Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
China Government The Internet Your Rights Online

Russia and China Withdraw Bid For Internet Control 115

Posted by samzenpus
from the on-second-thought dept.
judgecorp writes "Russia, China and other nations have withdrawn proposals to take control over the Internet within their borders. The proposals, handed to the World Conference on International Telecommunications (WCIT) on Friday, caused widespread dismay and protest. The WCIT event in Dubai, run by the UN agency ITU, is working on new International Telecommunications Regulations (ITRs) which are due for their first revision since the emergence of the mass Internet. The line-up of nations wanting to formalize their power to restrict the Internet included Russia, China, UAE, Saudi Arabia, Algeria, Sudan and Egypt. Their proposal has been withdrawn without explanation, an ITU spokesperson confirmed."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Russia and China Withdraw Bid For Internet Control

Comments Filter:
  • Uh oh (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Jetra (2622687) on Monday December 10, 2012 @09:57AM (#42241553)
    I think our "friends" may have learned some tricks from here in America. Prepare for drafts with a lot of double-speak that is going to be pushed quickly and with as little media attention as possible.
    • Re:Uh oh (Score:5, Insightful)

      by dintech (998802) on Monday December 10, 2012 @10:05AM (#42241643)
      "The global body didn't let us do what we wanted so we're just going to fucking go our own way anyway."
      Looks like they learned from the WMD/Iraq War debacle...
    • by grumpyman (849537)
      In the US, this is about national security and sovereignty issue, why bring it up at UN, or for the matter, anywhere?
    • by flyneye (84093)

      No, they just buckled to my criticism and taunting, as per usual.
      I graciously await your praise and gratitude.....

  • by the grace of R'hllor (530051) on Monday December 10, 2012 @09:58AM (#42241565)
    So in exchange for shutting up about it, they'll probably get it officiously, thanks to nations who also want full control but didn't formally ask for it (ie, all of them?).

    Or am I being paranoid?
    • by mwvdlee (775178) on Monday December 10, 2012 @10:03AM (#42241611) Homepage

      Do they really have to ask, as long as it's within their borders?
      If they wish to break the internet within their own borders, who will be able to stop them?

      • by vlm (69642) on Monday December 10, 2012 @10:28AM (#42241893)

        Do they really have to ask, as long as it's within their borders?

        Extradition treaties. You live in .us and uploaded a wedding picture of your wife showing bare ankles to facebook? Hopefully the religious authorities in Afghanistan will be lenient with your extradited there for punishment ... all in exchange for other countries extraditing I.P. violators to the USA.

        • Re: (Score:2, Troll)

          by CanHasDIY (1672858)

          Do they really have to ask, as long as it's within their borders?

          Extradition treaties. You live in .us and uploaded a wedding picture of your wife showing bare ankles to facebook? Hopefully the religious authorities in Afghanistan will be lenient with your extradited there for punishment ... all in exchange for other countries extraditing I.P. violators to the USA.

          Yea. And Obama's gonna take away yer guns, PPACA sets up death panels for granny, FEMA is building concentration camps in Louisiana, et. al.

          Kriminy...

          • by vlm (69642)

            You write as if people haven't served jail time after being extradited across the country for running pr0n BBS or in custody today for doing things illegal in the US while in a foreign country?

            • You write as if people haven't served jail time after being extradited across the country for running pr0n BBS or in custody today for doing things illegal in the US while in a foreign country?

              You write as if source citation is unnecessary, as though everyone else on the planet has had the exact same experience and exposure as yourself.

              • I think the whole Megaupload thing should speak for itself. How long have you been reading slashdot? This is frequently discussed here, along with numerous other similar incidents.

                I think you're so entrenched in this "us vs them" partisan mess to see past the mistakes of your chosen sports team. That's all that partisan politics is, it's about as much without reason as steelers fans hating cowboys fans.

                Given that this is slashdot, which is typically left leaning, chances are that both of the guys you are ar

                • I think the whole Megaupload thing should speak for itself

                  If Dotcom were an American citizen, extradited to another country, then yea, that'd be a great example. But he's not, so it's not.

                  vlm specifically implied that Americans are being extradited to other countries for doing things that aren't illegal in America - I contend that point, and the lack of supporting citation.

                  I think you're so entrenched in this "us vs them" partisan mess to see past the mistakes of your chosen sports team.

                  And I think you're reading too much into the specific words I wrote, and not enough into the context. Hint: It has far less to do with partisan politics than you think, and far more to do wit

                  • vlm specifically implied that Americans are being extradited to other countries for doing things that aren't illegal in America - I contend that point, and the lack of supporting citation.

                    No, read his post, he said doing things illegal in the US (as in, against the law in the US) while being in a foreign country. Although Dotcom hasn't been extradited yet, they are pushing for it, and they have successfully extradited other people who have never set foot in the US.

                    You probably shouldn't throw stones from a glass house, by the way (see your first sentece below.)

                    And I think you're reading too much into the specific words I wrote, and not enough into the context. Hint: It has far less to do with partisan politics than you think, and far more to do with shit tin-foil-hat-crazy people say.

                    Well, the "shit tin-foil-hat-crazy people say" about Obama and firearms is correct. Obama said he wants to "reintroduce the ban on as

                    • vlm specifically implied that Americans are being extradited to other countries for doing things that aren't illegal in America - I contend that point, and the lack of supporting citation.

                      No, read his post, he said doing things illegal in the US (as in, against the law in the US) while being in a foreign country.

                      That's a negatory, Ghostrider. vlm's post, verbatim:

                      Extradition treaties. You live in .us and uploaded a wedding picture of your wife showing bare ankles to facebook? Hopefully the religious authorities in Afghanistan will be lenient with your extradited there for punishment ... all in exchange for other countries extraditing I.P. violators to the USA.

                      Phrases such as "you live in .us" and "authorities in Afghanistan... you['re] extradited there" makes it pretty obvious he's talking about US citizens bein

                    • You said this:

                      http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3306563&cid=42244709 [slashdot.org]

                      Which was in reply to this:

                      http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3306563&cid=42243221 [slashdot.org]

                      And then I replied to you.

                      Seriously unless you've been under a rock, that's like asking somebody to cite the first amendment. As for the part you quoted, of course he wasn't saying that actually happened, so why on earth would he cite anything? He was speaking hypothetically of what could happen if they decided to do the same thing that the US curre

      • I've been curious about this as well, China's great firewall and the various outages of countries from the internet seem to indicate they already have what is being asked for (at least on the surface).

        What I think they are trying to do is push that view out to the rest of the Internet, which I would like to hope the UN / ITU is smart enough to determine.

    • So in exchange for shutting up about it, they'll probably get it officiously, thanks to nations who also want full control but didn't formally ask for it (ie, all of them?). Or am I being paranoid?

      Maybe, because I'm fairly paranoid myself. But I thought more or less the same thing.

    • Or am I being paranoid?

      "Paranoid," when talking about governments and your freedoms, is short for "not an idiot."

  • Russia and China (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward

    Allowing Russia and China to have any say over anyone or anything is tantamount to giving the fox access to the chicken coop.

    • by Kludge (13653) on Monday December 10, 2012 @11:19AM (#42242389)

      I really don't get all this "control of the internet" hoopla. The reality is that anyone can run a DNS server. These countries can run one of their own if they don't like ours. They can also put whatever firewall they choose on the lines going in and out of their countries. They already have as much control as they choose to have. What is the point of having some international governing body? I'm not getting it.

      • by mu51c10rd (187182)

        Think lower level than DNS. What happens when there is no central body over IP addresses? Will your traffic to x.x.x.x get routed to country Y or country Z?

      • I think you ought to read up on IP routing and border gateway protocol. Specifically, look at what happened when Pakistan blocked YouTube. If you have people fighting over IP assignments, which the US controls, then you have a real mess on your hands. We'd be totally screwed without centralized IP addressing.

  • Close shave (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Twinbee (767046) on Monday December 10, 2012 @10:00AM (#42241587) Homepage
    It'll be a very long time before world peace is achieved, but this news may have potentially cut that time by decades or even centuries.

    Language, currency and cultures often divide us, but the internet is one of the things unified in this world. Long may it stay that way.
    • by ultranova (717540)

      It'll be a very long time before world peace is achieved,

      Isn't the world pretty much at peace right now? What major wars are going on at the moment?

      • Re:Close shave (Score:5, Informative)

        by SJHillman (1966756) on Monday December 10, 2012 @10:17AM (#42241793)

        Peace means more than just "no major wars"

        Wikipedia has a nice list of conflicts that are still ongoing (be it cold, warm or hot conflicts): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ongoing_military_conflicts [wikipedia.org]

        And just stay tuned, more are sure to come!

        • Re:Close shave (Score:4, Informative)

          by fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) on Monday December 10, 2012 @10:31AM (#42241915) Journal

          There are definitely some nasty little meatgrinders going on(and, depending on how exactly you want to tot them up, a fair amount of violence-application by internal security forces whose targets are mostly too outmatched for it to even count as 'conflict'); but by historical standards that's pretty good.

          The Syrian civil war, for instance, killed about as many people, per year, as motor vehicle accidents do in the US(the US population is higher, obviously, so the individual risk of death is lower).

        • Peace means more than just "no major wars"

          Maybe so, but "no major wars" is certainly a nice step in the right direction. The world has been getting more peaceful for some time now, little as you would realize it from the TV news.

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward

        lets see now shall we, Afghanistan is still an ongoing diaster, Israel and palastine are going at like there's no tomorrow with Iran standing none to calmly on the side, china and japan hate each others guts, North Korean is trying to blow the South Koreans to hell and back and lets not even go into everything that's happening in Africa

        • by ultranova (717540)

          Afghanistan is still an ongoing diaster,

          Just as it has been to every occupying force throughout all human history.

          Israel and palastine are going at like there's no tomorrow with Iran standing none to calmly on the side,

          Business as usual. Middle East is the world's ulcer and will remain so for the forseeable future, but it's not going to result in any large-scale conflicts.

          china and japan hate each others guts,

          They can hate each other all they want but what are they actually going to do about it? Nothing

      • Yes and no. The world is, in general, more at peace than at any other point in human history. So in relative terms, yes.

        In absolute terms, no. There are still lots of first-world-funded conflicts going on. There are still genocidal dictators. Life in North Korea can hardly be described as "peaceful." People are being killed every day for petty disputes over land, religion, and politics.

        We've got a lot of problems. We're just better than we've been. It's a start.
        • And probably the end. in all likelihood there will never be absolute peace. What we have today is probably the best we can get.
    • It'll be a very long time before world peace is achieved,

      That depends highly on your definition of "world peace".

      • With liberty and justice for the One Corporation that will eventually own everything

      • by Githaron (2462596)

        It'll be a very long time before world peace is achieved,

        That depends highly on your definition of "world peace".

        That is the exact reason "world peace" will never be achieved. No one can agree on the definition and there is always someone who is willing to force their views on other by the point of a knife/gun/warhead.

        • Absence of conflict can only be achieved by the complete suppression of human instinct and individuality. It is nigh impossible outside some kind of Orwellian Dystopia.
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by JoshuaZ (1134087)

      Language, currency and cultures often divide us, but the internet is one of the things unified in this world.

      Unfortunately, the internet in many ways divides us. It used to be that people needed to be geographically proximate to form in-groups that were culturally distinct and had distinct ideologies. Now, people can easily form groups with people from very far away, and then only focus their information sources and ideologically affiliated sources. Thus, you can get conservatives who only read right-wing websites, and similarly for liberals, or anarchists, or monarchist, etc. It is likely that the internet can ea

      • by vlm (69642)

        And if there's one thing the last few hundred years of history have taught us, it is that people are willing to kill over abstract ideals even when they share culture, currency and language.

        And they usually behave themselves when there's direct economic contact... True, a world of 4chan or xbox voice chat would be pretty messed up, but a world of deal extreme and ebay wouldn't be nearly as bad.

    • Language, currency and cultures often divide us, but the internet is one of the things unified in this world. Long may it stay that way.

      Obviously you've stayed out of the iOS/Android fanboi fights...

    • by antdude (79039)

      More like never. Only God can do that. :(

  • The Pattern (Score:4, Insightful)

    by ios and web coder (2552484) on Monday December 10, 2012 @10:01AM (#42241599) Journal
    1) Make a huge noise about implementing draconian measures.

    2) Withdraw these measures after the hue and cry.

    3) Propose more "reasonable" measures that will, after the dust settles, actually end up giving more control.

    This is how our gas prices keep going up. They jack the prices up by a dollar, then back down 80 cents. Repeat as necessary.
    • by bbelt16ag (744938)
      ride a bike or move kiddio. global climate change will demand it.
    • by Anonymous Coward

      The price movements you describe sounds like the long-term price of a successful stock.

      Or the long-term price of a commodity that is valued based on a steadily inflating currency (US dollars). Like oil.

      I'm honestly struggling to see the "insight" within your post.

    • This is how our gas prices keep going up. They jack the prices up by a dollar, then back down 80 cents. Repeat as necessary.

      True story in Washington. (Someone correct me on the details if I'm wrong) I was told that our Senator, Maria Cantwell, threatened to investigate the oil companies for price gouging the Pacific Northwest; they dropped prices (by almost $0.60/gal for diesel) and she dropped the investigation. Gas prices have steadily gone back up to where they were before, and I hear she's threatening to investigate again.

  • translation (Score:5, Funny)

    by slashmydots (2189826) on Monday December 10, 2012 @10:03AM (#42241613)
    "Mommy, the other countries laughed at us and made fun of our idea!"
  • Summary is biased (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Dan East (318230) on Monday December 10, 2012 @10:31AM (#42241913) Homepage Journal

    This summary is slanted and biased: "proposals to take control over the Internet within their borders". The text "within their borders" has been added by the submitter - the word "border" isn't even in the document that text links to.

    Countries already have control over the internet "within their borders", just like they have control over everything else within their borders. They were seeking control *outside* their borders, to force outside companies to have to pay them to deliver content. What these countries are wanting (among other things) is the ability to force content producers, like Google's YouTube, to have to pay their ISPs in order to be able to deliver content at a "quality" level to their citizens.

    In other words, there are countries that want the US to have to pay them so their population can consume content created by the US. If Google deems it wise to invest in a country's infrastructure so that more people in that country can (for example) watch YouTube videos at a certain level of quality, then that's Google's prerogative. They shouldn't be forced.

  • by cryfreedomlove (929828) on Monday December 10, 2012 @10:37AM (#42241981)
    The cast of countries that submitted this proposal all share a common trait of disrespecting the freedom of expression of their own citizens. This disrespect is rooted in fear. These governments see their own citizenry as a threat to their own power, especially if those citizens can read anything they want on the global internet.
    • The cast of countries that submitted this proposal all share a common trait of disrespecting the freedom of expression of their own citizens.

      And one US party wants to implement exactly that - just as Jesus would do.

  • by Anonymous Coward

    To be honest I don't see why the UN would have to be involved in this to begin with. If China, Russia plus various Islamist countries are so concerned about content on the Internet, exactly what is stopping them from deploying their own parallel DNS system within their borders? If they want to set up their own non-ICANN sanctioned .com, .net and .org root servers and then force their ISPs to use those I'm sure they can do it already without UN involvement. Sure, they will invoke the rage of their citizens a

  • When I visited a friend in Czechoslovakia in 1985, he had just installed a very expensive ( for him ) satellite dish so he could watch West German TV. Now the Internet makes it easy to watch and participate. Even with heavy censorship closed societies can no longer control the ongoing discourse. Closed society can mean anything from China to various "self contained" religious groups.

  • by Anonymous Coward

    Thank you ICANN for contributing towards this mess, with your self-serving policy of continually releasing new TLDs - most recently the generic TLD.

    What purpose does this rubbish serve, apart from making ICANN more wealthy?

    Other big countries see it as the US making an easy grab for money based on their control of the internet, even if barely any US citizens benefit from the countless TLDs that have now been released.

    If the USA doesn't want their stewardship of the internet repeatedly challenged by foreign

  • FTFA...

    Their proposal has been withdrawn without explanation, an ITU spokesperson confirmed.

    I'd guess that they've decided to sub it out to the major U.S. telco's, who will perform any act or service for the right price, no questions asked.

  • Providing links to torrent sites, which is all Pirate Bay does, is not copyright violation. The US copyright lobby is totally out of control, having people extradited for breaking US laws, even when they are not in US jurisdiction and have broken no laws that apply where they live and when they did what they are accused of doing. The USA would not tolerate that being done to its own citizens for any other trivial offence, other countries should simply tell these US corporates to get fucked.
  • The ITU is about telecom standards that provide for compatibility of communications between carriers, and countries. If there were to be a technical standard for censoring the internet, then the ITU would necessarily be involved. The nature of the ITU working methods is that any member country could make such a proposal. That proposal would be studied for worthiness for ITU resources and for technical merit, and other proposals may be made for doing things differently. The outcome would be a world standa

"There is hopeful symbolism in the fact that flags do not wave in a vacuum." --Arthur C. Clarke

Working...