Slashdot Log In
Imagine A UN-Run Internet
Posted by
timothy
on Mon Nov 10, 2003 06:37 PM
from the nightmare-material dept.
from the nightmare-material dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
un-run is right (Score:5, Insightful)
A prophetic subject line? If they run it as well as other things, the internet may be un-run.
Re:un-run is right (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Not quite (Score:5, Insightful)
Nope, just a whole bunch of "little" wars in non-Western-European nations that have killed millions over the years.
Is the world's first supra-national organization and, more remarkably, has had its power seriously challenged only a few times.
What about the League of Nations? Or for that matter, the Hanseatic League?
Parent
Re:un-run is right (Score:5, Insightful)
The UN has nothing to do with this. It's the more powerful countries that have prevented this from happening. Do you honestly think the UN could do shit if the US and China decided to go at it?
Has negotiated and enforced many peace treaties throughout that time.
Negotiated, yes. Enforced, no. In fact, more than half of all international treaties are violated on a regular basis, and many are simply ignored because they've been violated so much.
Economic and other sanctions have had positive effects on some countries.
WHO has done some fantastic work in the 3rd world.
True.
Is the world's first supra-national organization and, more remarkably, has had its power seriously challenged only a few times.
Wrong, but another poster already addressed it.
Has, respectively, saved the countries of Korea, Kuwait,and many others i'm forgetting by using multinational forces to defeat a common agressor enemy.
What saved Kuwait was oil, and those that need it. Has Korea been saved yet? Hardly.
I think you should read more. The UN is a joke (outside of it's humanity/charity functions).
Parent
Re:un-run is right (Score:3, Insightful)
No, most definatley not. The UN does, however, give them the chance to negoiate their differences fairly peacefully as well as allow other nations of the world ot exert pressure to prevent war.
I maintain that the UN is the world's first supra-national organization, before league of nations, simply because LN did
Re:un-run is right (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:un-run is right (Score:4, Insightful)
Hi!
Um--this is something of a stretch. This point might be better phrased "has been used as political cover by the United States to save the countries of South Korea, Kuwait, and many others...." Military intervention by member countries with limited U.N. involvement (South Korea, Kuwait) has been very successful. Military intervention led by the U.N. by itself (particularly where the U.S./NATO has not been involved) has been generally disastrous. I give you Lebanon; the Ivory Coast, Somalia, and any number of other horrid conflicts in Africa; the list goes on and on. Dictators and despots diss the U.N. because they know the U.N. is there to be "peacekeepers." They respect the U.S. because they can watch CNN--and they are well aware that the U.S. doesn't do "peacekeeping" nearly as well as it does killing people. And the U.S. military has a centuries-long tradition of taking "head shots"--gunning for the guy giving the orders.
That doesn't mean the U.N. is a total bust
Not at all. It just hasn't been very credible as a military force. Where it has been extremely credible is in creating a forum for international discussion--both directly and through other forums like the WTO. The U.N. has made a major impact on international trade and the environment through the licensing and monitoring of hazardous materials, the development of international air rules, the development of international shipping rules, and all kinds of dull, dreary, drudgery that doesn't make the front page. The U.N. has played a big role as a forum for Third World countries to state their case--and to build their economies. (The biggest impact for the poorest nations is that they get essentially free trade representation in New York City--the biggest marketplace in the world.) Dozens of poor countries have staked their plans for development on the manufacture of cheap textiles--and the U.N. provides cheap access to the buyers in the biggest market in the world.
The U.N. is better at organizing meetings than it is as a functioning governing body
Where the U.N. has been the most successful is in bringing people together in a common forum. Where the U.N. has been the most laughable is when it attempts to assert authority over something in which it has played no part, has no existing role, and to which it can contribute nothing. It was a U.N. agency, you may recall, that proposed an email "tax"--demonstrating that it knew absolutely nothing about how email worked.
In short...
The U.N. should focus on trying to negotiate realistic limits on fisheries protection and related maritime law--and leave the Internet to the geeks who run it. Or failing that, to the people who actually fund it and own it.
Parent
An excellent comparison (Score:5, Funny)
An excellent comparison: when you get right down to it, the UN is like the Vatican, but for atheists. (With the predictble results.)
Parent
Re:un-run is right (Score:3, Informative)
Re:un-run is right (Score:3, Insightful)
Many smaller wars, yes but no gigantic world wide changing war yet. It's a small step forward but a good one IMO.
Re:un-run is right (Score:4, Insightful)
The UN has prevented war simply by giving diplomacy a outlet and allowing for world wide discussion of issues. This, combined with the possiblity of military action from the world's superpower, has lead to the near extinction of wars of conquest. Name me more than 5 in the last 50 years -- you won't be able to. Their authority is backed by the world, if the world doesn't care then the UN won't care.
At any rate, the UN hasn't "caused messes" for the US to clean up. It has, indeed, been much the other way around. UN has rubberstamped many US operations that lead to bigger messes indeed.
Parent
Wars of Conquest in the last 50 years (Score:4, Insightful)
1. Iraq -> Kuwait
2. Iraq -> Iran
3. Argentina -> Fauklands
4. Russia -> Afghanistan
5. Everyone -> Israel (twice)
Not all were successful, but the UN had a small hand in only one of them (number 1), and the rest were condemned, talked about, but prosecuted anyway.
And this does not even get into African "countries" and their various tribal/civil wars.
-Donut
Parent
Announcing the U.S intranet (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Announcing the U.S intranet (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Announcing the U.S intranet (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
UN Effect (Score:4, Insightful)
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
US bad, US good (Score:4, Interesting)
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 (Score:4, Insightful)
Perhaps you could be so good as to remind me when exactly we of the rest of the world came out in favour of 'political speech restriction'?
Wasn't it Ari Fleischer who suggested that "Americans should watch what they say"?
Parent
Re:US bad, US good (Score:3, Insightful)
If you put control of the Internet under the umbrella of the UN, we will see situations like what happened with South Africa [slashdot.org].
Re:US bad, US good (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Wow! (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Fight is over content distribution (Score:4, Interesting)
The internet is dead, long live the internet. (Score:3)
Oh, great (Score:5, Insightful)
UN has no bearing in the US (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:UN has no bearing in the US (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:UN has no bearing in the US (Score:3, Interesting)
This would be right up there (Score:5, Funny)
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.
Absolutely not, the UN is a flawed organization (Score:5, Insightful)
I support the concept of world government, but before the UN can assume that role, a few things need to happen.
- The UN needs a split houses concept similar to the US and other democratic nation. One house gets a number of representatives dependent on a nations population, and in the other house all nations have equal numbers of representatives. This is the ONLY fair way to ensure that all nations are heard regardless of size or population.
- Abolish the security council. It made sense 50 years ago, but not today.
- All representatives should be ELECTED by the people in their nations, with reasonably limited terms (5 or six years max). If these people are going to determine my fate and run my Internet, I'd damned well better get a say in who represents me. Undemocratic nations that don't allow their citizens to vote should NOT get voting seats in the UN.
- It should respect the constitutions of its member nations. The UN should not have the ability to override, veto, or limit decisions or rights made or granted by their sovereign member states.
You'll pardon me for not holding my breath for these changes. The UN is a flawed, crippled organization that tries to grab onto any semblance of real power that it can, and it's in the interests of this worlds powerful nations to make sure it stays right where it is.The last thing I need (Score:3, Insightful)
Seriously, I say this is bad. The UN should be finding ways to get force countries to accept disagreeable content, not finding ways to make it easier for them to export censorship. Besides, there already is a way for military and religious dictatorships to shield their populations from the horrors of free speech and bare nipples: don't connect to the global internet. Run your own damn closed TCP/IP networks; I'll even send a free CD with all the software they'll need to the first dictator to call.
Of course, just not listening/reading/watching stuff you don't like is a strategy that, while damn near 100% effective, never seems to occur to these paleolithic troglodytes. That goes for Outer Boobistan no less than it does for Inner GOPistan.
Article 19, Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Score:5, Informative)
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.
and the alternative would be? (Score:3, Insightful)
Before you flame me about how your favorite information should be free consider that information includes:
- child porn pictures or other snuff
- virus/worm/hacking tool source code and instructions
- stolen intelectual property (for example: HL2 source)
- [fill in other human rights violation here]
Some of the above might still not be a black and white example of where to draw the line, but at least there are gray areas that need to be discussed on an international level. The conclusion will likely be the need for more then the current inability to remove internationally-agreed-upon unwanted content.
The UN seems to be the right place for this discussion. Just say it out loud "United Nations".
Discussions about wether this organization is efficient at all are to be taken up with your national representatives
Well (Score:3, Insightful)
Child porn: Sorry, but I do not agree with the US position that 18 is some magical age when sex become ok. If other countries wish to have a lower age of consent, that's their right. Then there are those countries that want ALL pornagraphy to be illegal. So if it's ok for us to tell a nation that 18 must be the minimum age for porn, why is it not ok for a different country to tell
'Nightmare material'? 'Control'? (Score:5, Insightful)
But I don't understand the intense negative reaction to this idea, particularly by the submitter. The UN is not a repressive dictatorship. Sure, some of its members are, but I highly doubt that a UN-controlled Internet administrative body would have been to stupidly designed that it would impose restrictions on the 'Net just because some UN member applied pressure.
In any case, why can we trust the U.S. government to take a hands-off role towards the Internet any more than we can trust the UN?
Re:'Nightmare material'? 'Control'? (Score:3, Insightful)
In any case, why can we trust the U.S. government to take a hands-off role towards the Internet any more than we can trust the UN?
Because the US has taken a generally hands-off role towards the Internet. Because the U.S. courts have struck down laws trying to restict speech on the Internet not once but twice. Because the U.S., where DARPANET was born, has generally been protective of its intellectual child.
The U.N. is a useless body. In its entire history, it has never accomplished anything without th
The UN has ALWAYS been against Free Speech (Score:4, Insightful)
The UN is an organization that does things like putting Libya in charge of its commission on human rights. Do you really want North Korea or Communist China to have a say in what YOU can or can't read online?
The UN is in no way, shape or form dedicated to the idea of democracy and individual rights. It is an organization by and for bureaucratic elites looking to expand their power and pretiege and ensure themselves easy employment. It has no moral standing, and only the power that is allowed it by the Security Council. It is not now, nor will it ever be, a "World Government," and thank God for that.
There are very few nations in the world that have a guaranteed right to free speech and a free press the way the U.S. does. (In France it's illegal to "insult the dignity" of the French President.) Putting the UN in chaarge of the Internet would be an unmittigated disaster for freedom.
Couldn't we start another network? (Score:4, Insightful)
If this got annoying, couldn't we start another network? I can't think of any reason this wouldn't be fairly easy if there was a demand for it. Start new root name servers, setup a new IP allocation agency. Need new routers, but not new cable as they wouldn't be regulating at the MAC level.
Personally, I suspect multiple Internets are going to be the way of the future. Think Xbox Live.
Re:Good idea (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Good idea (Score:4, Insightful)
Private ownership is only as good as the law its based on. I'm not a nutjob or anything, but 'ownership' is a fairly flexible term when the state/federal government's needs must be met.
Parent
Re:Good idea (Score:5, Insightful)
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').
Parent
Re:Good idea (Score:5, Insightful)
Open standards that can be implemented by any geek in his mom's basement and distributability.
These are the real enemies governments are fighting. They want control for the purpose of control, not insure openess to the international community.
As for the UN being an international orginisation of nations you have to bear in mind that they have always been nothing more than a permenent meeting hall to engage in otherwise normal diplomatic practices. A permenent base for ambassadors, not a governing body of any kind.
It doesn't change anything about historical diplomatic process between nations other than creating a central point for participation in a city known for really good delis when they break for lunch.
KFG
Parent
Re:Good idea (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Good idea (Score:5, Insightful)
They could also try working on the ability to feed themselves before they do another inet.
Parent
Re:Good idea (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Good idea (Score:5, Insightful)
huh? says who? i thought it was a network of networks.
some of those networks most definately have controls/policies against free speech.
Parent
Re:Better than a USA-run Internet... (Score:5, Insightful)
Where even criminals have civil rights.
God Bless America, so happy to violate international laws
When those laws are put together by the dictator's club called the UN, you bet. You know, the place that puts Syria and Libya on the "human rights committee"?
God Bless America, where "freedom of speech" means race-hate groups like KKK
Where freedom of speech applies to EVERYBODY, even the ones with unpopular causes. Hint: popular causes don't NEED freedom of speech.
God Bless America, with barely 300 years of dire history and culture
Hint: we're still on our first Republic. France is on their fifth, with intervening Reigns of Terror, anarchy, kings, emperors, and Nazi collaborationist regimes.
Hint: our popular culture dominates the world. Deal with it.
God Bless America, with the highest obesity levels in the developed world
Where food is so cheap that even the poorest can (over)eat.
God Bless America, wasting billions to attack foreign countries
They're ours to "waste", Saddam-lover.
Parent
Re:Better than a USA-run Internet... (Score:3, Insightful)
After the civil war I'd say we are on our second.
Re:Better than a USA-run Internet... (Score:4, Funny)
> > even the ones with unpopular causes. Hint:
> > popular causes don't NEED freedom of speech.
>
> If it applies to everybody, then why would
> there be a need for a 3-day shutdown of London
> so that protesters don't get a chance
> to "peacably assemble?"
I may only have a US education, but I'm pretty sure London is in another country. It's the one with Radiohead and Boddington's.
Parent
Re:Well... (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Some objections to the UN in general (Score:4, Insightful)
Only fools and crackpot leftists take representative democracy seriously. Only educated men of property and good character should be allowed to vote or participate in the political process. That is of course how it used to be in the good old days.
It is a den of dictators, murders, theives and their apologists.
How did this nut-case slander get rated as "Insightful"? You're arguing that 90% of the world's population are "apologists". Wake up: Bush has managed to make most of the world angry at the US's foreigh policy - and this is not just dictators but the educated informed newspaper-reading middle classes of Western democracies. You know, it is possible these "apologists" might be right; recent events in Iraq certainly bear out their concerns. In any case, even if you disagree with someone please don't automatically impugn their character and motives.
The so-called ICC makes a mockery out of due process of law. Secret witnesses, evidence, no right to trial by jury.
I think you're confused. The mockery of the due process of law is promulgated by Bush/Ashcroft. Detainees face secret witnesses, evidence, no right to trial by jury. If you have something concrete (not paranoid fantasies) where the ICC was abusive, please post a link. (Also, trial by jury is not a requirement for due process, and may be detrimental when jurors can be retaliated against. Plus from where would you recruit jurors? Think about it before spouting nonsense.)
Parent