×

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!

US House Votes 397-0 To Oppose UN Control of the Internet

Soulskill posted about a year ago | from the free-sandwich-with-every-vote dept.

The Internet 297

An anonymous reader writes "The U.S. House of Representatives voted 397-0 today on a resolution to oppose U.N. control of the internet. 'The 397-0 vote is meant to send a signal to countries meeting at a U.N. conference on telecommunications this week. Participants are meeting to update an international telecom treaty, but critics warn that many countries' proposals could allow U.N. regulation of the Internet.' The European Parliament passed a similar resolution a couple weeks ago, and the U.N. telecom chief has gone on record saying that freedom on the internet won't be curbed. However, that wasn't enough for U.S. lawmakers, who were quite proud of themselves for actually getting bipartisan support for the resolution (PDF). Rep Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) said, 'We need to send a strong message to the world that the Internet has thrived under a decentralized, bottom-up, multi-stakeholder governance model.'"

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

297 comments

Republicans hate the UN (0, Troll)

lemur3 (997863) | about a year ago | (#42197389)

Im not sure why but its a big thing for them to bash on and hate the UN...

I guess thats good in this rare instance?

but then again they always pass silly bills that are nothing more than symbolic.

Re:Republicans hate the UN (3, Insightful)

amiga3D (567632) | about a year ago | (#42197505)

You do understand that the House Democrats also supported this bill? It's not neccessarily just about hating the UN. Although I think the UN mostly sucks.

Re:Republicans hate the UN (3, Insightful)

Jetra (2622687) | about a year ago | (#42197521)

Everyone knows that the U.S.wants to control everything. I mean, an internet controlled by all nations? Preposterous!

Re:Republicans hate the UN (5, Insightful)

The Master Control P (655590) | about a year ago | (#42197597)

The Internet has done fine under ICANN.

Look at those who want to take control away from ICANN and look at their histories regarding censorship and ask whether you should by default assume things will get better or worse under the ITU.

Re:Republicans hate the UN (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42197667)

Really? Last time I've looked I could have sworn that domain names have been seized without proper justification and oversight.

Re:Republicans hate the UN (5, Insightful)

colin_faber (1083673) | about a year ago | (#42197811)

Yes this is true, however countries such as Iran, China, etc. shut off entire parts of the internet 'without justification'.

Do you really want to have an internet controlled by entities which care more about power than freedom? I understand you could argue the same about the U.S. however history has proven those arguments to be false.

Re:Republicans hate the UN (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42197967)

Do you really want to have an internet controlled by entities which care more about power than freedom? I understand you could argue the same about the U.S. however history has proven those arguments to be false.

No, it hasn't. Remember Kim Dotcom? And please stop with the freedom bullshit. You could argue some countries defend freedom, but the US is not one of them.

An UN-controlled Internet has the advantage of anything proposed by China being opposed by the US, anything proposed by the US being opposed by China. With any luck nobody will be able to do too much damage.

Re:Republicans hate the UN (4, Insightful)

Rockoon (1252108) | about a year ago | (#42198237)

Sounds great until the U.S. and China agree on the singular premise "fuck the people" and then they point the fingers at each other while sticking it in you.

Re:Republicans hate the UN (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42198217)

So you don't remember the US seizing all those domains right before Black Friday? Not just this year, but last year too.

Re:Republicans hate the UN (5, Insightful)

rst123 (2440064) | about a year ago | (#42197821)

So you are saying that because it's not perfect under the current system, it couldn't get worse? The US at least trys/pretends to respect free speech, human rights, rule of law, etc. Some of these countries don't even bother to do that.

Re:Republicans hate the UN (2)

Jetra (2622687) | about a year ago | (#42197731)

I assume it will get worse. Look at NAFTA, that royally messed up our import and exporting here.

Re:Republicans hate the UN (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42198039)

The wrong question was asked.

If you ask the US House of Rep whether America or the UN should have it: 397-0 is the expected outcome.
If you ask the US House of Rep whether China or the UN should have it: 0-397 is the expected outcome.

I wouldn't worry too much about censorship. The UN is a political body made up of very disparate views, the chances on them agreeing what to censor are low enough, we're probably safe from that.

My $0.02 worth.

Re:Republicans hate the UN (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42198059)

Check out the ITU's plan [boingboing.net] for a unified deep packet inspection standard. This should convince anyone that the ITU is the last group that should get their hands on the control of the Internet.

Re:Republicans hate the UN (2)

Hartree (191324) | about a year ago | (#42198297)

Oh, you can relax. PBS Newshour is blogging that this is all a big fear mongering campaign supported by massive corporations google, shadowy "internet activists" and special interests.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/2012/12/the-future-of-internet-governance.html [pbs.org]

The truth is likely somewhere in between. The ITU really wants influence and a slice of the bureaucratic power (and budget) that would come from an increased role in the net.

They've consistently come across as ham handed, at best, in the lead up to this, and have done little to show that they are interested in an open net (or open proceedings).

They've also managed to get a surprisingly wide set of disparate groups saying that they are precisely the wrong body to receive increased control of the net.

Re:Republicans hate the UN (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42198257)

Look at those who have that control now (US) and what we are doing in New Zealand and other places.

Re:Republicans hate the UN (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42198121)

I do not want an Internet controlled by anyone with a history of repressing freedom of speech. Sure you can make an argument that the US has restricted Free speech in the past. I can make a much MUCH stronger argument that places like China, or most Muslim countries should not be allowed a say in what goes on.

You give those guys control, and half the Internet would be gone. So my answer is "No" and if you do not like it, feel free to create your own Internet. It is our ball, and as far as I am concerned we can stop playing with you and take our ball home. What the other choice? Let you guys destroy the ball cause it said something about your prophet?

Re:Republicans hate the UN (3, Insightful)

mikeiver1 (1630021) | about a year ago | (#42198193)

The UN didn't develop the internet, the United States of America's DARPA, research colleges, and major corporations did. The UN doesn't support the vast majority of research and development of future technologies aimed at bettering the internet. Like it or not, the United States of America is one of, if not the most, open societies in the world. Few if any other nations protect free speech to the degree that we do. The internet is open and generally unregulated and that is the way it should, has to, stay this way or we end up like iran or another totalitarian state like north korea. The UN thinks that they have a mandate to regulate everything under the sun, they don't. When they pay for their own version of their very own internet then they can. But until that time, FUCK OFF UNITED NATIONS AND ALL YOU COCK KNOCKERS THAT THINK THEY SHOULD!!!

Re:Republicans hate the UN (2, Insightful)

TwezerFace (2788771) | about a year ago | (#42197649)

The UN has done nothing to stop 30,000 innocents from being slaughtered in Syria. they can't be trusted to run the net.

Re:Republicans hate the UN (1)

TFAFalcon (1839122) | about a year ago | (#42197799)

So you're saying we should give control to Turkey then? They seem to be the only ones doing anything (little as it is).

Re:Republicans hate the UN (1, Insightful)

TwezerFace (2788771) | about a year ago | (#42197965)

keep it as it is... The UN does nothing in Syria, Sudan, Darfur,...hundreds of thousands have died under their watch... Oh, if Israel does the littllest thing...crisis, referendum....

Re:Republicans hate the UN (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42198095)

Let me see, your problem is the UN is not powerful and effective enough, that it needs to be more interventionist?

Mmkay.

Re:Republicans hate the UN (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42197689)

It's a trend right now [google.com], and for good reasons [eff.org]. This is an example of politicians responding to what people are interested in, mainly in a symbolic way, since there's nothing particularly concrete these people can do right now.

Re:Republicans hate the UN (3, Insightful)

raydobbs (99133) | about a year ago | (#42197763)

The UN has gotten a really bad reputation lately due to the pandering to groups that outright hate the United States. However, the US is called upon to be the world's police force, ambulance, piggy bank, and shoulder to cry on; but the US is denied the ability to have an appropriate role in the UN in exchange for these services. Instead, we have China and the Sudan on the human rights counsel, we hear about considerable corruption and abuses of UN power. The US brings these injustices up, all of a sudden - the US is reminded of all these back fees and membership dues that they supposedly owe. Never mind that without the US, the UN would have no teeth to accomplish anything. This is not to belittle the good things the UN HAS accomplished - but the United States does get tired of being treated like the scapegoat for all the world's problems.

Re:Republicans hate the UN (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42197895)

Ah yes, China and Sudan are bad but US allies like Saudi Arabia or Pakistan would be so much better! Not trying to be advocate for the former two countries, but saying UN is unjust because it tolerates human rights violation is kinda hypocrisy.

Re:Republicans hate the UN (2)

WillAffleckUW (858324) | about a year ago | (#42197997)

Ah yes, China and Sudan are bad but US allies like Saudi Arabia or Pakistan would be so much better! Not trying to be advocate for the former two countries, but saying UN is unjust because it tolerates human rights violation is kinda hypocrisy.

All four are bad. Try taking a laptop to China and you'll learn what both censorship and government spying really mean.

Re:Republicans hate the UN (1)

interval1066 (668936) | about a year ago | (#42198111)

Im not sure why but its a big thing for them to bash on and hate the UN...

Implying you think the UN is a good thing? Holy christ... who knew one person out in the wild thinks that...

Re:Republicans hate the UN (2)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42198161)

Im not sure why but its a big thing for them to bash on and hate the UN...

Let me illuminate you

1. Republicans oppose big government... and the UN is a big bloated unaccountable layer of government

2. Republicans see the Constitution as the supreme law of the land... and the UN pretends to be above and superior to the Constitution (as any global govt would be)

3. The UN is not accountable to the people. Each country has one vote there (generally cast by an appointed bureaucrat, NOT an elected person) and most of the nations there are run by kings/queens/dictators etc. The entity pretends to be a form of global democratic government, but it is actually a club of appointees of mostly evil corrupt tyrants. You do realize the place was being run by an actual Hitler-saluting NAZI from 1972 to 1981 right? right?

4. The US taxpayer has been required to fund the damn thing, but its most common function has been to denounce the US or its allies and demand more money from the US while filing "reports" about how bad the US is... Oh, and its schemers are always trying to come up with "global taxes", carbon trading schemes, etc to try to pry money directly from the wallets of the taxpayers of places like the US, Canada, England, etc in order to avoid ever having to account to elected legislatures again. (currently, the UN as to at least pretend to behave and be transparent and accountable because it must get its funds from governments and a couple of those governments have been known to ask too many inconvenient questions...)

5. Leftists in the US are continually trying to use the UN to get around the regular US Constitutional processes and impose their policies in the US; they go to the UN for gun control, to try to interfere in education and healthcare (by pushing treaties on things like "childrens rights" or "arms trafficking" which get loaded with innocent-sounding policies that are designed to conflict with certain local laws and regulations within the US) and other such things. When they think they might lose an election, they call-in UN election inspectors with the idea that they will be able to complain that it was rigged and the presumption that leftists from the UN will add legitimacy to the claims.

6. The UN has a demonstrated history of corruption and fraud.

7. The UN has a long history of political correctness that results in extreme moral blindness; it condemns violence against women, but looks away as the entire muslim world wages war against women and girls and its own blue helmet so-called "peace keepers" form rape gangs in Africa. It pretends to stand for human rights, and then packs its human rights committees and agencies with people from despotic places like Cuba, Libya, Iran, and North Korea, rather than the US, Canada, France, Britain, Japan, etc.

8. It is an utter failure on the primary thing it was setup for. In the aftermath of WWII, the UN was setup with the words "never again" echoing in everybody's ears. Part of the phrase "never again" was that the world would never again allow a holocaust. By allowing tyrants to be members of the UN, however, there are now many non-democratic Muslim nations (each with a vote) and only one Jewish nation (democratic, but only one vote) ... so the UN says and does nothing as year-after-year Muslims commit war crimes against the Jews (firing rockets aimed at Jewish civilians, and hiding the launchers amongst civilians) ... but it votes many times per year to condemn Israel and lends support to people who have pledged to finish the holocaust Hitler started

9. The security Council was established to be composed of the nations who had demonstrated their worthiness by being on the "right side" in winning the war, but it has caved to geopolitical pressure and replaced the "good" Chinese who were on the right side in WWII (who were driven off in the communist revolution, and formed Taiwan) with the "bad" Chinese (the Communists who run the mainland). This helped form a coalition of evil wherein China and Russia protect every evil tin-pot dictator and prevent things like sanctions on Iran or Iraq from being severe enough to stop the leaders of those nations (but unfortunately harsh enough to hurt the average citizens there)

Need more? There's plenty of additional reasons to despise that cesspool of phony global "do-gooders"...

Yea! (0)

Narcocide (102829) | about a year ago | (#42197399)

Show them instead how good we are at curbing progress simply by unanimously opposing it! Go America!

Re:Yea! (4, Informative)

amiga3D (567632) | about a year ago | (#42197547)

I can't see how handing over control of the internet to the UN could in anyway be classified as progress.

Re:Yea! (1)

Apu de Beaumarchais (2023822) | about a year ago | (#42197643)

It might stop the FBI and ICE from being able to seize domain names used legitimately with no repercussions.

Free speech (4, Insightful)

fyngyrz (762201) | about a year ago | (#42197713)

On the other hand, it might be the beginning of problems for people who show disrespect to religion. There are some really poorly reasoned attitudes and legislation towards free speech outside the USA. I'm not saying we're perfect, but we are better, at least in that regard.

Re:Yea! (2)

amiga3D (567632) | about a year ago | (#42197777)

Instead it will likely also enable the Chinese Ministry of State Security and other such organizations to seize domains and information on users as well. Things would not improve but instead take a sudden nose dive into oppression.

Re:Yea! (1)

Narcocide (102829) | about a year ago | (#42197671)

It isn't progress, obviously, but neither is NO CHANGE AT ALL, that's my only point. If you have been watching what has been happening in the U.S. political arena lately you would see this fits a really disturbing trend of being about the only thing we can accomplish together anymore; agreeing after long debate in the face of impending doom to change... NOTHING.

Re:Yea! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42198191)

Sure, but at least they are correct in doing nothing. Giving control of the Internet to the UN is a huge mistake.

Re:Yea! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42197557)

Show them instead how good we are at curbing progress simply by unanimously opposing it! Go America!

It is not progress.

Re:Yea! (2)

Mordok-DestroyerOfWo (1000167) | about a year ago | (#42197803)

I'm as anti-jingoistic as the next rational American, but my rule of thumb is that if China approves of a UN internet referendum, it's probably a bad thing.

multi-stakeholder (0)

bug1 (96678) | about a year ago | (#42197411)

We need to send a strong message to the world that the Internet has thrived under a decentralized, bottom-up, multi-stakeholder governance model

Isnt that what the UN is ?

Re:multi-stakeholder (4, Interesting)

iluvcapra (782887) | about a year ago | (#42197543)

Tinpot dictatorships hate the Internet for the same reasons global superpowers like the US or Russia hate the UN.

The Internet looks decentralized but in practice it works to extend the economic and cultural hegemony of the incumbent operators; The UN looks decentralized but in practice it's really a mechanism for small countries to enjoin and harry large, powerful ones on an equal footing.

Re:multi-stakeholder (5, Informative)

ZombieBraintrust (1685608) | about a year ago | (#42197651)

We need to send a strong message to the world that the Internet has thrived under a decentralized, bottom-up, multi-stakeholder governance model

Isnt that what the UN is ?

No. The UN is the centralization of power. Decisions made by the UN are enforced on member nations. The UN is top down. It is staffed by elites selected by the excecutive branchs of nations. It is multi-national but it is not multi-stakeholder. It excludes stakeholders that are not goverments.

Re:multi-stakeholder (5, Insightful)

iluvcapra (782887) | about a year ago | (#42197849)

Decisions made by the UN are enforced on member nations.

How?

Re:multi-stakeholder (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42197925)

We 'sic the US after them.

Re:multi-stakeholder (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42198139)

Angry letters.

Re:multi-stakeholder (1)

ZombieBraintrust (1685608) | about a year ago | (#42198249)

Ok I will admit this one isn't really true. Treaties must be approved in individual countries. Sanctions and military action is rare. Some countries have veto power as well.

Re:multi-stakeholder (2)

Nimey (114278) | about a year ago | (#42198209)

Wrong. The purpose of the UN is to give countries a place to talk so they might not war on one another.

Re:multi-stakeholder (1)

agwadude (666995) | about a year ago | (#42197961)

It's single-stakeholder in the sense that it's an entirely political body, comprised of governments whose interests probably include tighter control of the Internet. I doubt they'd be any less tyrannical than the US with copyright enforcement, but they'd probably be more tyrannical with unpopular speech such as blasphemy, which is currently quite well protected by the 1st Amendment.

I'd rather see the Internet overseen by a neutral, international, non-profit, non-governmental organization headquartered in Switzerland, similar to the International Red Cross. I think such an organization could live up to those ideals.

FFS... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42197417)

UN works on consensus. Any country can veto anything.

Re:FFS... (2)

belmolis (702863) | about a year ago | (#42197679)

Uh, no. That is not how the UN works. The UN works by majority vote, except that, on the Security Council, the five permanent members have a veto.

Re:FFS... (3, Informative)

Kjella (173770) | about a year ago | (#42197749)

UN works on consensus. Any country can veto anything.

China, France, Russia, United Kingdom and the United
States can veto anything, The UN is a place where all countries are equal, but as usual some are more equal than others.

Re:FFS... (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42197931)

No, they can't veto anything. Only on matters related to world security. The UN General Assembly has passed thousands of resolutions and majority of them were never debated by UN Security Council.

(cynicism overload.. can't fight snarkyness...) (3, Insightful)

wierd_w (1375923) | about a year ago | (#42197447)

*shudder*

What you really mean is that US politicians unanimously voted that they should have absolute control over enacting draconian restrictions on the global internet, and that those "european commies" should have any say involving red blooded american technologies and interests, and that the rhetoric about bottom up, decentralized administration is merely a red herring to keep those watchdogs distracted while they aid the henhouse.

(Spasm)

Sorry. I don't know what came over me there. Have you seen Aldus Huxley anywhere? I think I need my daily opiate injection...

Re:(cynicism overload.. can't fight snarkyness...) (1)

amiga3D (567632) | about a year ago | (#42197589)

Actually the internet is relatively free, even countries like China have trouble enacting total censorship of it.

Re:(cynicism overload.. can't fight snarkyness...) (4, Insightful)

wierd_w (1375923) | about a year ago | (#42197687)

Indeed. There is nothing to be done about china being stupid with regard to the internet, and that is as it should be. The free internet will just ignore china.

However, any appeals made by OUR congress critters concerning "free, open, decentralized control" is really just doubletalk for "controlled by our hedgemony of media and telecom interests, with no oversight."

Really, "free and decentralized", in regard to the way the internet was concieved, is that there is no distincton between clients and servers, and that ISPs are mere dumb pipes.

That is *NOT* what these lieing dirtbags have in mind.

Re:(cynicism overload.. can't fight snarkyness...) (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42198225)

Yep, much better to send control to the UN [reuters.com], where "criticizing our stuff should be criminal."

Re:(cynicism overload.. can't fight snarkyness...) (1)

rtb61 (674572) | about a year ago | (#42198197)

Relatively free? Only the US makes money out of the root domain names which is what this fracas is really all about. The US is sending a message to the whole globe "Fuck You" and the globe will send a message back "Fuck You". Basically US control of the root domain names is coming to an end.

Re:(cynicism overload.. can't fight snarkyness...) (1, Interesting)

rts008 (812749) | about a year ago | (#42197655)

Yeah, it overloaded my BS/Spin/Weasel Word detector.

The last time I saw readings this high on the detector, we ended up with the PATRIOT Act, and all of it's goodness. :-(

This is doublespeak propaganda, and I expect we're about to get shafted by this somehow...it seems to work that way when they all agree unanimously like this.

Re:(cynicism overload.. can't fight snarkyness...) (4, Informative)

Koreantoast (527520) | about a year ago | (#42197705)

Should be politely noted too that the EU also passed something similar, so at very least, you should expand this from a mere American conspiracy to a larger Western attempt at maintaining global hegemony. :P

Re:(cynicism overload.. can't fight snarkyness...) (1)

LordLucless (582312) | about a year ago | (#42198133)

Conspiracy? I don't think a vote in the House of Reps really counts as a "conspiracy". Nor does it follow that because Europe doesn't want the UN to have control of the internet, the US' reasons for opposing that control aren't based in self-interest.

What a shock! (2, Insightful)

Sydin (2598829) | about a year ago | (#42197483)

An organization with an unlimited power has made a decision to keep that power, rather than parse out and distribute it to others. I've never heard anything so crazy before in my life.

Unlimited power? (3, Funny)

Spy Handler (822350) | about a year ago | (#42197633)

Unless controlling the internet lets you shoot lightning bolts from your fingertips, I would not call that unlimited power.

Re:Unlimited power? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42197941)

Yes it does. It lets you control people who can shoot lighting bolts (and other related weapons).

Re:What a shock! (1)

amiga3D (567632) | about a year ago | (#42197653)

The House has very specific limitations on it's power. In fact they have virtually no power to censor the internet now as things stand.

Re:What a shock! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42198243)

I DO NOT WANT CHINA TO HAVE A SAY IN THE INTERNET. GET IT?!?!?!

Holy smokes you guys act as if giving China and some of the extreme Muslim countries power over the Internet is a "good" thing.

If this was about including Europe I wouldn't care. I do not want some Muslim country trying to press charges against me because I asked why did the prophet cross the road. And they would!

If only they were consistent (5, Insightful)

Adrian Lopez (2615) | about a year ago | (#42197553)

If only they would do this for their own attempts to regulate the Internet (think SOPA, PIPA and DMCA), the Internet would be much better off than it is today.

Re:If only they were consistent (4, Insightful)

Adrian Lopez (2615) | about a year ago | (#42197715)

"... it is essential that the Internet remain stable, secure, and free from government control" -- 112th United States Congress.

Lets see if they abide by this once the next round of Internet-specific legislation comes along.

Nice try (-1, Flamebait)

cstec (521534) | about a year ago | (#42197575)

It's not theirs to take. It's an American product, and yeah, some of us worked on it 25 years before they noticed it was important. What next, UN control of movies, rock 'n roll and blue jeans? Don't think so.

Re:Nice try (1)

Rougement (975188) | about a year ago | (#42197663)

The internet is an American product?

Re:Nice try (1)

Pinhedd (1661735) | about a year ago | (#42197921)

It's a completely american product. The US Department of Commerce controlled it almost completely until 1998, when it turned over most routine administrative tasks to a non-profit organization, ICANN. The DoC still maintains administrative oversight and control of the root name servers.

Re:Nice try (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42197717)

It's not theirs to take. It's an American product, and yeah, some of us worked on it 25 years before they noticed it was important. What next, UN control of movies, rock 'n roll and blue jeans? Don't think so.

Yeah, you might laugh now, but one day the World will say "F*** Y** USA" and create their own Internet and not allow USA on it. Build a wall around you and you will end up being alone.

Re:Nice try (1)

gestalt_n_pepper (991155) | about a year ago | (#42197817)

Actually, if other countries want an internet they can control, they can roll their own. I'm OK with not being able to see North Korea's internet.

This should NOT be the case. (2)

JustAnotherIdiot (1980292) | about a year ago | (#42197587)

who were quite proud of themselves for actually getting bipartisan support for the resolution

Our lawmakers should be working together on everything, and the fact that they're proud of themselves for doing the job we pay them to do on a single issue shows just how messed up our system is.

Re:This should NOT be the case. (5, Insightful)

jfengel (409917) | about a year ago | (#42197857)

Bonus: they didn't actually do anything. This is a "resolution", not a law. It has no effect. It doesn't even give any official directions to the US representative to the ITU, who (duh) had absolutely no intention of voting for any such thing anyway.

Whenever you get universal support for anything in Congress, it's because it isn't anything. Bipartisan support for doing nothing is very popular. So is bipartisan support for empty gestures. Eking out even so much as a bare majority along anything other than party lines, for some measure that actually does something, is a herculean task.

IE FTW !! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42197685)

Except US !!

It's THEIR fucking internet after all !!

You don't like ?? Build your own !!

Congratulations! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42197729)

A vote result that would make the worst communist dictatorships proud. Is there really so little plurality in US politics? That doesn't sound like a democracy.

Need regulatory "technology" for government scans. (1)

Impy the Impiuos Imp (442658) | about a year ago | (#42197737)

397-0? Oh no!!!

Don't give up hope. There's still hope.

The president could issue an executive order!

A regulatory body could be set up that does it because of such body's "added benefit" of being removed from crude, crude politics.

A judge could discover changed attitudes allowing a different constitutional interpretation, doing an emd-run around the pesky amendment process!

There's still hope to give control away! FUCK OUR US DEMOCRACY ERMEHGARD!!!

Meanwhile, drones have been spotted . . . (1, Insightful)

PolygamousRanchKid (1290638) | about a year ago | (#42197769)

. . . flying over the ITU meeting in Dubai.

That'll show 'em!

The ITU failed at their own attempt at creating an Internet, with ISO OSI and X.400 crap, so I can't think of anyone more qualified to totally screw up the Internet.

No sh*t. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42197785)

U$A wants the interwebs. Fuck you, Rather EU than U$.

good (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42197791)

Most times I think demonizing the UN isn't all that useful, but after reading what this meeting is about on wired, for once I'm glad they're speaking against something. Some of the ideas from certain countries would change the internet in some pretty terrible ways.

Do Nothing (2, Funny)

PineHall (206441) | about a year ago | (#42197851)

The "Do Nothing" Congress did something by asking the ITU meeting to do nothing. I think they found their niche.

Well, Duh. (1)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about a year ago | (#42197867)

They voted against it for the same reason Iraq had no terrorism prior to 2003 - iron-fisted tinpot authoritarians abhor competition.

Isn't it obvious?

Its really a vote for congress to control (1)

tatman (1076111) | about a year ago | (#42197923)

Congressmen/women are just really voting for themselves controlling it rather than the UN. Our congress hasn't show stellar stamina is supporting a free internet at every opportunity. Both sides of the aisle have proposed, supported or voted for something that took control away from individuals at some point.

Like it matters (1)

WillAffleckUW (858324) | about a year ago | (#42197979)

Other than using our subs and divers to cut the cables or use the embedded kill codes on the satellites, it really doesn't matter what the US thinks about it.

The Internet was designed to reroute around damage.

Any damage.

Maybe we need three Internets? (1)

WillAffleckUW (858324) | about a year ago | (#42198027)

Internet 1: the current system, run on IPv4.

Internet 2: a UN controlled system, with lots of corporate and corrupt govt control, run on identifiable IPv6.

and finally

Internet 3: the fast internet, the one with all the privacy and goodness rolled in, run on IPv6SECmod5 with mask anonymizers but such clearly identified as "anonymous" so we can filter them out ourselves.

397-0??? (1)

Tator Tot (1324235) | about a year ago | (#42198047)

Holy hell. There hasn't been that much bipartisanship since the great "Lyke-dis-if-u-crie-evry-tyme Act of 1897".

Hypocrisy, thy name is slashdot. (4, Insightful)

Hartree (191324) | about a year ago | (#42198145)

Nov. 23, Slashdot largely approves when the EU makes a similar statement opposing ITU control.
  http://tech.slashdot.org/story/12/11/23/0122212/eu-passes-resolution-against-itu-asserting-control-over-internet [slashdot.org]

Two days ago, a submission points out differences in the words and actions of the ITU and its Secretary General (including a plan to try to undercut any opposition via flooding social media) and most who reply are quite skeptical of the ITU.

http://yro.slashdot.org/story/12/12/03/2120250/internet-freedom-wont-be-controlled-says-un-telcom-chief [slashdot.org]

Today, the House votes unanimously to say largely the same thing as the EU. The reaction on slashdot? Outrage at the horrible undercutting of freedom, the ITU and the UN in particular.

Truly who says something counts far more here than what is said.

This is hysterical.

397-0? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42198149)

That almost sounds like a copyright term extension act!

Doesn't matter. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42198183)

The UN can quite easily tell the US to get fucked and take control regardless. The US is but one country. Yeah, it is a big market, but one less market won't do much damage if they choose not to join "the new internet"
Unlucky for the US is that they would suffer the most damage as multinationals would just move to where the majority of their users come from, which hilariously enough isn't the US for most large sites.
Don't piss in their cereal guys, they will shit in yours.

Of course, even most in the UN decided against it since everyone hates the ITU to death and I don't even know why we give a shit about them.
They are about as useful as the W3C is. W3C as a whole has been shafted by pretty much anyone worth their weight in salt this year. Why won't everyone shaft ITU already? A group that thinks email isn't widespread enough and favors fax doesn't deserve to be around in any position of power. Even if only suggestive power.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

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>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...