed for this are also pushing to move control of the Internet from ICANN (where Free Speech is protected by US law) to the UN ITU - where they can regulate the Internet and *forcibly* prohibit *your* Free Speech.

One doesn't have to be an astrophysicist (although I am/was :) ) to see how these examples are the representative of possible future trouble if the Internet was to slip out from ICANN's protection.

Let's not give up our open Internet, and other Freedoms without making a fuss, eh?

Re:Really? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42176893)

You might be an astrophysicist, but you clearly dont understand politics.

Re:Really? (4, Insightful)

Xest (935314) | about 2 years ago | (#42177447)

"Why is the UN this way? unfortunately it is due to past and future conflicts (a legacy of the Cold War, and now influenced by the rise of global Jihad and Salafism). I refer you to this video for an overview (mid-way describes how the Non-Aligned and Islamic movements have joined to form a voting bloc to defeat the interests of the US, Israel and much of the 'Western' World)"

I'm intrigued, pray tell how does an Islamic voting block defeat the interests of the US, Israel and the rest of the West in the UN's organisations that requires a consensus vote? Even if they gain a majority a majority is still meaningless where consensus is required. Majority voting only works in places like the general assembly which is entirely unrelated to the ITU. The ITU for what it's worth was created in about the 1880s, about 60 years before the UN, which is a large reason why it has a very different structure to some other UN organisations.

"Now some on these forums have argued that the ITU has been good at what it does. This is entirely true. However, I would argue that this was precisely because the ITU held no power that it has avoided the manipulating interest of special groups."

It has no inherent power, nor will it ever do beyond that which is granted through consensus of it's member states - i.e. just about every country in the world. The ITU can only do what the entire world agrees unanimously it can do - you seem to believe it's some kind of entity that exists in a vacuum, that's not true, it only exists and can do things where states unanimously agree to let it do so. To date those powers granted have been things like assigning communication satellite orbits - because someone has to do that and if states do so independently you'll find countries accidently crashing satellites into each other.

"Second example. The UN is working on making criticism of religion equivalent to hate speech. This means you can't say that the beheading of criminals under Islam's Sharia Law is barbaric, because Muslims will almost certainly wail that they have been offended by your statement."

This is simply an outright lie. What would be correct to say is that a few countries have proposed this even though they have no hope of passing it, and even if they did there is no structure within the UN by which they could multilaterally enforce it on those countries who don't want this. It's worrying that to try and make a point you're having to resort to outright literal FUD, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and pretend that you've said this through lack of knowledge about the topic, rather than an attempt to maliciously manipulate the discussion using the politics of fear.

It seems the majority of your post seems to be a muddle of anti-Islamic paranoia and confusion about how the UN/ITU relationship and governance works. Your post reads like a Fox News fear piece, rather than a factual, useful commentary.

For what it's worth we've already lost our free internet, if you haven't noticed ICE domain seizures are already enforcing global internet censorship at the behest of a single government. This is the flip side of your initial point that you've failed to mention - that ICANN also has to adhere to the bad laws of the US as well as the good due to it being part of a single nation. The situation is hence not quite as perfect as you make out.

If you genuinely care about internet freedom you wouldn't be spending your time spreading FUD about the ITU/UN/Islam, you'd instead be trying to create pressure on the US to make ICANN a special entity that is above US law when it comes to demands from judges in some backwater part of a US state, or customs officials bought off by the MPAA/RIAA to enforce global internet censorship. If you did that, and achieved that, there'd be no valid reason for people to argue for a move to ITU control of ICANN in the first place. You're focussing on the symptom of the problem of calls for changes to internet governance, rather than the root cause - fixing US mismanagement of the internet so that there is then no reason for the US to need to give it up. People disagree on what's best if the US doesn't improve it's game in terms of internet governance - some (including me) believe moving it to the ITU is better such that nothing detrimental can be passed unless the whole world's nations agree to it, and others believe the current status quo is better where the US mostly does okay, but can still unilaterally make bad decisions. Right now though that should be completely irrelevant, because we're not passed the stage, and this current talk is a perfect opportunity to raise pressure on the US to up it's game and protect ICANN from political and judicial interference based on the US' arbitrary morals. Sorting that problem should be the focus that unites both sides of the US vs. ITU argument, and only if that fails can we all fracture and disagree on what the second best option is.

But for what it's worth, the ITU have made it pretty clear this meeting isn't even about internet governance anyway, but merely about discussing international data transit costs etc. so talk of ICANN is all rather irrelevant to this particular UN meeting. This pressure on the US to give up control should be seen as a good thing though all the same, precisely because as I say it's an opportunity to beat the US into dropping the likes of ICE global domain censorship and so forth to get more people on it's side (again, including people like me who prefer ITU control as the backup option) against ITU control.

Re:Really? (1)

Johann Lau (1040920) | about 2 years ago | (#42177157)

Germans don't care about freedom? What do you base this on, stories your grandfather told you? Haha..

Why do they think they can take over something that does no belong to them? Fucking Nazis.

I live in NZ.

Uhuh.

Anyways, so what's your claim in this? You have a passport from an English-speaking country, so your input on something invented in another English-speaking matters why, exactly? Is it the common bond of a history of murder and delusion, are you just bored, or are you just, again, trying to take over something that does not belong to you? Lulz.

I just realized, you consider yourself part of a group of people who for the most part don't even know you exist, and wouldn't even blink if you sunk tomorrow. That must be hard, and I can see how the internet makes you angry. It must be harsh to know of an outside world that is taking place far, far away :(

Re:Really? (1)

HungryHobo (1314109) | about 2 years ago | (#42177271)

germany may value freedom but not freedom of speech. Or to put it another way they redefine freedom of speech to not include things which americans or people from quite a few other places would include under freedom of speech.

Germany also orders rights differently. To americans freedom of speech is near top priority. In germany various things like privacy are treated as more important. This has upsides and downsides.

Perhaps those other rights are more important to you but when the future of the internet is at stake I'd prefer it be in the hands of people for whom freedom of speech is the first right.

There is nothing to be confused about. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42176001)

The speaker was being mendacious. Boldfaced, blatant lying is how politics work these days. Rarely do we see the efforts at artful vagueness that dominated the politics of an earlier era, because the latest crop of rich-and-powerful have learned that there is no penalty for direct prevarication.

So they lie to our faces, then do the exact opposite of what they said they would do, and rather than hold them accountable we reward them with even greater wealth and power.

It is a good gig if you can get it.

Re:Really? (5, Insightful)

icebike (68054) | about 2 years ago | (#42173365)

Exactly!

Dear Mr Hamadoun Toure: If it won't be curbed or controlled why not define attempts to do so as a crime against humanity [wikipedia.org] and access to the internet a human right?

Could it be that you know it is already curbed and controlled and monitored and blocked.

Oh, look, your nose is growing and your pants seem to be on fire.

Re:Really? (1)

interkin3tic (1469267) | about 2 years ago | (#42173727)

Dear Mr Hamadoun Toure: If it won't be curbed or controlled why not define attempts to do so as a crime against humanity [wikipedia.org] and access to the internet a human right?

For one thing, I'd bet dollars to doughnuts that at least five of the security council members (Russia, China, the US, India, and Pakistan) would have strong feelings against giving up their ability to block the internet if and when they felt like it.

And I'd probably bet at least half dollars to doughnuts that the rest would too. Azerbaijan, for example. Wiki tells me their internet is pretty open for now, but the government likes to take a heavy hand against opposition, so they're a "probably."

Re:Really? (1)

NettiWelho (1147351) | about 2 years ago | (#42174053)

Dear Mr Hamadoun Toure: If it won't be curbed or controlled why not define attempts to do so as a crime against humanity [wikipedia.org] and access to the internet a human right?

For one thing, I'd bet dollars to doughnuts that at least five of the security council members (Russia, China, the US, India, and Pakistan) would have strong feelings against giving up their ability to block the internet if and when they felt like it.

I wouldnt bet anything on it, 'cause they can always have and "infrastructural failure" when convenient. :)

Re:Really? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42174489)

Chances are he really believes what he says. He is only the head of the UN telecommunications body, no need for countries to inform him about their hidden agenda's if he has his own reasons to want this anyway (more prestige for the ITU = better for Hamadoun Toure.

Re:Really? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42176765)

why not define attempts to do so as a crime against humanity [wikipedia.org] and access to the internet a human right?

Because we ought to reserve that kind of status to things which are more, well, horrific I guess. I hardly see how anything a government does with internet access, etc. even comes close to things like rape, pillage, genocide, etc.
And the internet is just a communications medium, it makes no more sense to call internet access in specific a "human right" than it does to say that we need to commit to making access to telegraph stations or courier pigeons a "human right". The "human right" here is the ability to communicate with whomever we choose without fear of reprisal, and to voice our opinions without fear of reprisal, regardless of the medium used to do so.

Re:Really? (2, Insightful)

Tom (822) | about 2 years ago | (#42173521)

Really? Follow the money and all? If the US government is crying wolf, are they really interested in ideals, or in advantages for themselves? Same for Google.

If you assign motives to one side and question their words, do so for the other as well.

Re:Really? (5, Informative)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | about 2 years ago | (#42173921)

Why bother with words? Let's look at actions.

The US government is certainly not an organization that values freedom over money. Yet ICANN has not done any of the following things that the ITU has proposed:
  1. Unique identifiers for Internet users or their computers
  2. Separate "service classes" for servers and client computers
  3. A system of fees, surcharges, etc.
  4. Special licensing for providing particular kinds of Internet services

These are the sort of things that, despite intense pressure from various industries, we have not seen on the Internet as controlled by ICANN. Sure, we've seen some censorship, but at the end of the day I can still use PGP and I can still run my own mail server, and I can do so without needing to obtain anyone's permission. This morning I ssh'd to my mother's computer to help troubleshoot a problem she was having -- and nothing stopped me, despite the fact that her computer is connected to the Internet through a "consumer grade" cable package.

ITU has a long history of designing communications systems that cement the power of monopoly service providers and which prevent people from hacking or coming up with their own solutions to problems. ITU's approach to the telephone network reflects its mindset; likewise with ITU's approach to radio. Amateurs? Hackers? You're lucky to get a tiny bit of space to play in, but you better not do anything that could threaten the big boys who provide "real" service to consumers.

To put it another way, if ITU had designed the Internet, there would never have been Google, because there would have been too much paperwork to fill out, too many licensing fees, and too many bandwidth fees to make something experimental like that work. The Internet's most important design feature is not packet switching, it is the idea that all computers connected to the Internet can do the same things, limited only by technical things like CPU or connection speeds. ITU doesn't design that sort of network; ITU designs this sort of network:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X.25 [wikipedia.org]

Here, by the way, is ITU's next generation Internet plan:

http://www.itu.int/en/ITU-T/gsi/ngn/Pages/default.aspx [itu.int]

Re:Really? (4, Informative)

sl149q (1537343) | about 2 years ago | (#42174471)

Well the ITU and ISO did design an internet... and it was simply politely ignored by the implementors of what we now call the Internet.

Other than governance the ITU/ISO model is one of top down design by committee. Compared to the IETF practice of bottom up implementation and design using RFC's and demonstrable code.

The former model led to X.400 (possibly the best known example, but not the only one) for Email. Pretty much non-implementable in full and with little inter-operability between the implementations that did get done. It died a quick (although very expensive) death.

While the IETF model has problems. They have managed to get the Internet to where it is today. Handing it over to the ITU/ISO would probably not be in the best interest of anyone.

Really, yes Really (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42175249)

Do you know humans forget pain quickly, the last part of the CCITT as it then was (run by the French out of Geneva, CH) is X509 Certificates, and they are part of the reason why consumer cryptography didn't take off as in M$ Outlook/Exchange.

Want a laugh, look at X400 email, clueless, an address is longer than this post!

This is the UN third world idiots AGAIN.

The answer is what my old Texas flying instructor used to say in the 50's. Fcuk off, in fine pitch!

MFG, omb

Re:Really? (2)

rs79 (71822) | about 2 years ago | (#42176513)

Actually it wasn't ignored, the ITU made sure the US goverment *mandated* the ITU/OSI protocol suite and *banned* the TCP/IP protocol suite for any interaction with the US government in 1991. By 93 this had come to seem as ridiculous even to the USG then as is it does now to you and this quietly went away.

When the very first transatlantic ITU-protocol OSI/X.25 link was put up the first thing that went over it was TCP/IP traffic. Why? Because there actually *was* some.

The sole accomplishment of the dude that spun the ITU and UN into this feeding frenzy for the net was a technical paper on how to write an X.400 email address on a business card. That's it. http://www.itu.int/itudoc/teltopic/x400/20656.txt [itu.int]

Previous to that he made Ethernet work in the ITU office, comically described in Carl Malamud's superb book wherein he tries to put the ITU technical specs online like the IETF's were. The general counsel at the time, the America technical genius (who set up the white house web server) / lawyer who started Internet Society, Dr. Tony Rutkowski, thought it was a swell idea, and since the rest of the ITU had never heard of the Internet they said "whatever" thinking it was some sort of CompuServe like thing. Then they found out some months later, and took them all down so they could figure out how best to deploy their information online - http://museum.media.org/eti/ [media.org] http://museum.media.org/eti/Prologue01.html [media.org] and more...

Rutkowski wrote a paper recently pointing out it would be best if the ITU were sort of, um, turned off. http://www.circleid.com/posts/20120816_privatizing_the_itu_t_back_to_the_future/ [circleid.com]

Re:Really? (2, Informative)

bug1 (96678) | about 2 years ago | (#42174727)

Yet ICANN has not done any of the following things that the ITU has proposed:
        Unique identifiers for Internet users or their computers
        Separate "service classes" for servers and client computers
        A system of fees, surcharges, etc.
        Special licensing for providing particular kinds of Internet services

How many elected US government officials have;
  - Overseen and supported extensive national and international surveillance of the internet.
  - Supported warrantless/roaming wiretapping laws which some argue are unconstitutional.
  - Supported a tiered internet
  - Proposed taxing the internet.

So much propaganda flowing in support of ICANN.

Re:Really? (1)

tbird81 (946205) | about 2 years ago | (#42174859)

ICANN would not have stopped these things, and would probably have made it worse - because it could happen in any country.

Evil (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42175189)

ITU is Evil in two ways:

1. It is part of the UN, let the experts decide, see how well that did with Climate

2. It is always on the industry+government side

MFG, omb

Re:Really? (2)

peragrin (659227) | about 2 years ago | (#42173961)

the thing is for as bad as the us government is I cant think of anyone else i would rather have in charge.

It is one of the handful of countries that have explicit right to free speech. Most countries have some limited right of free speech. Where if you say things that they don't like you can be charged for it.

Many of the countries at that meeting want cross border jursidiction where if you break a law in their country and someone there reads it you can be charged for it.

Re:Really? (5, Insightful)

jfengel (409917) | about 2 years ago | (#42173667)

It may be their goal, but they won't get it. It's not what the ITU does and they won't succeed in their ludicrous proposals. They only make those proposals because they have no idea what they're talking about.

In fact, most of it is political theater. The ITU attendees themselves are well aware that these proposals stand no chance of passage. But the religious zealots in their countries are as ignorant of that as they are about everything else, and enjoy being pandered to. So when the proposals fail, the government can claim that they tried to prohibit blasphemy, but those blasphemous bastards in the West defeated it.

It's a dangerous and ugly game, because some of these zealots will take it as an excuse for violence. But as far as the leadership is concerned, as long as it's directed against us rather than them, it's all good.

Re:Really? (3, Interesting)

grcumb (781340) | about 2 years ago | (#42174365)

If the goal is not to curb internet freedom, then why are the foxes the ones at the forefront of the effort to build a henhouse?

It's a bit of rather disingenuous misdirection.

Touré claims that the ITU have no intention of touching anything to do with Internet governance, but this is not entirely honest: The treaty-making process starts with independent submissions from various national institutions and telecoms industry bodies. While none of them have any formal status at this point in time as ITU policy, a significant number of them speak specifically for the perceived need for transit fees for large content providers (e.g. Google). Were they to be taken up as components of the revised ITRs, they would indeed place limits on the growth of the Internet, especially in developing nations. The precedent of 'pay-to-play', for example, favours large incumbents far more than upstart content providers, especially those in the developing world, where cash flow is often limited and incomes small.

Given the rather stark opposition coming from the US and key EU countries, I still doubt whether any of the most contentious proposals will ever achieve the consensus required to become binding. And, as others have pointed out elsewhere, significant parts of the last (1988) set of ITRs have been ignored even by some of the ITUs strongest supporters.

As usual, MIchael Geist is the go-to guy to understand exactly what forces are at play here. His contention is that the 'UN takeover' spin conveniently hides a more insidious issue [michaelgeist.ca] : Who pays for content?

Re:Really? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42175037)

So in the end it is all about that neoclassical fantasy about 3% compound growth forever and ever...

OvO (hoot hoot)

Re:Really? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42174739)

They're not worried about freedom, they're worried about turning the internet into a giant toll road. I mean, right now, basically all the routes are free as far as we're concerned and they're not squeezing as much money out of us as they could. But if they could put up toll booths everywhere online, all those internet companies would have to pay through the nose. Not to mention their customers.

So it's sort of like having a meeting about how to turn the US highway system into a network of toll roads. And we all know, once they start collecting tolls, they NEVER stop. Ironically, that's what "Net Neutrality" was originally about, but it's gotten rebranded into some political thing, when it was initially caused by an outburst of rage over the original plans to create toll booths for internet traffic.

Maybe it's time to get back to basics here? Say no to internet toll trolls!

Re:Really? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42176751)

Ya, no kidding. In response to the statement "We must continue to work together and find a consensus on how to most effectively keep cyberspace open, accessible, affordable and secure,'" please note that finding a consensus on how to do those things is not at all the same as committing to actually DO any of them.

If they really wanted to ensure freedom of expression, etc. they'd be putting all their efforts in bringing something along the lines of "onion routing" (i.e. Tor) into play as a default standard for internet transmissions.

Re:Really? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42177023)

Indeed- Australia sent Senator Conroy, only the biggest a$$hole in Australia when it comes to mandatory filtering (which he recently had to back down on) and many other forms of censorship, monitoring and control.

But... (2)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about 2 years ago | (#42173321)

As for those claims that we have a crack team of ex-Ma Bell billing experts working on proposals to better 'monetize' the internet and ensure hilariously usurious returns on 'investment' by incumbent telcos? Well, now, I never disavowed that...

Re:But... (0)

icebike (68054) | about 2 years ago | (#42173383)

If all they were trying to do was monetize it, we could hold our nose and probably live with that. If that was ALL they are trying to do.

Please move along (1)

grumpy_old_grandpa (2634187) | about 2 years ago | (#42173337)

"Nothing for you to see here, please move along, folks"

Unless you say something negative towards Mohammed (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42173353)

Prove me wrong.

Re:Unless you say something negative towards Moham (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42173367)

Which Mohammed? The pedophile? The bigamist? The mass murder? Oh wait, that's the same Mohammed. Fuck Mohammed and the camel he rode in on.

Re:Unless you say something negative towards Moham (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42173601)

and the camel he rode in on.

Yeah, he probably did.

Re:Unless you say something negative towards Moham (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42173703)

You should put a graven image of Mohammed in a jar of elephant piss. The way the Moslems will flip out would be hilarious. Then we could glass their countries and be done with Islamic barbarism for good.

Noone has any intention of erecting a wall. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42173363)

N/T

It's already controlled like fucking hell. (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42173415)

By terrorists and corrupt assholes:
The Internet cancer [kimmoa.se] .
The rotten and corrupt Domain Name System [kimmoa.se] .

Reality is they are doubling down... (4, Interesting)

blahplusplus (757119) | about 2 years ago | (#42173421)

Re:Reality is they are doubling down... (2)

multicoregeneral (2618207) | about 2 years ago | (#42174093)

Right. I think it's fair to turn government logic back on them in this case. If they are telling the truth about their intentions, and they are not doing anything the public would object to, then why the secret meetings and media silence on the whole thing? Since they're being secretive and quiet, one can only reasonably assume that they're up to no good, and that they need to be monitored.

Re:Reality is they are doubling down... (1)

The Archon V2.0 (782634) | about 2 years ago | (#42175163)

If you've done nothing wrong you have nothing to hide.

(...)

It's a matter of national security.

High priests of do nothing (4, Interesting)

h8sg8s (559966) | about 2 years ago | (#42173451)

Is this the same ITU that wanted to charge me $1200 for a single binder of doc back in 2007? They view information as power and want to install themselves as the high priests. Control the Internet? I think not.

Why bother denying the obvious? (2)

WaffleMonster (969671) | about 2 years ago | (#42173459)

"'We must continue to work together and find a consensus on how to most effectively keep cyberspace open, accessible, affordable and secure"

Lets see it still costs me > $1/min to make international calls.

It costs me nothing to transfer information over the Internet to any destination in the world.

The consensus appears to be ITU "continuing" its march into irrelevance as the Internet eventually replaces the telephone network.

Re:Why bother denying the obvious? (2)

mikael (484) | about 2 years ago | (#42174233)

Long distance and national phone calls are charged at a higher rate as it is the simplest way of getting businesses and wealthy people to subsidize the maintenance of the local telephone network.

Re:Why bother denying the obvious? (1)

BlueStrat (756137) | about 2 years ago | (#42175229)

Long distance and national phone calls are charged at a higher rate as it is the simplest way of getting businesses and wealthy people to subsidize the maintenance of the local telephone network.

It's also a dis-incentive to the peoples of different regions to develop close, regular contact, thus promoting social and cultural divisions based on fear, ignorance, hatred, and mistrust. The more divided people are, the easier they are to control.

The internet has exploded far beyond expectations in almost every metric, and this threatens the entire current power structures of both governments and commerce worldwide. Depend on the powers that be attempting to control what and who is on it and how it is used. It's the single greatest threat to tyranny and despotism to come along in centuries. Of course that all depends on, as Ben Franklin said to a woman who asked him about the freshly-minted US Republic, "If you can keep it!"

Strat

Re:Why bother denying the obvious? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42177311)

Seriously, someone on _Slashdot_ spent a mod-point to mod the parent "Overrated" for cautioning against the very sorts of things TFS is concerned with? The very sort of internet-freedom-killing things that Slashdotters always get up in arms about? WTF?

Really?

I gotta call "shill-mod" on this one.

Re:Why bother denying the obvious? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42177557)

One of the inventors of the telephone system was actually run out of a city after demonstrating the telegraph in front of an auddience. The crime was "performing illegal communication between two cities".

Re:Why bother denying the obvious? (1)

butlerm (3112) | about 2 years ago | (#42176119)

Long distance and national phone calls are charged at a higher rate as it is the simplest way of getting businesses and wealthy people to subsidize the maintenance of the local telephone network.

That is why they invented progressive income taxes. No need to stunt commerce and communication too.

Well, almost free speech (0, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42173467)

From the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 29:

  (3) These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

So your freedom of speech on the internet will not be abridged unless you are critical of or oppose the actions of the UN. Sounds fair to me.

Re:Well, almost free speech (2)

Hal_Porter (817932) | about 2 years ago | (#42174063)

Fuck the UN

/BRB, Black Helicopters

Re:Well, almost free speech (1, Insightful)

reboot246 (623534) | about 2 years ago | (#42174213)

There you go, telling the truth about the UN's view of human rights. They really don't want people reading all the way to the end of that charter. None of your rights is safe with the UN, but fools continue to trust them and defend them (our holy leader Obama being one of them).

Re:Well, almost free speech (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42174281)

They really don't want people reading all the way to the end of that charter.

So that's why they posted it publicly on their webpage and it's mirrored in numerous other places? Yeah, sounds like they are totally trying to hide things.

Uhm... (1)

Black Parrot (19622) | about 2 years ago | (#42173499)

Some proposals could permit governments to censor legitimate speech — or even cut off Internet access

I presume he means "more than already" ?

Re:Uhm... (3, Interesting)

iluvcapra (782887) | about 2 years ago | (#42173863)

Shorter Vint Cerf: Some proposals would actually allow sovereign governments to enforce their sovereignty, as bad as that may be.

Nobody would support the UN forcing the US government to do anything; it's funny when we're shocked that Russia or China would insist on being able to regulate cables and boxen that operate on their own frigging soil.

Of course governments can censor speech and cut off Internet access, that's their prerogative. Or are we working from the idea that the Internet is actually greater and more important than any government, and that the laws of a state (democratic or not) are not binding upon it? How do you think an American government would react if it was told by the UN, or Mexico, that it was forbidden from arresting undocumented migrants, because such action would infringe upon an individual's absolute freedom of movement, as protected by some UN declaration of human rights?

Freedom is a good thing, freedom of speech is a good thing, in the US we are blessed to have a national polity that respects it. The Internet can allow it to flourish in other places too. However, any goodwill for your cause is likely going to be depleted twice over if people in Iran and Burma come to believe that, as shitty as their government may be, actual decisions that govern their virtual life take place in Marina del Rey, and it wouldn't matter who was running their country. They'd call it imperialism, and they'd be right.

Re:Uhm... (1, Insightful)

Microlith (54737) | about 2 years ago | (#42174577)

Shorter Vint Cerf: Some proposals would actually allow sovereign governments to enforce their sovereignty, as bad as that may be.

Yup, and that's a bad thing. No accommodations should be made to make things easy for censorious, oppressive governments to act in such a manner. All the burden should be on their end, rather than worked into some sort of legalistic framework ripe for abuse.

Of course governments can censor speech and cut off Internet access, that's their prerogative.

But is it the prerogative of the people in that country? Or is it a government acting unilaterally for the sake of retaining power? Should we be accepting or tolerant of that?

How do you think an American government would react if it was told by the UN, or Mexico, that it was forbidden from arresting undocumented migrants, because such action would infringe upon an individual's absolute freedom of movement, as protected by some UN declaration of human rights?

This is an idiotic comparison.

Mexico/UN: Hey, stop arresting and deporting people who bypass legal channels to enter your country!

vs

US: Hey, stop fucking with the internet in your bid to silence opposition and retain power over the populace of your nation!

No, if anything there should be protocols put in place to ensure that no one could ever be sure that information was being cleanly filtered, to the point that the only option for these countries would be to vanish from the net entirely, and suffer the requisite economic damage for doing so.

Re:Uhm... (2)

iluvcapra (782887) | about 2 years ago | (#42174769)

No accommodations should be made to make things easy for censorious, oppressive governments to act in such a manner.

I don't see how this principle could stand, without forcing nation-states to submit their laws to the UN (or Vint Cerf for that matter) for approval as "sufficiently non-oppresive." Let alone your proposal for Internet trade warfare -- do you really think denying Amazon.com to the people of Shiraz is going to get them to turn against the Basij?

Hey, stop arresting and deporting people who bypass legal channels to enter your country!

The whole point is that undocumented migrants don't see it that way, to them, la migra is the oppressor trying to force them to eat lizards at the Nike factory in Matamoros, when they could be earning a small fortune mowing lawns in San Antonio, working for people who are falling over themselves to pay them. The idea that a state has the right to use force to prevent this or that case of economic migration is, SURPRISE!, very contentious and a source of genuine dispute between nations and peoples.

Guess what: the US has "legal channels" for keeping out the wetbacks, Japan has "legal channels" for torturing dolphins, Germany has "legal channels" for suppressing political parties, just as Egypt has "legal channels," for the very same thing. Who are international diplomats, university academics, let alone foreigners, to pass judgement on any state?

This is more than a little like Niemoller principle -- it's easy to attack repressive regimes, but if you come for the freedom of North Korea to make its laws, where does it stop? Does the US get an out, because everything it does is obviously virtuous? And how do all the other nation-states feel about that rather clubby arrangement?

Re:Uhm... (1)

Xest (935314) | about 2 years ago | (#42177659)

"But is it the prerogative of the people in that country? Or is it a government acting unilaterally for the sake of retaining power? Should we be accepting or tolerant of that?"

It's up to the people of that country to do something about it. It's a painful situation to watch sometimes, seeing people oppressed by their government, but as things like Iraq have taught us, intervention can be so much worse. Saddam's use of chemical weapons and so forth to kill 5,000 odd civilians was sick, but was the situation worse than the best part of a million people who died as a result of America's intervention there?

Compare this to say, Egypt, Libya, or Tunisia, and yes blood was spilt, but far less than through external intervention and the inevitable power vacuum that that causes.

Re:Uhm... (1)

tqk (413719) | about 2 years ago | (#42176643)

Shorter Vint Cerf: Some proposals would actually allow sovereign governments to enforce their sovereignty, as bad as that may be.

Even shorter: why should we care about sovereign governments? We should care about individuals. Screw the cartels; all of them!

Open, accessible, affordable and secure? (2, Insightful)

AHuxley (892839) | about 2 years ago | (#42173559)

Q: What is the difference between the US and UN controlled internet? Both guarantee freedom of speech.
A: Yes, but the USA also guarantees freedom after the speech.
ie Open, accessible, affordable - sounds like a trap to get you online.
The secure sounds like easy tracking at any point along the network.

Decentralize it, only way to be sure (4, Interesting)

magic maverick (2615475) | about 2 years ago | (#42173591)

I've said it before: decentralize it, it's the only way to be sure. The USA govt. at the moment (via the Dept. Commerce) has effective control over the generic domain names. And they use that control. They shut down websites for all sorts of reasons, including accidentally. They shut down websites that are operating in foreign countries, hosted in foreign countries, and don't even target US citizens. Oh, but they happen to host links to copyrighted material. Or they happen to be doing a perfectly legal thing in their own country, e.g. providing DRM breaking tools, or online gambling, but which isn't legal in the USA.

And people think that the ITU is some how going to be worse? It would be different, but I can't see how it could be worse (you couldn't get all the countries to agree anyway, and if the USA really cared, they could just veto stuff; I think the ITU operates on a consensus model). (Fun fact: the ITU is older than the UN, and the previous League of Nations; it was setup back in the 1800s.)

Still, the best solution is to decentralize. Perhaps a web of trust; I trust this person (these people) and they (a clear majority) say that this domain resolves to this IP address. Actually, the domain name system is already a trust exercise, with people choosing which resolver to go with (e.g. I currently use Google's 8.8.8.8 as I can't remember the local one, and I'm not sure I would trust it more than Google anyway), and the resolver ultimately choosing a root.

So why can't we decentralize it more? Come on people, I know there are lots of smart people, get together and work out an alternative DNS and make it really easy for everyone to use. And make it not be in the hands of anyway. Perhaps a federalized system. But remove control from governments and corporations and give it back to the people, just like God intended when he created the Internet. (Also more people use FreeNet please.)

Re:Decentralize it, only way to be sure (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42173933)

With the US controlling things, you get shut down for CP, and IP violations.

Now, take the same control and hand it over to the UN. Your domain can get taken not just for IP infringement, but:

Insulting a head of state.
Blasphemy (and this is more than one religion). This can easily be used to get anti-religious sites, or sites critizing an extreme arm of a sect or cult off the Internet.

When the UN takes control of the Internet, it will be the lowest common denominator, which virtually makes it open season on all websites. A Shia site critical of a Sunni group's actions can be flattened just as one who criticizes leadership in Thailand.

So far, the US isn't great, but there is far worse...

And we have not gotten to the fees yet. Once the UN realizes that extorting domainholders for fees is lucrative, that means another party, immune to the control of any country, now appears on the scene to dictate to other people what to do.

Re:Decentralize it, only way to be sure (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42174637)

But it's not just CP/IP. You can also get shut down for things including, but not limited to:
  - Carrying information deemed to be "propaganda" for groups hostile to US interests
  - Selling holiday flights to Cuba
  - Publishing information that the US gov't deems 'classified'
  - Running an online casino

This vaunted 'freedom of expression on the Internet' has only ever been as deep as the government wanted it to be.

Re:Decentralize it, only way to be sure (1)

tbird81 (946205) | about 2 years ago | (#42174901)

And that would be one hell of a lot worse under the UN.

The thing about United Nations (other than it's just a junket for corrupt has-been or wannabe politicians) is that some of the nations are fucking terrible.

Re:Decentralize it, only way to be sure (1)

harlequinn (909271) | about 2 years ago | (#42176883)

Some nations are terrible. But the US controlling the internet hasn't stopped them being terrible.

Many of these nations already do all the things people are worried about happening.

Re:Decentralize it, only way to be sure (1)

jbolden (176878) | about 2 years ago | (#42173949)

There are lots of alternative DNSes. But you don't need an alternative DNS all you need to do is start running DNS services and

a) Use whatever rules you want
b) Get other people to use your service instead of the ones you are objecting to.

It is perfectly anarcho-democratic. Everyone votes everyday with the DNS settings what DNS they want.

Re:Decentralize it, only way to be sure (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42175103)

But you don't need an alternative DNS all you need to do is start running DNS services and ...

In other words:

You don't need an alternative DNS, you need an alternative DNS.

Re:Decentralize it, only way to be sure (1)

Johann Lau (1040920) | about 2 years ago | (#42177253)

"You don't need an alternative DNS, you need an alternative DNS server"

What do you not understand about that?

Re:Decentralize it, only way to be sure (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42174319)

I think there has to be some form of central authority or else it will be necessary to reinvent one.

Remember the reason mankind accepted leaders in the first place was to resolve disputes. If two parties are fighting over something, the only way to have any hope of something approximating fairness is for the two parties to bring their case before an adjudicator with the authority to enforce a judgment.

We already have institutions that have been doing this for centuries. They are currently poorly adapted to some issues in modern communications systems. However that doesn't mean that reimplementing a sort of prehistoric tribal rule in digital form is a good way forward.

I believe that the way forward is to reforge our existing social compromises for the new systems. The way you do that is to think about what rights and protections you want to have, then think about what circumstances would make it difficult to argue that your preferred rights are respected, then come up with mechanisms that try to make allowances for those situations while otherwise preserving your preferred rights.

Re:Decentralize it, only way to be sure (1)

Kjella (173770) | about 2 years ago | (#42174557)

I've said it before: decentralize it, it's the only way to be sure. The USA govt. at the moment (via the Dept. Commerce) has effective control over the generic domain names.

But as far as I know each country manage their own country domain so they don't have a monopoly on domain names. That's why TPB moved from .org to .se and they're hardly less popular because of it. That's roughly as decentralized as you can get without terrible headaches with namespace crashes where my "slashdot.org" is different than your "slashdot.org" - you'll be destroying the one Internet where everyone can reach the same sites and restore many of the old borders Internet has been tearing down. Imagine just how crazy email would be if I couldn't write a domain name and know it'd be delivered to the right domain, or that I couldn't get email from all over the world without registering with hundreds of DNS services. Yes, ideally the US should have been banished into edu.us, gov.us, and mil.us but beyond that it's a good system.

I have a very simple proposal that would clearly show beyond a shadow of a doubt what this is about. Grant the UN their own .un domain and let them try to build their "freer" Internet. I mean, you can't possibly become less free with more choice, right? Unless of course your agenda is something completely different, like giving people less choice. Compared to all the pundits in the UN the ICANN has been remarkably hands-off about who gets a domain, that the US courts use the opportunity to cease things under their jurisdiction is so but I doubt UN domains would get any "special global" status, I think more that it'd be shut down by any member of the UN that wants it shut down. That all they can do is yell and scream at YouTube and not pull its domain has been the best way to bring free speech to all the countries that don't want it.

Re:Decentralize it, only way to be sure (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42175029)

Smart people have. One group decided that the general structure of Bitcoin was good for this so they created a fork called Namecoin. A truly decentralised DNS has been operating for about two years now.

Unfortunately, those that are good at building this sort of framework are not usually good at marketing it or making it easy to use. The system currently reports only 70000 registered domain names and just 4 public DNS servers.

Re:Decentralize it, only way to be sure (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42176819)

Yeah but namecoin is stupid.

Steely Neely said it best. (2)

sconeu (64226) | about 2 years ago | (#42173621)

"If it isn't broken, don't fix it".

She's an engineer at heart.

Re:Steely Neely said it best. (2)

Mashiki (184564) | about 2 years ago | (#42174475)

This is the UN. Their motto is: "If it's not broke, break it." Followed by: "If it has money, pillage it." And "If there are small children, send in the soldiers so they can rape them."

Let the UN and ITU run their own Internet . . . (2)

PolygamousRanchKid (1290638) | about 2 years ago | (#42173651)

. . . and leave the rest, as-is.

And then see which one folks use.

Re:Let the UN and ITU run their own Internet . . . (1)

Scorch_Mechanic (1879132) | about 2 years ago | (#42175527)

Folks will use the internet available to them, as dictated by their residence in European countries or elsewhere. They may "choose" their internet by moving to another country, and that's not a realistic solution. Your assertion that people have a choice between UN internet and "other" internet is false.

Don't trust coercive monopolies on violence (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42173683)

"How do you tell a government official is lying?" "His/her lips are moving." Governments always grab as much power as they can, and give as little back in return as they can get away with.

UN is even worse - an entity immune from intergovernmental competition, therefore there is no frame of reference. Tyrants like Hitler, Stalin, and FDR can keep each-other in check to some degree, but tyranny on a global scale would be impossible to escape!

What we need is a more decentralized Internet [slashdot.org] that is outside of all governmental control: no DNS monopolies, no cable/phone monopolies, no "net neutrality", no taxation of online sales, no limits to free speech [freestateproject.org] .

--libman

Re:Don't trust coercive monopolies on violence (3, Insightful)

The Master Control P (655590) | about 2 years ago | (#42174085)

"Tyrants like Hitler, Stalin and FDR"

If the credence I gave to your post were plotted as a function of how much I'd read, at this point there would be a discontinuous step to zero.

Re:Don't trust coercive monopolies on violence (1)

lgw (121541) | about 2 years ago | (#42175587)

Well, FDR did do some crazy shit, like making it illegal for Americans to own gold so that he could cheat on the currency (since no citizen could now redeem the bills for gold), and attempting to remove the SCOTUS as a check on federal power. Not in the same league as the others, to be sure, but certainly the same direction.

Never believe anything until it has been officiall (2)

etudiant (45264) | about 2 years ago | (#42173755)

Bismarck said: Never believe anything until it has been officially denied. Presumably Mr Toure's comment qualifies as an official denial.

That would be a change (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42173839)

Under the current US-centric regime, the Internet is controlled.

At least to the to the degree that the United States Government wants it to be controlled.

Well, that proves it: (1)

Hartree (191324) | about 2 years ago | (#42173853)

"'Nothing can stop the freedom of expression in the world today, and nothing in this conference will be about it,"

Well, if it's not possible to stop the freedom of expression in the world, then nothing enacted or done by a government or international body can do that.

Therefore, the great firewall of China, the network shutdowns in Egypt, Syria, etc by definition didn't stop the freedom of expression. Because, that would be impossible.

Thus nothing that we could consider can stop freedom of expression. So we are free to do anything we want, since going by what the Secretary General said, it can't stop freedom of expression. Q.E.D.

Move along, nothing here to see. These aren't the droids you're looking for.

Think it won't be interpreted that way by some? Just wait until any of various repressive countries use this to justify saying "The Secretary General says our restrictions don't stop freedom of expression."

At best, Ban Ki Moon should be a little more careful about how he phrases things. Surprising, for someone who is as experienced a diplomat as he is.

Re:Well, that proves it, I'm making mistakes: (1)

Hartree (191324) | about 2 years ago | (#42173903)

This wasn't Ban Ki Moon that said that, it was the ITU Secretary General Hamadoun Toure.

That's what I got for posting while running a fever.

Yea... (1)

Larry_Dillon (20347) | about 2 years ago | (#42173943)

I'll believe that when when we have built-in end-to-end encryption off all Internet traffic by default, get rid of mandatory (CALEA) backdoors in telecomm equipment and get equal privacy for electronic communications.

baseball bat technology (0)

noshellswill (598066) | about 2 years ago | (#42174127)

Free internet babbles the UN cosmopolitan grifter. Cram a baseball bat up that lying Bantus a**whole and see whether he sings the same tune.

the translation.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42174151)

"I'm pretty sure that if we say now that we intend to curb internet freedom we'll get lynched by the masses, better that we take enough freedoms generally until that’s not an option and then start the curbing."

The big issue has been how it's billed (4, Informative)

isdnip (49656) | about 2 years ago | (#42174421)

As to censorship, the ITU never proposed censoring the Internet. That's not their bailiwick -- national governments can and do censor domestic Internet access, and the ITU can't stop them. Nor can it force a government to do anything. The US can simply declare an Exception to an ITU rule and it doesn't apply here. Enough bilateral Exceptions and the ITU is irrelevant.

I did read the more controversial proposals. What a lot of countries wanted was to treat the Internet as if it were telecommunications (it is seen in the US as the content of telecommunications, not the telecommunications itself) and to apply telephone call-like charging to packets. So if somebody in Benin or Fiji downloaded a movie from YouTube, their country would receive payment from YouTube. In many countries this would go to the government, supposedly to pay for the network facilities but of course many of these countries are remarkably corrupt...

And unlike a phone call, where the party who dials the call pays, Internet payments would be made by the side sending the packets, even if the other side asked them to. This would of course probably cause YouTube and other high-volume information sources to shut off access to those countries. Not censorship per se, but pay to talk.

Other proposals on the table are technically unworkable, but then the old PTT (post-telegraph-telephone) guys who dominate ITU-T don't understand how the Internet works (very, very tenuously).

Hamadoun? Dubai? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42174467)

I'm not trusting a guy named Hamadoun who is speaking in Dubai, not on a matter like this.

"Legitimate" Speech (2)

Darkness404 (1287218) | about 2 years ago | (#42174605)

Any talk about "Legitimate" speech is on the same level as "Legitimate Rape". All speech is legitimate, though, clearly the UN and most of its members do not.

Don't believe me that the UN classifies political dissent as non-protected? Just look at their "Universal Declaration of Human Rights" http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml#atop [un.org] where it says Article 29: (3) These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

Do we really want people controlling the internet who in their own "bill of rights" basically say you don't have these basic, "universal" rights if you disagree with us?

Dude I'm serious (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42174607)

One day you'll be doing something productive like posting to 9gag. Then you hear this faint sound that goes something like "turka turka turka." You go "wtf was that?" listen, hear silence, go back to your rage comic.

Then.

Out of fucking nowhere, "Allah akhbar, balalalala!" and a Boeing 747 crashes into your gaming tower.

Sorry, but I'm really really skeptical about these Muslim pigfuckers getting ANY kind of say in how the internet works.

Power Grab!!! (1)

CHIT2ME (2667601) | about 2 years ago | (#42174691)

I see this as nothing more than a power grab by the ITU and the UN. If they want an internet that they can control, let them build their own!

Legitimate speech? Excuse me what? (3, Interesting)

xtal (49134) | about 2 years ago | (#42174975)

There's the problem.

All speech is legitimate. If words threaten you so badly you can't refute them on their grounds; well.. the truth is a bitch.

As far as I can tell, the USA is as close a bastion of true free speech as exists, and that right hasn't been molested too badly. I do not want my internet in the charge of those who would seek to regulate in the name of "religious tolerance".

All words should be read and judged on their own merits.

Screw the ITU.

"secure" (1)

CHRONOSS2008 (1226498) | about 2 years ago | (#42175107)

there's your lil misfit word....to have secure internet one must place undue controls on it to monitor and make impossible anonymity.
I would argue its that insecurity that makes the internet so vibrant.
YOU all know the risks and you all know that "shit" happens now and then and thus that's how it is.

OR it should be. I will further argue however that i would rather the net in the UN'S hands then the USA. WHY? LOOK at the direction the USA is heading...it isn't democratic...besides all nations on earth have or should have a say rather then one nation that is bribed and bought out by corporations that consistently see lawsuits and evil short term gains over there nations that spawned them.

WELL think of canada's minority govts as how the un will deal with stuff, if you like the net the way it is now think how 192 nations are ever ever gonna agree...and thats the rub i say go for it. we cant do any worse.

Watch what hey do... (1)

QuietLagoon (813062) | about 2 years ago | (#42175359)

Watch what they do, not what they say they are doing.

.
In the end, what matters is not what has been said, but the laws and resolutions that have been passed.

Watch what they do, not what they say they are doing.

Curious language. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42175777)

The freedom of the internet IS controlled. By who depends on where.

When's the last time you had privacy?

It would be cheaper and more effective if we stopped being dicks to other countries... period. Leave them alone and fix ourselves.

I thought government was about governing. The bit missing is governing the will of the people. not the governing OF the people. Am I wrong in this?

Re:Curious language. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42177295)

Am I wrong in this?

Yes, now bend over bitch.

open? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42176891)

How can something be open AND secure?

of course not (1)

kenorland (2691677) | about 2 years ago | (#42177125)

Of course, they won't "curb Internet freedoms". They'll simply "outlaw dangerous speech", "protect the faithful from being offended by blasphemers", "create taxes to compensate creative organizations like newspapers", and "track online use to protect children". But no Internet freedoms will be harmed. Right.

Big 3 Lies (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42177239)

1. The cheque is in the mail.
2. Black is beautiful.
3. Don't worry, I won't come in your mouth.

and now we can add a fourth:

4. Internet Freedom Won't Be Controlled, Says UN Telcom Chief

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>