Citing Snowden Leaks, Russia Again Demands UN Takeover of Internet 275
Lauren Weinstein writes "In a clear demonstration that actions do have consequences, often unintended ones, 'The New York Times' reports that Russia is again demanding a UN Internet takeover of exactly the sort repressive governments around the world have long been lusting after, and using Edward Snowden's continued presence in Russia as a foundation for this new thrust. Acting as a catalyst for a crackdown against freedom of speech on the Net was certainly not Snowden's intention — quite the opposite, it's reasonable to assume." Not to worry.
Re:How about alt roots instead? (Score:5, Interesting)
No government can be trusted with control over the internet. There should be a separate body for that, 'manned' only by robots. Or something else completely separated from anything that even remotely has to do with real world politics.
Re:Well, he called it... (Score:4, Interesting)
Let's face it, when the argument for leaving the US in charge was "they have stood up for internet freedom and neutrality", a failure like this was ultimately inevitable. I just don't think anyone expected it to be practically immediate. The choice now is whether to let nations establish their own internet authorities with their own goals, yielding the idea of the internet as a universal commons; or to create an ostensibly neutral overseer, something the UN is hideously inefficient at.
Re:Better Idea: (Score:3, Interesting)
He who funds it controls it. Which nations do you trust to control it?
France is obviously out, because nobody who pays any attention to them at all was surprised that their reaction to the NSA Story was extreme outrage, and that two goddamn days later it was all over the internet that they were just as bad. The German government may be trustworthy, but nobody actually trusts them. Same with the Japanese. I trust southern democracies (like Brazil) to an extent, but they've all got major bones to pick with various former colonial, countries, which a) tends to blind them to the fact that Iran is fucking evil, and b) Makes them very reluctant to tell another country "you can't censor that". More importantly it's very difficult to know which South American or African nations are Machiavellian lying sons-of-bitches (ie: France), and which ones are actually ethical democracies, because their track record is only a few decades long.
I'd trust a handful of Nordic nations. They're the only ones with long histories of running their foreign policy almost entirely on moral principles. The trouble is if you set up an internet-funding body run entirely by white European countries the non-white, non-European countries are not gonna be any happier then if the US ran the damn thing.
Re:Better Idea: (Score:3, Interesting)
To paraphrase an old saying..."the US sucks, but it still sucks WAY less than everywhere else in the world".
I disagree vehemently with the NSA and other govt snooping actions of the US, but I fear it would be much worse and a huge clusterfuck if given over to the UN.
Besides, it isn't like anyone really believes the UN has true authority over anything or could manage anything like this correctly. I fear it would get worse than it is in so many ways.