Global Internet Governance Fight Looms 155
QuietLagoon writes "The global fight among governments over control of the Internet is heating up amid a flurry of documents, the opening of the United Nations' General Assembly (GA) and next week's Internet Governance Forum (IGF). Will the change in Internet governance result in states like China and Russia exerting more control over what is allowed on the Internet? The United States has so far comprehensively outmaneuvered attempts by other governments to seize control of the Internet, helped by the fact that it holds the keys and represents the status quo. But how long will it continue to be able to do so?"
Hope the U.S. stages in charge. (Score:5, Insightful)
U.S. is still one of the best places for free speech.
The criteria for any expansion of governance in an international context should be directly linked to a country's free speech laws. So theoretically countries like Estonia and Norway deserve some power, but in reality, the only people who care about internet governance are those who want to suppress free speech.
Who are all these people? (Score:4, Insightful)
No one should rule. (Score:4, Insightful)
The best thing about the Internet was the tearing down of borders and connecting the world as one big place.
Governments (and some corporations) want to put borders back up. It's in their nature to attempt for more and more control over their fiefdoms.
Fortunately, most citizens are used to the concept of the Internet as it stands right now and governments are facing a lot of accumulated inertia.
Of course, the US government is tapped into a lot of their portion of the pie and China firewalls their nation. True global cooperation to control the Internet as a single entity is... unlikely anytime soon.
Personally, I really hope someone develops technology that can take control of the Internet out of the hands of governments altogether, creating a virtual country in its own right. Again, unlikely, but I can dream, can't I?
Re:orly (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Hope the U.S. stages in charge. (Score:5, Insightful)
And in truth, no country NEEDS to come to any agreement about it. If china doesn't like facebook, they can try to police their people, or just cut the pipes off physically; and its up to the Chinese people to actually control their government and get what they want, if they even care. The same goes for every other situation out there, and even here in the US we may one day be faced with the situation where we use democracy to protect net neutral internet (right now actually) or literally stand up and regain democracy.
If a GOVERNMENT wants to modify, restrict, manipulate, etc, the internet within its capacity, its borders, then so be it. If the people who are responsible for that government, its citizens, are not in agreement with their own government, then its their duty to force that agreement by democracy or popular revolution. They are responsible for what their government does, theoretically and realistically. And no matter how much you can disagree with me or pretend you're not responsible, you still are; scarily enough, there is no opt-out for citizenship in the world. There's no designated anarchist area for those who disagree and won't be responsible. If you disagree but feel the country is out of control, its your duty to inform your peers and restore informed democracy. Participation is obligate; responsibility is inherent.
Re:Hope the U.S. stages in charge. (Score:4, Insightful)
Reporters without borders includes self censorship and financial pressure on journalists, which unfortunately means that in the US where you *can* publish anything, people tend not to publish anything too controversial, or that will lose them money, or that will annoy their sponsors, or that people will sue them over ... which means that a lot goes unreported
There are other countries were you cannot publish specific things, but almost anything else is allowed and not discouraged in the same way as it is in the US ...
What can I do? (Score:5, Insightful)
Can I stand up on a soapbox promoting the Nazi platform in Germany?
Can I deny the Holocaust in France?
Can I express a belief that homosexuality is shameful and to be condemned in Canada?
Can I criticize the government or its treatment of religions in China?
Can I make fun of the king in Thailand?
Can I preach Christianity on a street corner in Riyadh?
The First Amendment makes the equivalent of any of these possible in the US. You have to cross a line from expousing an ideology or opinion into actually committing crimes in order to be prosecuted.
Yes, abuses have happened, and they have shaped our laws to what they are today. Attempts to suppress street preachers and Nazis alike have been successfully thwarted. The only place I see the censors currently winning is the gag orders on Patriot Act record requests -- and that's being worked on.
Even our libel laws are better than the UK. Here, truth is an absolute defense.