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?"
better when... (Score:1)
The internet was better when engineers ran it, not politicians.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
The internet was better when engineers ran it, not politicians
Yes, you're right. It was much better when it was nothing but usenet chatter about Star Trek and ASCII-art versions of Playboy centerfolds.
Re: (Score:3)
Now eternal september is upon the face of the net, and all is woe (hand wring).
Re: (Score:2)
I'm old enough to remember when Usenet became useless every September. Old enough to remember when it was USEFUL after the freshmen calmed down and grew up.
Also, after UUDecoding my jpeg pr0n, it took 10-15 seconds to decode a still image on my computer. Bah!
Re: (Score:2)
The internet was better when engineers ran it, not politicians
Yes, you're right. It was much better when it was nothing but usenet chatter about Star Trek and ASCII-art versions of Playboy centerfolds.
Oh, fsck off! [wikipedia.org]
"We believe in consensus and running code."
And besides, Vint Cerf hates your guts!
Re: (Score:2)
I am still buoyed by the eternal truth: "The Internet interprets control as damage and routes around it." It doesn't really matter what political groups devoted to the repression and control of communication do at this point. Punching a hole through a control barrier is routine
Re: (Score:2)
Why you got to hate on Pony porn?
Re: (Score:2)
It just emphasizes that there really is little new about the Internet. I'm sure that pony porn was invented no more than a couple of days after photography was invented. In fact, Daguerre's first known photograph was of a pony being led by a young boy (s
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
http://tech.slashdot.org/story/06/07/03/0643238/how-the-internet-works---with-tubes [slashdot.org]
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.
Re: (Score:1)
in the past decade, U.S has shown itself to be one of the worst (in the western world). you are living with blinders on.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Not an issue of freedom of speech, no matter how dumb I think the ban is.
Yes. The only real danger is over-zealous police and prosecutors making your life miserable, but they will eventually lose, you will eventually win.
Re: (Score:1)
Hey now, don't give casinos a bad name (Score:2)
orly (Score:2, Flamebait)
U.S. is still one of the best places for free speech.
Mod [wikipedia.org] parent [slashdot.org] + [slashdot.org] 1 [slashdot.org] Funny [slashdot.org]
Re: (Score:2)
I think "funny" does not mean what you think it means.
Re:orly (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
We (the 96%) consequently don't intend to entrust ourselves to such an organisation - better for it to be left to no-one, or otherwise the UN, who will, at least recogni
Re: (Score:3)
A UN convention is more often a taint than an indicator of good intentions.
"otherwise the UN, who will, at least recognise my inherent rights" Is this the same UN that recognizes the inherent right of the People's Republic of China to do whatever is necessary to take away the freedoms of the people of Taiwan?
Re: (Score:2)
The UN isn't elected by people, it is made up of governments - many or most of which rule by fear rather than by legitimate democratic means.
The US government is not elected by the people either. In that the vast majority of people don't elect the US government, so they should not be subjected to it's whims. What is that saying? Oh yeah. No internet control without representation. Sound familiar? The British government of the 1800s was democratically elected, yet I notice that the unrepresented people of the time didn't find that compromise satisfactory.
A UN convention is more often a taint than an indicator of good intentions.
Was it good intentions that led to 100s of thousands of deaths in Iraq? What about Pakistan?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
The US is not a signatory to various important UN conventions on human rights. This means that while the US government might make a nominal effort to protect the free speech of it's own citizens, it has no obligation to protect the rights of the other 96% of the worlds population - and consequently, it makes no discernable effort to do so.
We (the 96%) consequently don't intend to entrust ourselves to such an organisation - better for it to be left to no-one, or otherwise the UN, who will, at least recognise my inherent rights and make some effort to uphold them. The US government does not, and would simply rollover and screw me if requested to do so by the Chinese or the Russians.
This would the same UN that had bloody Libya, Iran and Syria, among other bastions of freedom, on their Commission on Human Rights (now the Human Rights Council). You really think turning over the keys to the kingdom to that bunch of morons is a good idea? Really?
And if you really think the US would just do whatever China or Russia wanted with the Internet just because they asked I want some of what you're smoking.
Re: (Score:2)
This would the same UN that had bloody Libya, Iran and Syria, among other bastions of freedom, on their Commission on Human Rights (now the Human Rights Council).
If we want those countries to respect human rights it is better to involve them in the process rather than just preaching at them. At the very least it forces them to consider the issues and form a diplomatic position on them.
Sometimes you have to work with the bad guys. We tried to stop the IRA by force for decades and failed, but once they were involved with the peace process and subsequent democracy they quickly came round and ended up working with their sworn enemies.
Re: (Score:2)
This would the same UN that had bloody Libya, Iran and Syria, among other bastions of freedom, on their Commission on Human Rights (now the Human Rights Council).
If we want those countries to respect human rights it is better to involve them in the process rather than just preaching at them. At the very least it forces them to consider the issues and form a diplomatic position on them.
Sometimes you have to work with the bad guys. We tried to stop the IRA by force for decades and failed, but once they were involved with the peace process and subsequent democracy they quickly came round and ended up working with their sworn enemies.
You're right that engagement is generally preferable to unremitting hostility. However, that works where you're going to be negotiating and coming to common ground as opposed to handing over voting, and possibly controlling, interest to something that said powers are incredibly hostile to. Would we want China having a significant, or any, say in what should or should not be filtered online?
Re: (Score:2)
Well, people just have to realize what the UN actually is. It's not a world government. It's a soapbox meant to have all nations be a part of it so that the ones with differences can sort them out without warfare. For things like the Commissions an
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Your point - presumably - being, that those violators of human rights are nevertheless prepared to sign the conventions, whereas the U.S. is not prepared to do so, for fear that the acknowledgement of universal human rights might badly affect the strategic position of the U.S. on the world stage?
And these are the guys you want us to trust with the management of the internet?
Really?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe you should start a separate internet with all of the countries in the General Assembly; it would a great way to test the hypothesis that pure democracy is inherently beneficial for individual rights.
How would such a test say anything about pure democracy? Not that many of the countries in the General Assembly are democracies, and none of them are pure democracies.
Re: (Score:2)
Mod parent up. It sounds like apologism or a "the other guys are worse" cop out, but it's the sad, sad truth.
Re: (Score:2)
The US government does not protect free speech and lets states, local governments, schools and other institutions and private companies restrict at will it sems.
And this is how we want it. Our constitution lists specific powers that the federal (US) government has. All others are left to the states to be decided on a local level. You don't like you New York, move to Utah, or Nebraska, or California. You have choices. That is your freedom,
Keep something in mind here. The population of Holland (according to Wikipedia) is 6 million. The population of New York CITY is 8.1 million. Let me say that again: We have more people in one city then in your entire region.
Oh yes
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: (Score:3)
The problem is that the US doesn't mind taking down foreign sites that use .org, .com or .net TLDs on the grounds of alleged copyright infringement etc with no legal recourse available. People on Slashdot often point out that some countries consider large parts of the net to be illegal because they show women no wearing full face veils etc. but apparently then it violates a US law it's okay.
The fact that the US controls all TLDs is unacceptable to many people. That includes individual country codes which th
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is that the US doesn't mind taking down foreign sites that use .org, .com or .net TLDs on the grounds of alleged copyright infringement etc with no legal recourse available. People on Slashdot often point out that some countries consider large parts of the net to be illegal because they show women no wearing full face veils etc. but apparently then it violates a US law it's okay.
The fact that the US controls all TLDs is unacceptable to many people.
Our of curiosity, if it was so acceptable, then why did you all connect to our Internet in the first place ?
I mean, if I go to someone's party, and I don't like the music they play, I leave. I don't bitch and moan they should play what I like.
Re: (Score:2)
ARGH -- that shouldbe "if it was so UNacceptable ..."
Re: (Score:2)
No country decided to simply plug in, it was individual organisations and companies deciding to connect. The internet became essential for every major economy but it happened slowly over time. We are now in a situation where we can't just leave, and in fact much of what the US gains from the existence of the internet comes from the rest of the world so you wouldn't want us to either.
Anyway, we invented the web. Germany invented MPEG audio and video compression that is now fundamental to many services. Much
Re: (Score:2)
I am asking this seriously. My background is not in networking, and I don't know enough abo
Re: (Score:2)
It would only work if every ISP decided to reconfigure their DNS servers and routers to use it, and there in lies the problem.
Re: (Score:2)
Did you say changing a couple settings was a problem? No. Wealth schizm is a problem. Materialism is a problem. Pocessed foods are a problem. Changing a couple settings and brief downtime is hardly a problem for people to endure.
How about the worlds' resources being hoarded by an extremely small group of people, leaving most humans in a less than optimal condition? That's a problem.
Re: (Score:2)
No, I mean it is a technical problem.
Re: (Score:2)
In the actions that result, real people are affected. When war is waged, its you who dies, not a politician or a bill. You are responsible for the bulldog whose back you ride whether or not you chose to.
Like I said, in theory, the people of a nation permit their government to represent them. The government is an extension of the people. And in reality, the people of a nation are those who ultimatey receive the recourse for their government. An example: if north korea instigates war, who dies? Its govern
Re: (Score:2)
The reality is this: no matter what you pretend about outcasts or minority opinion, you will receive the repercussion and beneficence of your government's actions. That is my point. The reality is, if your government instigates issue, YOU suffer. Your government represents you and your peers, and if you ideas are unpopular but you feel they are necessary, then its your duty to make it popular. As I said before, your responsibility is obligate. You have no choice to abstain. Again, and as blunt as poss
Re: (Score:2)
Why ? Are you seriously under the illusion that even 50% of the human race even wants free speech ?
I'm asking this question, not because I truly do not see the value of free speech, but because that's the question that's being asked in the "united nations" GA. There is general agreement that free speech and western imperialism are synonyms.
That's the real issue with multiple cultures. You best be prepared for the realization that there's exactly 1 culture that values free speech. All other cultures want big
Re: (Score:2)
Europe's case is funny. Did you know that Germany's censorship was first introduced by the U.S. Army, which banned, confiscated and destroyed thousands of book titles, and censored the media?
So much for the US being a defender of Free Speech.
Re: (Score:2)
Europe's case is funny. Did you know that Germany's censorship was first introduced by the U.S. Army, which banned, confiscated and destroyed thousands of book titles, and censored the media?
So much for the US being a defender of Free Speech.
Yeah, the U.S. Army totally repressed the hell out of that Schicklgruber fellow.
Re: (Score:2)
No, he's saying that German censorship laws as they are today - which is something that many Americans routinely criticize Germany about, as an evidence of them being "not sufficiently free" - were instituted under pressure of, and to some extent dictated by, the occupying Allied powers - and specifically U.S.
Re: (Score:3)
I don't know...
I saw this study by Reporters Without Borders on freedom of the press [rsf.org], and the U.S. wasn't in the top 10%. Then, I saw this study by Privacy International on privacy [privacyinternational.org], and it wasn't pretty for the US. Freedom of speech must be correlated to freedom of press and privacy. And sure, you can find studies about everything with any result... these are mine. :)
My point is that maybe, not in theory but in practice, sharing governance is the way to go if freedom of speech is the key indicator.
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 ...
They include Iraq (Score:2)
Since we're there, treatment of press is considered our responsibility. Historically, press has been generally restricted in war zones. That's also a generally dangerous place, so when a reporter gets killed it goes on our tally.
They are also political. Mumia Abu Jamal is in prison because he murdered a police officer. However, since he also plays journalist they are on his side, and consider his incarceration to be an attack on journalism.
Re: (Score:2)
"Freedom of speech must be correlated to freedom of press and privacy."
Privacy is inversely related to press freedom. There are many countries where privacy and slander laws are used as weapons against the press.
Re: (Score:2)
My rationale was: if there's a free press, everyone can give its PoV. And, if everyone's privacy is respected, then anonymity is possible and they can speak freely without fearing retribution. But you raise an interesting point...
Re: (Score:3)
The UN is made up of mostly bad governments. Why would they protect from themselves?
The UN isn't elected by people, it is made up of governments - many or most of which rule by fear rather than by legitimate democratic means.
The same UN that chose North Korea ... (Score:4)
The UN would be the best way to protect from any bad government. And you have to admit it.
Really? The same U.N. that chose North Korea to head the U.N. Conference on Disarmament? The same U.N. that chose Gaddafi's Libya to chair the U.N. Human Rights Commission?
Re: (Score:2)
Well, they obviously ask the right people to take responsiblility...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It was their turn. Everyone saw the irony.
Wrong. For example Gaddafi's Libya was elected in a secret ballot to the U.N. Human Rights Commission.
ad hoc networking (Score:1)
It's the only way to defeat 'governance'.. Nothing personal, mind you. It's strictly business..
Re: (Score:1)
much of the internet underground is driven by ppp networks (including torrent clients and the like)
the corporate world is trying to take some measure of control over it (legal threats to torrent users) but it will never stop
the online porn industry is also a major supporter of internet anarchy, and its one of the most profitable industries in the world
if hackers decide to turn their botnets toward the root dns infrastruc
Re: (Score:3)
The point being, in this particular situation, governments can more easily censor, but people wield the WMDs. Self-destruction isn't a particularly good method of fighting, but suppose things began to ch
Let's talk about some domains that got seized (Score:1)
But how long will it continue to be able to do so?
As long as it doesn't start seizing domains arbitrarily, domains that have been ruled perfectly legal in their countries. Like rojadirecta.me. As long as people do not feel the need to create Firefox extensions to circumvent some stupid domain seizures, and as long as your government doesn't fuck with Mozilla to try and fail to get the extension removed.
Oh wait...
Re: (Score:2)
At present, you can't go to jail, or be compelled, to not run those extensions. This is actually a pretty big deal, even though I tend to agree with the sentiment of some here who think things are pretty bad WRT free speech in the U.S. We have a serious structural free speech problem, but we don't have government control of speech in the sense that it exists in a lot of countries.
We also don't have control over the Internet, something that TFA sort of glosses over. Control over the root zone of the DNS
Simple Solution (Score:3)
That way, they can all play their own little games, and who the hell cares? The free and open parts of the network will still win out in the long run.
Re: (Score:2)
Give each country its own DNS. Then create a simple, automated, neutral central hub that connects all those servers together.
That way, they can all play their own little games, and who the hell cares? The free and open parts of the network will still win out in the long run.
Riiiiight, that should be real simple, both technically and politically.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"That's not to say however that your primary nation of residence will not override those records legally belonging to another nation."
Precisely. But who cares? Let each nation do whatever it wants within its own borders. The idiots will sink themselves. The others will prosper.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Of course, you could have a problem if you are trying to access an internet side for a subsidiary that is in a country that has blocked/censored its internet. But in that case, WTF are you doing, engaging in business there anyway? Shame on you. I have no sympathy.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
Give each country its own DNS. [snip]
Each country already has its own DNS. Country code domain names have been around for a long time. Maintaining the root servers that point to the country codes doesn't need to be an automated system. I'd hand it over to the group that agrees on the country codes: the UN.
What you're really suggesting is getting rid of non-country code domain names. All those 'blah.com' addresses would need to choose one or more country codes to occupy... 'blah.com.us' or 'blah.co.uk' or ... . This would be an improvemen
Re: (Score:2)
All those 'blah.com' addresses would need to choose one or more country codes to occupy... 'blah.com.us' or 'blah.co.uk' or ... . This would be an improvement on the current situation
Why? The contrary seems to be true at first glance. If a user fails to enter a country code there needs to be some default. What should that default be? The local country would often be wrong and users now need to know where the company is located.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"Each country already has its own DNS."
I could have made that clearer. What I meant was to give each country its own root server for use within its own borders. Others could access domains on that server if it were open, but a country could choose to close it off if it wanted... it's theirs, let them do as they please.
But yes, each country would have its own TLD like now, except that every domain would be within that TLD.
I don't get your point about the laws... they need not be any different than they are now: buy from a US site, obey the
Re: (Score:2)
What you're really suggesting is getting rid of non-country code domain names.
HELL YES. There is nothing good about them. Let them all burn. Or more to the point, move them all under .us.
Re: (Score:2)
"Give each country its own DNS. Then create a simple, automated, neutral central hub that connects all those servers together..."
(TLD4) "Ahhh, umm, Helloooo? Shit, who's country of computers do I gotta take over to get some respect around here..."
*YOU* can fight this. (Score:1)
2) Use the above to encrypt all your web sites.
3) Watch as the concept spreads and a significant percentage of personal content on the web is encrypted as such, after which businesses and browser makers follow through by popular demand.
4) See the old status quo become deprecated. Meanwhile, all countries filtering this "illegal technology" see their internet go stale, and event
Who are all these people? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Neither can the US, and they have a pretty atrocious record on free speech lately...
Re: (Score:2)
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?
US and EU have their own plans (Score:1)
The US and EU have similar plans under NSTIC and Eurim_IdEa, which are public-private partnerships meant to shift casual web browsing into an identified state that's government-friendly. Watch what Microsoft and G+ do: probably they will both try to get a piece of this pie.
I'm not happy with "over there" smugness about China and Russia: western governments are also building serious tools to increase their power at the expense of civil liberties, and in the end I think the more subtle tools they're building
When "Freedom" shifts...so will power. (Score:2)
"...But how long will it continue to be able to do so?"
When the general view of "Freedom" is defined better by some other state, then I feel the power will shift. Right now, we hold the best definition, which is why we are favored. Whether that shifts or not entirely depends on our Governments continuance of tasteless discourse to destroy what many have given their life to defend. Our Military proves we are no match, but it will be the cancer of Government that will ultimately eat us to the bone.
Re: (Score:2)
Even if some majority of internet-using-nations decides to have a lesser sense of 'freedom' as a structure for the internet, my government will give me the freedom my constitution enforces. And if said majority tries to stop us, manipulate, or damage that freedom, I'll vote accordingly to send DEFENSE of my freedom wherever it is needed.
The rest of the world can give it all up for all I care, but its not happening here --- my point being that even if it happens here, it won't. We the people will be free, a
Re: (Score:2)
"...But how long will it continue to be able to do so?"
When the general view of "Freedom" is defined better by some other state, then I feel the power will shift. Right now, we hold the best definition, which is why we are favored. Whether that shifts or not entirely depends on our Governments continuance of tasteless discourse to destroy what many have given their life to defend. Our Military proves we are no match, but it will be the cancer of Government that will ultimately eat us to the bone.
Wow; the best example of cognitive dissonance I've ever seen. You think you have the best definition of freedom but then go on to say you government promotes "tasteless discourse to destroy what many have given their life to defend". But, your "military proves you (we) are no match". Your government will "eat us to the bone". What was your original point again? Oh, that your government has the best defined general view of freedom. Umm. Huh? "What you talkin' about Willis?" Get off my lawn.
Re: (Score:2)
Wow; the best example of cognitive dissonance I've ever seen. You think you have the best definition of freedom but then go on to say you government promotes "tasteless discourse to destroy what many have given their life to defend". But, your "military proves you (we) are no match". Your government will "eat us to the bone". What was your original point again? Oh, that your government has the best defined general view of freedom. Umm. Huh? "What you talkin' about Willis?" Get off my lawn.
My point was by looking at the Constitution, we have likely the best definition of freedom. It's just too bad that we barely recognize that document anymore, and the interpretation of those freedoms have been hashed over and over through the years, slowly stripping them away, under guises such as the ironically titled "PATRIOT Act". That being said, it's still likely the best interpretation out there by comparison.
And yes, the upside is our military is no match. The downside is we've bankrupted an entire
Re: (Score:2)
When the general view of "Freedom" is defined better by some other state,
.. well, freedom is well defined in the American constitution. if only it was applied to American politics.
Stupid lawyers and politicians (Score:1)
Technology moves faster than law. As long as the Internet can route packets from point A to point B, the lawmakers will have little say over what those packets contain. We may be driven to encryption, darknets, or something besides DNS, but it won't really matter in the end.
Internet is international (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Or until the dollar collapses.
Re: (Score:3)
American based Infrastructure can be routed around. the only control you should have over the internet is what is held within your borders. and you've already shown you can't be trusted hosting .com domains.
Re: (Score:2)
"Rest of the world, please butt out.
Sincerely,
The United States of America, The richest, mightiest, most powerful and influential at the moment, until the dollar ceases to be the reserve currency"
There, fixed it for ya!
Re: (Score:2)
Amen Brother.
Ah, the Hitchhiker's Guide principle (Score:2)
Quite valid IMHO.
We have control by virtue that we invented it. We're just asking for status quo. THEY want to seize the power.