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!

World Summit On The Internet And IT

Hemos posted more than 10 years ago | from the building-a-future dept.

The Internet 323

eegad writes "The Seattle PI reports on the upcoming first phase of the World Summit on the Information Society to be held in Geneva on December 10-12. 192 nations are involved in the effort to set some ground rules for the Internet (a little late, eh?) including ways to deal with spam, a possible "digital solidarity fund" to help developing nations, and discussion of UN regulation. The goal of this phase is to adopt a "Declaration of Principles" and "Plan of Action". Some countries plan on asking for a UN commission to study new ways of running the Internet aimed at the 2005 phase. The official website will provide coverage of the event. How come I wasn't invited?" The Washington Times also has a piece on it, as well. We had covered this a bit before.

cancel ×

323 comments

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

cross your fingers.. (5, Funny)

grub (11606) | more than 10 years ago | (#7659294)


192 nations are involved in the effort to set some ground rules for the Internet ... including ways to deal with spam

I hope Nigeria doesn't have any sort of veto power at this summit.

While talking about spam (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7659352)

I have made a spam fighting software eigenpoll [all-technology.com]

If you know something about spamtools
please go vote.

Knud

Fighting spam cleverly. (2)

Savage-Rabbit (308260) | more than 10 years ago | (#7659575)

This guy [turnstep.com] has had a deliciously evil series of inspriations. My favorite is the generator that traps a spambot in an (almost) infinite loop and feeds it upto 26^49 totally bogus E-Mail addresses. An even more evil thing to do would be to bounce the spambots through a large network of pages on many different sites carrying only a relatively small number of bogus addresses each. That would make this stunt alot harder for the spammer to detect. This writing more of these traps would make a cool hobby....

Re:Fighting spam cleverly. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7659623)

The eigenpoll allow you to add missing tools.

So just add the tools if your think they are cool.

Re:cross your fingers.. (5, Interesting)

Zocalo (252965) | more than 10 years ago | (#7659386)

Actually, given the probable means of applying the death penalty in Nigeria (stoning), combined with the Nigerian government's efforts to crack down on 419 scams, I rather hope Nigeria *does* have a big say at the conference... I'll be right at the front of the queue for a bag of gravel, and some nice pointy rocks when the first spammers get marched out.

Re:cross your fingers.. (1)

kinnell (607819) | more than 10 years ago | (#7659545)

Actually, given the probable means of applying the death penalty in Nigeria (stoning)

The death penalty is carried out by firing squad in Nigeria. You do get to watch, though, if you're into that sort of thing.

Re:cross your fingers.. (1)

Zocalo (252965) | more than 10 years ago | (#7659657)

Actually they have multiple means of carrying out the death penalty in Nigeria; firing squad, stoning and hanging I'm fairly sure of, and there maybe others. There was a case recently where a Nigerian who became pregnant after being raped was to be stoned in accordance with the fundamentalist religious law in that part of Nigeria. What was probably a local tribal matter initially somehow managed to acquire the attention of just about the entire world. Even so, it took considerable pressure before the poor woman was released.

Best thing they can do (4, Interesting)

corebreech (469871) | more than 10 years ago | (#7659297)

Stay the fuck away from my Internet.

That said...

It might be nice to encourage people to use bittorrent to download porn. The bandwidth savings would be akin to quadrupling router capacity across the Net.

Or, maybe fix email by requiring everybody to send ciphered messages only. Require/encourage mail servers to permit a user to provide it a gateway public/private key through which all incoming email must satisfy (not the same as your personal public/private key.) Solve spam and nine-tenths of Echelon with one single kick in the balls.

Then, get over this self-inflicted trauma over raw sockets. Raw sockets are cool. Raw sockets + UDP can all but eliminate the nastier p2p problems, like how to work through firewalls, as well as how to send data anonymously. These are good things. Let good people do good things with good technology.

But we can do all of these things through education. We don't need the UN/Geneva/Britney Spears to tell us how this whole thing should work.

Re:Best thing they can do (0, Flamebait)

Total_Wimp (564548) | more than 10 years ago | (#7659362)

" Stay the fuck away from my Internet." ...

"But we can do all of these things through education. "

Yes, education solves everything. Once educated to help their fellow internet users, people will do what's best for the internet as a whole rather than their personal self-interest. I didn't used to think that this was human nature, but thank you for educating me that I was wrong.

TW

Re:Best thing they can do (-1, Flamebait)

corebreech (469871) | more than 10 years ago | (#7659379)

If you're a Total Wimp, then why don't you just shut the fuck up?

Where are the fucking AC's when you need them?

How does this idiot get modded 'Insightful'? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7659511)

Please!

Re:Best thing they can do (5, Interesting)

Hubert Q. Gruntley (310405) | more than 10 years ago | (#7659451)

Agreed on most points.

I'm not sure PKI needs to be part of the SPAM solution. Three reasons:
1) The same clueless ficktwizzles that set up their mail servers as open relays (224K of them? according to ORDB.org [ordb.org] ) will also be setting up their mail server certificates. No, this isn't fraught with peril.

2) There isn't a black market (that I'm aware of, doh) of private keys. Client certificates are useless, server certificates are useless unless you also own the domain name, code signing certificates, well, um, yeah I guess those are dangerous. But we've seen the lengths spammers will go, and I can easily foresee a huge market for stolen certificates, if now every domain has one to send mail.

3) The _last_ thing we need to do is get Verisign slobbering over using certificates for email. Over in the SPF discussion [listbox.com] mailing list there are Verisign people who want certificates in the DNS records published by SPF.

Re:Best thing they can do (0)

corebreech (469871) | more than 10 years ago | (#7659495)

Don't you have better things to do?

Seriously, if I decide that I only want to receive mail from people who have received a public key from me, I should get to do that.

What is the problem with having my mail server accept mail (or rather, relay to me mail) from senders who know the public key that matches the private key I've given the server?

I don't see what the clueless ficktwizzles have to do with any of this. They won't have the public key I've given to my server. Ergo, they won't be able to send me mail that makes it past my email server.

Yes?

NO ONE CARES postey (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7659299)

is how become I got so frosty on this mornee. so frosty...ohhh so frosty...[shivers]

NYTimes has an article too... (5, Informative)

astroview (105285) | more than 10 years ago | (#7659304)

Check out the NYTimes article, it points out a bit of the criticism of the whole process.

Link [nytimes.com] (reigstration req'd, blah blah)

MOD THE POST WHORE DOWN (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7659395)

The New York Times sucks. Besides, their article says almost the exactly the same thing.

MOD THE POST WHORE DOWN (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7659457)

Redundant, please. C'mon already!

HE'S A WHORUS POSTUS MEGA WHORE (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7659628)

Mod the monkey redundantly redundant already!

What is wrong with you people!?!

Bad idea? (5, Insightful)

stry_cat (558859) | more than 10 years ago | (#7659305)

The goal of this phase is to adopt a "Declaration of Principles" and "Plan of Action".
Seems like we're doing ok without this stuff.
Some countries plan on asking for a UN commission to study new ways of running the Internet aimed at the 2005 phase.
Am I the only one who thinks this is going to be a bad idea? It's like getting the government involved only there is no way for citizens to influence the policy.

Debian Sucks (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7659404)


Debian is outdated.

Debian sucks.

There is nothing to see here.

Move along! Move along!

Re:Bad idea? (2, Funny)

Marxist Commentary (461279) | more than 10 years ago | (#7659516)

Well, a centralized authority in control of the internet, while possibly restricting some current freedoms could make tremendous positive impacts in others. For example:

Spam could be outlawed once and for all worldwide, with harsh penalties for violation.

An international agreement of standards for content could bring freedom of information to places where there is a lack of information.

Centralized taxation - an agreed upon method for providing revenue streams to the UN which would allow taxes to be paid across various countries.

Elimination of various objectively hateful websites from the internet, e.g., holocaust denial, neo-nazis, gun merchants.

This doesn't sound all bad to me, though admittedly there are some drawbacks. For example, the administrative costs might be fairly high, but these could be worked out I think. Perhaps an email tax on corporations?

The Marxist Solution (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7659568)

"Spam could be outlawed once and for all worldwide, with harsh penalties for violation."

Should we apply Marxist solutions: gulags (Stalin), death farms (Cambodia) or rape camps (Serbia)?

"An international agreement of standards for content could bring freedom of information to places where there is a lack of information"

Yes. We know that government control always makes things more free!

"Centralized taxation..."

Yes. The greedy ruling class must get a cut!

"Elimination of various objectively hateful websites from the internet, e.g., holocaust denial, neo-nazis, gun merchants"

And, of course, left-wing hate sites (MLM, neo-soviets) all remain uncensored.

Re:Bad idea? (5, Insightful)

pla (258480) | more than 10 years ago | (#7659588)

Well, a centralized authority in control of the internet, while possibly restricting some current freedoms could make tremendous positive impacts in others. For example:
<snip>
This doesn't sound all bad to me

Or for a few more examples that appeal to various major world governments:

  • Outlaw the use of all "hard" cryptography.
  • Centralized taxation (Did you forget your meds this morning?????)
  • No more porn, or at least nothing hard-core
  • "Perfect" monitoring of all traffic, shared with all member governments
  • Extradition to, say, Syria, for exercising my American freedom of speech and religion

Sorry, but this has a LOT more potential for a bad outcome than for improvement on the few flaws the internet currently has. Keep the governments (any or all, doesn't matter to me) the hell away from the net!

"a little late, eh?" (5, Funny)

musikit (716987) | more than 10 years ago | (#7659307)

not really. considering it takes OUR government 10-20 years to recognize technology. i would say this is a rather fast turn around for a body of government set up by bodies of government.

Al Gore (5, Funny)

pdjohe (575876) | more than 10 years ago | (#7659327)

I heard they are going to make Al Gore in charge of the whole meeting.

After all, he did create the thing, right? ;)

Al Gore invented the Internet (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7659363)

Yes, he did take credit for inventing the Internet in a CNN interview (despite the fact that it was created years before he ever got to Congress).

Re:Al Gore invented the Internet (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7659435)

Has he ever even used it? Does he know what it is?

If I were GW's chef and I declared that tonight's menu would consist of poached Salmon under glass topped with creamed Internet, would he understand that I was making fun of his intelligence, or would he give us one of those 12 minutes blank-expression-fests like he gave us when he was told the second plane hit the towers and America was under attack?

You know, looking like a deer caught in the headlights while hundreds of people were on fire, leaping to their doom.

The point being, that making fun of Al Gore at this point in history is like waving a flag that says "I'm stupid!"

Al Gore may not be the very best this nation has to offer. But then, he's no George Bush.

Re:Al Gore invented the Internet (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7659559)

Al Gore may not be the very best this nation has to offer. But then, he's no George Bush.

Thank God. The world doesn't need any more George Bushes. Hell, the world would be better off without *any*.

Re:Al Gore invented the Internet (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7659655)

Has he ever even used it? Does he know what it is?

errr, yeah. He was instrumental in getting extra funding into it just before it went big (ie netscape came out). That would have been about 1993-94. He was a big champion of new technology, though the clipper chip wasn't such a big hit....

this would all have been when you were in diapers.

Re:Al Gore invented the Internet (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7659703)

'91, that should be '91. The High performance Computing Act. He also got funding for universities researching it through out the 80s.

Re:Al Gore invented the Internet (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7659688)

actually he didn't. that quote was attributed to him by a wired article and later picked up by the Republican party...

what he did do was claim it wouldn't be around if it wasn't for him, which is nonsense of a different sort. It would still be around it would just be called AOL+MSN.

1998 called... (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7659464)

.. and they'd like their joke back.

The hell you say!? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7659515)

I just heard that on Jay Leno last week!

Re:1998 called... (2, Funny)

syrinx (106469) | more than 10 years ago | (#7659549)

...and while they were on the phone, they wanted your joke back, too.

hunt down spammers (5, Insightful)

m0rphin3 (461197) | more than 10 years ago | (#7659331)

The best thing they can do is make it illegal for spammers to get safe harbor anywhere.
Or, failing that, to make sure that spam only gets sent to the country of origin somehow. That would eliminate 90% of my spam, which is from the US.

Probably it will only end up in another treaty the US will refuse to ratify, like Kyoto and the International Court of Justice.

Re:hunt down spammers (5, Insightful)

sulli (195030) | more than 10 years ago | (#7659427)

Yes. But the best thing they can do is have a talkfest accomplishing nothing, like all the other UN world summits. As long as they issue some bland communique talking about how we need to make technology better for the children, that is fine. If the ITU tries to take over the internet, the US needs to shitcan that treaty faster than Kyoto.

(If they don't like the internet, they can always build their own. I hear Minitel is a nice technology built by an ITU member.)

Re:hunt down spammers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7659671)

The only one who accomplished nothing in the UN business is the US of A. Loudmouthed as they were, in the end it was France and Germany who got their way, not the US. So the UN actually accomplishes stuff, even though the US tries to sabotage world consensus.

The only thing this unilateralism is going to accomplish for the US, is becoming ever less popular with the rest of the world, generating (trade) wars, and inciting more international terrorism.

You just can't do it alone; we know it, you know it, so don't pretend.

Nice non-sequitur. (1)

sulli (195030) | more than 10 years ago | (#7659766)

And that has what, exactly, to do with the ITU's attempted (and probably failed before it starts) internet power grab?

Look up non-sequitur (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7659866)

Sigh. You started yammering about the UN:

But the best thing they can do is have a talkfest accomplishing nothing, like all the other UN world summits.

So how exactly is my previous comment a non sequitur? I'm just pointing out that the UN is accomplishing stuff, even when the US doesn't want it to. It's your country that's trying hard to ditch the UN (leaving us with nothing instead), so repeating your government's propaganda doesn't impress me. Now if you would show some initiative and try to find out for yourself what the UN does (like the WHO for example), that would impress me.

Re:hunt down spammers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7659985)

If they don't like the internet, they can always build their own. I hear Minitel is a nice technology built by an ITU member.

Yes, minitel is dated today, but back in the early 80s, it was cutting edge useful technology.

Re:hunt down spammers (5, Insightful)

thrillseeker (518224) | more than 10 years ago | (#7659488)

it will only end up in another treaty the US will refuse to ratify, like Kyoto and the International Court of Justice.

The U.S. should rightfully continue to refuse to agree to any treaty that has not been shown to be in the best interests of the citizens of the U.S.

Re:hunt down spammers (2, Funny)

spectrokid (660550) | more than 10 years ago | (#7660007)

The U.S. should rightfully continue to refuse to agree to any treaty that has not been shown to be in the best interests of the citizens of the U.S

Wait until NY comes below sea level. Then we'll see what is best for US citizens.

Re:hunt down spammers (1)

Inda (580031) | more than 10 years ago | (#7660011)

I'm alright Jack. How's your back?

Damn! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7659792)

Even some of the architects of Kyoto have admitted it was useless BS. What is it with you ideologes who refuse to let a bad idea die? Why are people who are so political and so wonky on policy always the most ignorant and ill informed? It's weird. Ideology just murders the mind.

Kyoto is all politics, not environment (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7659812)

Kyoto is all politics, and has nothing to do with environment.

Assuming that the baseless claims of man-made global warming were true, it does not help the problem since Kyoto mandates that "Approved" countries increase greenhouse gas emissions (and other countries cut theirs).

If you look at the countries that increase theirs and the countries that cut theirs, you can see that the main goal is damaging the economies of certain countries.

If it really was all about its claimed environmental goal, it would cut emissions for all countries.

Yet another whiney rich vs. poor summit... (-1, Offtopic)

isfuglen (714922) | more than 10 years ago | (#7659336)

...and if people in these whiney African countries put their foots down and stopped their ex-leaders from running off to Amsterdam with all those millions of dollars, these African countries would have one hell of an infrastructure.

Re:Yet another whiney rich vs. poor summit... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7659349)

Yeah, like our ex-leaders aren't running off to God-knows-where with all our millions of dollars.

How do you spell retard?

UN/ITU Power Grab? (5, Insightful)

fuzzybunny (112938) | more than 10 years ago | (#7659339)


There's an interesting article about this at El Reg [theregister.co.uk] . I'm pretty worried about what's going on there; for all the failing of ICANN, it's always been sort of emblematic of the prevailing idea in western countries to keep bureaucracy from throttling the Internet. Think what you will about various nations bad handling of Internet traffic and user rights, the over-corporatization of the net, and ICANN's distasteful tactics over domain handling; the Internet as we know it is a far cry from what it might have been had the ITU been allowed to be the driving force behind it.

I don't relish the idea of the type of bureaucrat who brought us WIPO deciding by fiat where the greatest communications revolution in human history is going to go.

Re:UN/ITU Power Grab? (2, Insightful)

OldeTimeGeek (725417) | more than 10 years ago | (#7659460)

Sorry to burst your hyperbole, but the greatest communication revolution in human history was moveable type.

Re:UN/ITU Power Grab? (1)

YetAnotherAnonymousC (594097) | more than 10 years ago | (#7659955)

Well, if you're going to be anal, it was moving from grunting to language. =)

A little late? (3, Insightful)

Shaper of Myths (148485) | more than 10 years ago | (#7659343)

Isn't this the technological equivolent (time-wise) of the U.N. right now in 2003 trying to decide what to do about this 'Hitler' guy? To quote my favorite Vorlon: The avalanche has already started. It is too late for the pebbles to vote.

But maybe I'm just pessimistic and jaded...=)

Re:A little late? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7659661)

Uh... No it's not, you sick fuck. I know you said "time-wise" but even the fact that you look at the international community trying to get their say in internet regulation has any resemblence to appeasement means that you really have no respect for what the WWII generation went through. I think i speak for many people when I say, fuck off, prick.

Re:Mod him up.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7659931)

+1 B5 Quote

Gotta love the U.N. (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7659347)

Gotta love the U.N. Watch them protect the Internet the same way they protected the safe havens in Bosnia.

Since they are just a debating society, watch them spend all their time debating about the Internet and doing nothing about it.

Wait. We have that already. It's called Slashdot!

So long Internet, it was nice knowing you. (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7659358)

Organizations like the UN, unaccountable by most means in their actions, will only try to leverage further control by government authorities to make sure we're all trackable and monitored for "appropriate behavior". Nothing good will come from this. Kiss the "free" anarchy-style of the Internet goodbye.

Re:So long Internet, it was nice knowing you. (1)

katz (36161) | more than 10 years ago | (#7659749)

Times are changing. Nations need more accountability now than ever before, especially in the face of Islamist terrorists. I support profiling and tracking if it enables governments to crack down on terrorists.

What the hell are you talking about? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7659788)

The whole point of the (modern) UN is the LACK OF accountability. Nations are becomming less and less accountable to their own citizens (the U.S. being the prime example of this), and the UN is an additional buffer between citizens and the free market to the government bodies. One huge collosal (basically socalist) multi-government entity controlling the internet will simply lead to wreckless regulation. Your cowardly attempt to justify the supposed need for tracking terrorists is just another example of statist thinking. As the UN grows, so does it being a TARGET for terrorism. I'll take my freedom, thanks, over your need to feel protected.

Such a bad idea. (5, Informative)

Bill, Shooter of Bul (629286) | more than 10 years ago | (#7659361)

I know others ahve already commented about this, but honestly what good can come from this? I don't want any part of the internet under UN control. Right now the internet is mostly apolitical and thats the way it should stay. I cannot believe this could lead to anything good.

You like-a 'da net? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7659407)

You like the internet just the way it is? Give control over to the UN. Look at their track record, they've never done anything but have meetings on when to have the next meeting. It's a powerless, functionless, purposeless body that exists only to put all the beggers seeking favor from the worlds rich democracies in one place.

It's like putting almost all the Mormons in Salt Lake city. If we didn't they'd be at your house all weekend, and you couldn't have a moment of peace in which to enjoy the game. Any game.

Obvious Benefit (1)

ikoleverhate (607286) | more than 10 years ago | (#7659431)

If the UN starts arguing about the net, it'll be a good ten years before any one nation can do anything definite with the net. Hopefully by that time freenet [freenetproject.org] will be fast and stable, and greedy politicians won't be a problem for the net anymore.

Re:Such a bad idea. (5, Insightful)

jxs2151 (554138) | more than 10 years ago | (#7659523)

I don't want any part of the internet under UN control.

I find it hilarious that the same Slashdot crew that was screaming for UN control of the Iraq situation now wants nothing to do with the UN when it comes to the Internet. Seems to me the desire for the UN to intervene was mere anti-Bush propganda.

Changing your position when it suits you is intellectually dishonest and is known as hypocrisy. Have the balls to hold your position.

The UN has no business in anything. Intelligent people can look at their track record and come to the conclusion that they are more fucked up than a football bat.

Heh, gotta love the U.N. (5, Insightful)

mikesab (652105) | more than 10 years ago | (#7659398)

Since the U.N. is inherently a governing entity, it will invariably feel the need to regulate everything it can. It is in its very nature to regulate. They even managed to throw in the word "solidarity". Every time I hear that word, my ears perk up.

Re:Heh, gotta love the U.N. (2, Insightful)

jxs2151 (554138) | more than 10 years ago | (#7659543)

The UN is most assuredly not a governing entity. Government is a right granted by the people. I granted them nothing, not even indirectly, therefore they are not a governing body- a debating society perhaps but certainly not a governing body.

First Election (2, Funny)

tds67 (670584) | more than 10 years ago | (#7659418)

I can't wait until the first Information Minister is elected.

And it will probably be Darl McBribe.

Re:First Election (5, Funny)

Mohammed Al-Sahaf (665285) | more than 10 years ago | (#7659482)

Do not believe the lies my friend. There is only one man for this job. Make no mistake, when I am made Minister of the Information Society the blood of the spammers will flow like wine. Our low price septic tanks will be full of the corpses of the armies of slaughtered spammers. We shall strike them down like the dogs they are. They are superpower of villains. They are superpower of Al Capone. And we shall destroy them.

Re:First Election (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7659558)

First, we need to get this guy a talk show. I'm thinking on Fox (where else, who else?) and his co-host, Paris Hilton, or to fold the co-host into musical talent, Jessica Simpson. This would be the show to end all shows!

The burning Roman phase of American culture isn't extreme enough for my reality show inflamed Adult ADD. I need the burning Bagdad phase of American culture to commence.

Re:First Election (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7659577)

No, there is no internet. It is a propaganda setup by the evil americans.

Oh No!!!!!! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7659419)

The more rules and red tape that exists the more criminals and bs exists.

Hopefully they decide to have a floating control system. Meaning that nobody actually controls it per se, but instead certain bodies are responsible for certain aspects.

I hope they do something about Quality control, I seem to be using books(remember those!!) more these days for research then the InternationalNetwork of junk.

One more thing, for the sack of humanity, please do not let the republicans have any power over the Internet.

Regulations could be a good thing, if kept short, simple, few off and open.
I have a feeling that it will be otherwise.

Feck Off Crow (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7659432)

Leave it the hell alone! No one asked you to fix anything, no one wants your influence on the net. I think we should have a vote on this:
  • Should the UN Shut the Fuck Up? Yes__ No___
  • Should the UN be Abolished? Yes__No__

I vote yes on both accounts. To hell with globalization efforts, all you do is exploit everything and everyone for your own gain.

Re:Feck Off Crow (1, Insightful)

mrtroy (640746) | more than 10 years ago | (#7659668)

  • Should the UN Shut the Fuck Up? Yes__ No_x_
  • Should the UN be Abolished? Yes__No_x_


  • I vote no on both accounts. And your comment about to hell with globalization efforts is very narrow minded and ignorant.

analysis (5, Funny)

theMerovingian (722983) | more than 10 years ago | (#7659433)


The goal of this phase is to adopt a "Declaration of Principles" and "Plan of Action".

Person 1: Sounds like it was created by an MBA.

Person 2: Actually, it was a committee.

Person 1: OK, a committee of MBA's.

Person 2: A committee of MBA's who work for the government!

Both: (run away and hide under cubicles)

News flash - Internet a derived work of SCO System (-1, Offtopic)

stevew (4845) | more than 10 years ago | (#7659441)

In a surprise move - SCO Corporation (SCOX) has announced that it has found that the internet is actually a derived work of Unix System V, and consequently they are moving to sue WIPO, ICANN, the US government and all internet users for copyright infringement. To avoid any penalties, a license is being offered in advance of litigation that can be purchased by the internet user for $770. See www.sco.com for details.

just say NO to the UN (5, Insightful)

Shivetya (243324) | more than 10 years ago | (#7659470)

Sorry, but they can't manage anything. The United Nations is a failed idea looking for relevance. Unfortunately anything they take over becomes a mockery of what it is supposed to.

Worse, the UN routinely caves into member states that are notorious violators of human rights. What good can from an organization that has human rights committees comprised of brutal dictatorships? Of disarnament committees run by the same?

Sorry, a UN managed internet would simply give certain 3rd world countries (and some European) a new means to bash or otherwise attempt to restrict prospering Western countries. It would advance anti-Jewish attitudes, probably going as far as to restrict Israel! China would be given free reign to threaten Tiawan and run ramshackle over tibet. Can you imagine what these nations would want to classify as SPAM?

No thank you. ICANN might be annoying but at least we can lay hands on them

Re:just say NO to the UN (3, Interesting)

Telex4 (265980) | more than 10 years ago | (#7659640)

Sorry, but they can't manage anything. The United Nations is a failed idea looking for relevance.

Right, so you've nothing to say on UNESCO, UNHCR, IPCC and goodness knows how many other good things the UN does that are fantastic and absolutely necessary. You just don't mention them because many media outlets, out of ignorance and a desire to criticise, have got an obsession with claiming the UN is worthless.

Worse, the UN routinely caves into member states that are notorious violators of human rights. What good can from an organization that has human rights committees comprised of brutal dictatorships? Of disarnament committees run by the same?

Do you know why? Think for the moment of what the UN is: a forum for governments. Maybe the failure of the UN to really tackle human rights issues is because the governments in the UN, and in particular in the security council, deliberately skirt around human rights and try not to get too many legally binding documents through that would kill off their own industries. Hello UK, USA, France, Germany, Russia, etc. The problem with the UN in this regard is that its member states can be so damn hypocritical.

Sorry, a UN managed internet would simply give certain 3rd world countries (and some European) a new means to bash or otherwise attempt to restrict prospering Western countries. It would advance anti-Jewish attitudes, probably going as far as to restrict Israel! China would be given free reign to threaten Tiawan and run ramshackle over tibet. Can you imagine what these nations would want to classify as SPAM?

Wow. Evidence? Does the UN routinely "bash" Israel? It passes motions condemning its human rights abuses, just as it does for all human rights abusers, but it is hardly anti-semitic. The only people who claim that are those who simply cannot discern the difference between anti-Semitism and 'anti-Israeli-Governments'-policy-ism'. It's like all the 'anti-American' nonsense.

I'm worried about what the WSIS will come up with too, but let's at least be rational about this, rather than sensationalising ignorant nosense!

Re:just say NO to the UN (-1, Flamebait)

mrtroy (640746) | more than 10 years ago | (#7659702)

Sounds like an angry American that is pissed that the UN did not say "USA: GO TO IRAQ AND KILL EVERYONE"

I dont wish to get on an Iraq debate, so I will stick with the UN topic. The UN is necessary. The UN is good. The UN is somewhat slow and unaggressive, but it has to be to prevent any rash action.

And your UN managed internet rant is completly erroneous, ignorant, and foolish.

Whoever modified you as +interesting should have modified you as +ignorant

Re:just say NO to the UN (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7659726)

Worse, the UN routinely caves into member states that are notorious violators of human rights.


yes, states like the us and israel are taking their toll on un...

Re:just say NO to the UN (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7659760)

yes, states like the us and israel are taking their toll on un...

Your mind is dead. You are useless. Please kill yourself.

Re:just say NO to the UN (2, Interesting)

Tom (822) | more than 10 years ago | (#7659818)

What good can from an organization that has human rights committees comprised of brutal dictatorships?

How serious would they take an organization that only allows the nice-and-dandy in? This is a planet-wide organization, they have to give everyone a say, and that especially includes the ones that everyone else would rather see silenced.

would simply give certain [countries] a new means to bash or otherwise attempt to restrict prospering Western countries.

So far, every time I read the actual protocols, it more looked like these "certain countries" wanted something like a share of the prospering, and not a restriction. Now if you think for a second, if you take a share of something, it is in your best interest for that something to be large.

Of course, newspapers, politicians and other 2nd hand sources with an agenda usually have no trouble turning things their way.

Which is why you should check original sources if you can, instead of buying your opinions wholesale from the paper boy.

Can you imagine what these nations would want to classify as SPAM?

Sure, but this is the UN. If there is one trait that has been very constant over its existence then it is that of unbelievable levels of compromise. Everything at the UN level gets washed down to the lowest common denominator, and a bit lower just to be sure.
If we need a definition for spam, then a UN-created definition is sure to be the most restrictive. In fact, I'm sure most of us here would whine how much of the spam it doesn't include.

ICANN might be annoying but at least we can lay hands on them

We can? Who exactly is "we"? Sure doesn't include me, or anyone else outside the US. Which just happens to be about 95% of mankind.

Re:just say NO to the UN (2, Informative)

Permission Denied (551645) | more than 10 years ago | (#7659948)

Sorry, a UN managed internet would simply give certain 3rd world countries (and some European) a new means to bash or otherwise attempt to restrict prospering Western countries. It would advance anti-Jewish attitudes, probably going as far as to restrict Israel! China would be given free reign to threaten Tiawan and run ramshackle over tibet. Can you imagine what these nations would want to classify as SPAM?

Sorry, but am I the only one who identifies this as flaimbait?

What gives occidental countries a greater right to speech over other cultures? The West may have the power to impose their views upon others, but does this power legitimize imposing their views?

Consider the example of the WIPO, which is controlled by western countries. Western ideas of "intellectual property" are forced upon African and Asian countries, meaning they cannot produce medications for their own people, but have to buy medication from Western corporations at artificially-inflated prices. Had these smaller nations not been strong-armed into signing agreements on intellectual property, they would have been able to afford medication for their people.

This phrase strikes me as particularly frightening:

It would advance anti-Jewish attitudes, probably going as far as to restrict Israel!

Have you not considered that perhaps Israel should be restricted, as with all other governments of the world? Israel (one of the world's worst human-rights violators [un.org] ), is subject to the same international laws as other countries. These laws are agreed upon at international conferences such as the one proposed, and these conferences should receive participants from all manner of nations, even those that believe Israel illegitimate.

It is, of course, easier to sign an agreement than to enforce it, so these agreements are regularly disregarded by the most powerful nations (Israel declaring that the Geneva convention does not apply to suspected terrorists, the US inventing the term "illegal combattant" to circumvent international law regarding prisoners of war), but the first step to ensuring that all nations are held responsible for their actions is unilateraly agreeing upon standards to uphold.

At first, I agreed that no useful regulation can come of this summit and that the Internet should remain absolutely unregulated. However, while formulating this post, I begin to see what "restrictions" against Israel you may fear. Whereas in the US computer crime is performed mostly by harmless vandals and warez groups, in the Middle East network attacks are often motivated by politics. What international law stops the Mossad from attacking the network infrastructure of an opposing political group or funding vandals to deface opposition websites? At the moment, no such agreement exists.

If this conference forces powerful nations to listen to the viewpoints of the rest of the world, some good may come of it.

Workshop on Free Software, Free Society (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7659497)

The most promising and interesting for us is the thematic Working Group (WG) dealing with Patents, Copyrights, Trademarks (P.C.T) and related issues, within the framework of the Civil Society.

See the website of this group at http://www.wsis-pct.org/ [wsis-pct.org]

The Working Group is holding a workshop "Free Software, Free Society [fsfeurope.org] " with a group of top speakers, including Richard Stallman [stallman.org] , founder of the GNU Project, and Lawrence Lessig [lessig.org] .

Another UN powergrab attempt (-1, Flamebait)

MindSlap (640263) | more than 10 years ago | (#7659501)

" Since the U.N. is inherently a governing entity, it will invariably feel the need to regulate everything it can."

==
The UN governs NOTHING.
They may WANT to..but they dont..
The UN, the 'nice' way of putting it', was to be a point of gathering for all nations with the goal of avoiding conflict thru discussion.
They have NO REAL POWER.
These days, its nothing more than a place for tin hat dictators to gather and kick the US in shins.

The UN has done nothing but try to 'grab some power' to legitimize itself.
Of course 'actions' have nothing to do with the UN. When it comes to action, they only run away or feed a few refugees. Yes, humanitarian assistance is all I can give em points for.

The internet is simply another stratagy to gain some 'power'.
It will never happen.
The net is 'inherently free'.
The UN is 'inherently a socialist wannabe world power'.
The two simply dont mix.

Lesseg and RMS will be there, and so will I (5, Informative)

Hesperus (16733) | more than 10 years ago | (#7659521)

I'm a programmer working at the W.H.O., which is just down the road from the exibition hall, so I've been looking at the schedule to see what events might be interesting or useful to attend.

Looks like a lot of local linux users (see G.U.L.L [linux-gull.ch] ) are planning to attend at least the panel with Larry Lessig and RMS on Wednesday. RMS is also speaking on Thursday.

Digital solidarity fund? (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7659561)

Why do developing nations need the Internet?

Isn't that putting the cart before the horse...

By definition maybe what they really need is heavy infrastructure development?

Giving bushmen WWW access isn't going to help any nation develop.

Re:Digital solidarity fund? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7660020)

Giving bushmen WWW access isn't going to help any nation develop.

I think they should start with electricity and telephones first...

WSIS has nothing to do with society. (5, Informative)

Wolfbone (668810) | more than 10 years ago | (#7659592)

I notice that none of the articles mentioned the opposition to the corrupt way the WSIS has banned various interest groups and fudged their Declaration of Principles and Action Plan so as not to offend the mighty corporate interests who don't like the ideas of freedom of information and basic human rights.

This summit is a betrayal of it's original ideals, and especially of the World's poor. Various groups are intending to strongly oppose this travesty; there is more information and here. [indymedia.org.uk]

Re:WSIS has nothing to do with society. (1)

bnavarro (172692) | more than 10 years ago | (#7659924)

This summit is a betrayal of it's original ideals, and especially of the World's poor.

I'm sorry, but Free Internet For The Poor(tm) != cure for world poverty. When will people realize that the #1 root cause of poverty on a worldwide scale is corrupt despotic governments? So long as WSIS panders to the likes if Infidel Castro (who attended the summit in person), there will be no solution to poverty that univeral Internet access will solve. If the U.N. was serious about enacting their "Millenium Declaration" to eliminate world poverty, they should start bitchslapping governments that force their population into poverty. But no, they have to be "inclusive", so these asswipes still get their say, and no "solution" for global poverty will ever exist.

Where is freedom of expression? (5, Insightful)

rumblin'rabbit (711865) | more than 10 years ago | (#7659605)

Under "What values should underlie the foundations of the information society", WSIS says this: "The universal human values of equality, and justice, democracy, solidarity, mutual tolerance, human dignity, economic progress, protection of the environment, and respect for diversity are the foundations for a truly inclusive global information society."

Where oh where is freedom of expression in all this? Or is that too much of a threat to the organizations sponsering this summit?

thanks for not getting it.. (-1, Troll)

bmajik (96670) | more than 10 years ago | (#7659610)

as usual, the UN shows that it is an antiquated, useless organization that primarily exists for poking the US in the eyes.

the internet started as a US military technology. the US was nice enough to let others play along. The US is not subservient to the UN. The UN needs to figure this out.

in any case, what does the UN propose to do.. blackhole the US at a bunch of border routers ? :)

darn, then we wouldn't get so much spam here from everywhere else :)

Re:thanks for not getting it.. (0)

Diotallevi (688468) | more than 10 years ago | (#7659894)

does that mean i can take all those asain spam bots off my mail server filter?

Fight for your freedom (4, Informative)

jdfox (74524) | more than 10 years ago | (#7659613)

WSIS might sound like a boring bureaucratic exercise, but there's a strong chance that governments are going to walk away from it with new international agreements in their pockets to pass laws in their own countries restricting the free flow of information.

Quoting the "WSIS? We Seize!" press release:

'While the official agenda of this UN/ITU Summit talks about "free access to information", "the digital divide" and "equality of opportunities", in reality its doors are closed, its discussions exclusive and the agendas of those who attend it concealed. What's more, the right to demonstrate and protest has been suspended in Geneva at this time, as the usual parade of despots and tyrants fly in to Switzerland to define policy for their own citizens, and the rest of the world, based on the agendas of corporate multinationals, media conglomerates and infrastructure owners.

Geneva03 [geneva03.org] is a temporary network of groups and individuals set up to carry out agitational, educational and communications work during both the G8 and the WSIS. Geneva03 considers it critical to show, during such a display of media power and control, that independent groups and people have the ability to create their own media, to share media, self publish, build networks and communicate freely and autonomously. That's why we've titled our events during this time WSIS? WE SEIZE! We do not consider that negotiation and supplication before the altar of the UN will produce information autonomy for all. Instead, we are taking our autonomy now, using the means and technologies at our disposal: the Internet, peer to peer networks, Free and Open Source Software, community wireless infrastructures, pirate television and radio and streamed media. Beyond questions of communications technology, We Seize! seeks to open a wide-ranging discussion on the new social conditions that constitute today's world about which the WSIS has little or nothing to say: media concentration, expansive intellectual property regimes, casualised and immaterial labour and migration.

We insist that this urge to speak, to hear and be heard, is irrepressible. The Geneva03 group returns to Geneva following major attempts at repression during the G8 this year, in which the group were targetted by police whilst running an independent media centre. No charges were brought against the group, because - whatever the establishment would like us to believe - it is still lawful to freely express ourselves. We must, however, continue to exercise this ability, to expand and test it in diverse situations, if we are not to lose the freedom and potential that defines us as people.

Communication, language and information are essential to understanding both control and liberation in this new millenium. They are simultaneously the site of the most repressive and totalitarian suppression and disciplining we have seen since the 1950s and, we believe, the basis of a powerful, growing autonomous movement. Ultimately this movement must cut to the very heart of communication: for what we are able to articulate, we are able to create. We must speak of a new world without fear, and with all the creativity, energy and commitment we can find.'

(end quote)

If you want to know more, here are some useful links:

Good background article on Indymedia Global [indymedia.org]

WSIS? We Seize! [geneva03.org]

The World Forum on Communication Rights [communicationrights.org]

Polimedia Lab [hubproject.org]

Civil Society news centre for the WSIS [prepcom.net]

Indymedia UK WSIS 2003 section [indymedia.org.uk]

This worries me (2, Insightful)

Bendebecker (633126) | more than 10 years ago | (#7659651)

Let's face it, if we had a cent for every IQ point our leaders have, the sum total of our entire government wouldn't be enough to buy a happy meal at McDonald's. That being said, do we really want to trust these people with determining the best policies for the system???

Can you imagine... (0)

JamesP (688957) | more than 10 years ago | (#7659697)

all the brillian ideas that they will come up...

1 - Tax on email at ISP level (never mind they use their SMTP servers or hijacked others...)

The list goes on...

Ground Rules. such as : (5, Insightful)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 10 years ago | (#7659704)

New rules:

1 - No individual anonymity
2 - No free speech for individuals
3 - No national information sovereignty.
4 - Taxation to pay for enforcement of the new rules
5 - Jails to house all the new criminals.

Why don't we tell them what we think? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7659768)

Wired has a story [wired.com] about a huge screen that you'll be able to send messages to. Apparently it's within line of sight of Kofi Annan's hotel room, so if you want to sound off, why not drop him a text?

Let me guess (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7659776)

Stupid brainless political hacks pulling upon their collective brain cell, influenced by EVERY special interest group on the planet, are going to try to tell us what to do. I say we need to develop a method of making the net unassailable to these morons. Improve the net to the point where it is IMPOSSIBLE for any goverment or group have any effect on the net. Technoogy should render politics moot. Yes, they are out to get you, because THEY have no control
over you, they are very scared.

NOOOOO!!!! (-1, Flamebait)

strike2867 (658030) | more than 10 years ago | (#7659870)

I will support George Bush in the next election if he promises to invade any nation objecting to porn!!!

Re:NOOOOO!!!! (1)

WildBeast (189336) | more than 10 years ago | (#7659986)

The same guy who created the Freedom from pornograhy week and the same administration who's suing hundreds of people for obscenity charges? :)

After RTFA, Some insights (3, Insightful)

Bill, Shooter of Bul (629286) | more than 10 years ago | (#7659874)

I read the Draft "Plan of Action" availible. It reads a lot like a polictical document. The scary part is the one about the un taking over control of the internet, but it mostly says that everyone should have access to the internet and it should be geared towards all languages and cultures.

Thats great, but I think the UN should be focused on oh I don't know .. giving starving people food and water. That seems like a higher priority than internet access. Furthermore, one of the questions in the Faq is "Will one language or culture takeover the information society?" The answer says that we should encourage people to provide content in all languages. First of all, I think Internet is already heavily US centric perhaps because it was originally its network. Secondly, that is a pipe dream just like everything else in the summit.

All the UN needs .... (1)

DesScorp (410532) | more than 10 years ago | (#7659930)

All the UN needs to know about spam is right here [cashncarrion.co.uk] . >:-)
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?