The U.N.'s Push for Power Over the Internet 326
Omnifarious writes "China (along with other member nations) is trying to push a proposal through a little known UN agency called the International Telecommunications Union (aka ITU). This proposal contains a wide variety of problematic provisions that represent a huge power grab on the part of the UN, and a severe threat to a continued global and open Internet. From the article: 'Several proposals would give the U.N. power to regulate online content for the first time, under the guise of protecting against computer malware or spam. Russia and some Arab countries want to be able to inspect private communications such as email. Russia and Iran propose new rules to measure Internet traffic along national borders and bill the originator of the traffic, as with international phone calls. That would result in new fees to local governments and less access to traffic from U.S. "originating" companies such as Google, Facebook and Apple. A similar idea has the support of European telecommunications companies, even though the Internet's global packet switching makes national tolls an anachronistic idea.'"
misread title (Score:5, Funny)
I was hoping that "Power Over the Internet" was analogous to "Power Over Ethernet". That would've been cool, especially if the protocol was compatible with wireless.
Re: (Score:2)
I was hoping that "Power Over the Internet" was analogous to "Power Over Ethernet". That would've been cool, especially if the protocol was compatible with wireless.
The good news is that they *do* have that facility working over long-range wireless- here are some photos of it in action! [google.co.uk]
Re:Quintuple play (Score:5, Interesting)
I believe it's time to apply the Sherman Antitrust act. Time to break-up Comcast, Cox, and other monopolies, turn-over control of the fiber optic bundles to the Member State government's roads authority, and then LEASE the lines to whatever company each customer chooses (Comcast, Apple, Honda, GM, Microsoft, Walmart, etc). We need to return to the days of Dialup where ISPs merely *used* the lines but did not own them.
Re:Quintuple play (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Quintuple play (Score:5, Insightful)
Or just force them to divest the infrastructure into a separate company, and make said company a common carrier.
Comcast can split into Comcast that owns the pipes, and Xfinity for all their media bullshit. They can then make Comcast a common carrier, and bar them from favoring Xfinity in any way.
Re:Quintuple play (Score:4, Insightful)
and then in 12 years (or two governmental adminsitrations from now), comcast renames themselves and then repurchases their xfinity division... either that, or AT&T (bellsouth much?) does.
Re:Quintuple play (Score:4, Insightful)
Then just bar them from being allowed to do so. They're corporations, not human beings. Restricting them to divert a power grab is never a bad thing.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Sherman antitrust has been almost entirely a tool to prevent the most efficient producers from offering better goods and services to society in order to protect mediocre producers with better political pull. Comcast, cox and the rest would not be targeted in any meaningful way by such laws because they themselves are extremely connected to the state given how protected from competition they are.
Citations:
US telecommunications protectionism - http://mises.org/journals/rae/pdf/RAE9_2_3.pdf
Sherman trust target
Re:Quintuple play (Score:5, Insightful)
There's nothing to break up. Those cable companies have local monopolies because the local governments gave it to them. The monopoly problems in the cable industry were caused by government interference with the free market. They granted monopolies in exchange for certain guarantees (like 99.8% of the population had to be covered, or payments made to the city). Take away the government-granted monopolies and the problem fixes itself, no need to break up companies.
The Boston suburb I lived in during grad school was one of those which granted a cable monopoly. The year before I moved, they reconsidered and allowed a second cable company to offer service. My cable bill immediately dropped $10/mo without me even having to switch.
Well, turning over privately-owned hardware to the State is Communism. But your intentions are in the right place, if poorly expressed. Basically, the companies which own the lines should be prohibited from selling what's carried over the lines. That's an obvious conflict of interest. I've felt the same is true of the mobile phone industry. The phone manufacturers should sell you a phone, the carriers should sell you a service plan, and the carriers should "build" a network by leasing towers from other companies which own the towers. Having one company own the towers, provide the plan, and sell you the phone is too stifling for the free market.
Already tried, and failed. Miserably. (Score:3)
They tried this with electricity generation in California. It was called Deregulation, and it was going to be great.
You might have heard the story of how that experiment went. If not, look up Enron.
Re: (Score:3)
Just because California politicians are stupid and actually REGULATED the market (companies had to go through the government to trade power) instead of deregulating (no government), doesn't mean it can't work. In the two states I have lived, the electric lines and natural gas pipes are owned by the century-old utility. The customer then decides between ~50 different companies to buy his power. The result is pricing that is ~10% cheaper than it used to be.
Re: (Score:3)
How many atom bombs does the UN have? (Score:5, Insightful)
This is a historical reference. Napolian asked 'How many armies does the pope have?
What are they going to do if we ignore their invoices? Hold their breath?
Re:How many atom bombs does the UN have? (Score:5, Interesting)
The exact quote was "The pope? How many divisions does he have?" and most sources attribute the quote to Josef Stalin, though he almost certainly was quoting the other guy.
The short answer is, if Russia, China and the EU agree on a system, all they have to do is prevent our packets from passing through AS's on their sovereign territory. The UN is just the place where they come to the agreement, it's not the UN's idea and it's not up to the UN to enforce it.
The US can always withdraw from the ITU, but if these policies genuinely reflect the interests and will of other nation-states, and they remain united, I don't see how the US gets out from under them.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:How many atom bombs does the UN have? (Score:4, Insightful)
In addition to wanting to regulate the internet, the ITU already regulates comminication satellite orbits. If the US wanted to play hardball on this matter, it would indicate that withdrawing from the ITU means that the US will declare a "right to international communication" and allow any company to launch US-flagged satellites into any empty orbit to serve any region with international communication without regard to local laws.
Satellites are a very practical way to circumvent local censorship and are already heavily used for that purpose.
Re:How many atom bombs does the UN have? (Score:4, Insightful)
There's nothing 2.0 about it. The west in general and the US in specific have used their military power to force access to markets for hundreds of years and never stopped. It is the central pillar of US foreign policy and the primary function of the US military. The routine nature of it is what makes it such a credible threat.
I'm sure the rest of the world doesn't like it, but they don't seem willing to actually do anything about it. Why would this be any different? Are you going to get in a shooting war with the US to protect your people from YouTube and bad reality TV?
At least exporting information at gunpoint instead of drugs has positive side-effects for free speech on the Internet.
Re:How many atom bombs does the UN have? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:How many atom bombs does the UN have? (Score:4)
Russia and some Arab countries basically want to wire-tap EVERYONE, "legally".
Two words: Patriot Act.
I won't say 'hypocrite' aloud, but I don't mind you knowing what's on my mind...
Re:How many atom bombs does the UN have? (Score:5, Insightful)
Huh? America is tremendously hostile to the United Nations. We violate UN provisions and resolutions constantly with little public disagreement. I don't see anything like what you are describing.
Re:How many atom bombs does the UN have? (Score:5, Interesting)
Other countries have some authority because they would bow out without it, but no serious policy like this would ever come out of the UN without backing from the US. The rest of the world governments are getting a taste of US style freedom of speech and they don't like it. The US doesn't even like it anymore, but we the people have managed to stand fast.
Keep standing, it is your duty as a citizen and your right as a People!
Notice I didn't say citizen, "citizen" is mentioned only once in the Declaration of Independence, and never in the Bill of Rights, while "people" is mentioned five times in the Bill of Rights and ten times in the Declaration of Independence.
Re:How many atom bombs does the UN have? (Score:5, Informative)
That quote is also attributed to Stalin.
The Pope! How many divisions has he got?
Said sarcastically to Pierre Laval in 1935, in response to being asked whether he could do anything with Russian Catholics to help Laval win favour with the Pope, to counter the increasing threat of Nazism; as quoted in The Second World War (1948) by Winston Churchill vol. 1, ch. 8, p. 105.(wikiquote)
a better quote (Score:5, Interesting)
As the Americans learned so painfully in Earth's final century, free flow of information is the only safeguard against tyranny. The once-chained people whose leaders at last lose their grip on information flow will soon burst with freedom and vitality, but the free nation gradually constricting its grip on public discourse has begun its rapid slide into despotism. Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master.
--Commissioner Pravin Lal, "U.N. Declaration of Rights"
(from Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri, 1999).
Re: (Score:3)
What are they going to do if we ignore their invoices? Hold their breath?
The ITU has zero force of law. They simply publish technical guidelines which others are free to disregard at will the same way vendors routinely disregard the advice of RFCs.
There is still slight danger of binding legal frameworks around ITU products yet zero chance any of this crap will ever be ratified in the US or any other marginally sane country.
Besides Russia and friends already have every right in the world to do whatever the heck they want with pipes going into their countries they don't need no s
Re: (Score:3)
The ITU does have the force of law - even here in the US because it's established by treaties we've signed. By our own Constitution, treaties bind our governments behavior with a force equal to Constitutional amendment!
Lawmakers (governments) make treaties not the ITU. The ITU itself creates standards which serve as the basis of treaty activity, technical standards, best practices..etc.
For example say the ITU produces a document which demands anyone who sends x data must pay y amount and majority of ITU members vote on to the document. This act may inform global practices however without the force of law by UN treaty process (including ratification by each member) it means nothing to that member. The US is not subject
Re: (Score:3)
Re:How many atom bombs does the UN have? (Score:4, Insightful)
President Romney? Time-traveler, are you?
Yeah, he went back to 2004.
Re: (Score:3)
Time-traveler, are you?
hopefully...
Do tell! Did you use a blue police box or was it a modified delorean, or some other method? Any stock tips?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Do tell! Did you use a blue police box or was it a modified delorean, or some other method? Any stock tips?
Obviously a modified DeLorean, as a police box would be way to pedestrian for a Romney supporter. However the police will be happy to see that none of the 99% ever get close enough to smudge your DeLorean.
Re: (Score:3)
Well, he rarely drives.
Re:Policy Laundering (Score:4, Funny)
No, I checked it, it works. Must be a problem on your end.
Typical U.N. (Score:3)
A lot of big talk with absolutely no way in hell to enforce any of it.
No way to enforce it? (Score:2)
Re:No way to enforce it? (Score:5, Insightful)
ICANN has made it pretty clear that they're in charge, and it's going to fucking stay that way. Iran and Russia are, of course, free to start their own internets if they don't like it.
Re:No way to enforce it? (Score:5, Insightful)
"Senator, this will give Russia, China, Iran, and anyone at the UN access to your browsing history.
"They will know everything about you, your family, and your staff."
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
The UN has no power if a nation decides to ignore it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I think we should remind the UN that its our Internet, we designed the infrastructure and WE not THEY will control it. If they have a problem with it they can build their own Internet and disconnect it from ours.
Their choices are be shut of US commerce or deal with us managing the Internet as we see fit. There is NO reason to negotiate here, we hold all the cards. Hopefully someone form our Government will have the courage to say "STFU".
Re: (Score:2)
Really, the problem here is that the Internet is no longer controlled by its users; go
Re: (Score:3)
I don't recall the internet ever being controlled by its users.
Re:No way to enforce it? (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't recall the internet ever being controlled by its users.
Then you must be new here.
Think back to how things were in the 70's and 80's (if you are actually not new here - otherwise, ask someone who has been around a while). It was effectively a healthy and vibrant anarchy. There were no politicians involved, no lawyers. Anyone could run any service they wanted on machines they controlled. It was much more a playing field of equal peers, not what we see today with "huge services like Facebook controlling a bigger and bigger chunk of all communication". It was based in OPEN protocols, not increasingly locked-down golden cages like we see today. It was far, far less centralized. The only control involved was that of admins over their own machines, coupled with the voluntary cooperation between hosts.
If you don't remember the arpanet days, ask someone who has been around longer than you what they have seen happen over the whole time span.
Re: (Score:3)
I remember those days. And what's changed other than far better access and a much larger base. For about $20 / mo over my cable bill I've got the equivalent of dual T1s at worst and often as much as 20 T1s worth of bandwidth which I can use pretty much however I like offering services. If I want a static IP and space on a shared server I can get that for about $100 for 3 years to offer pretty much what I like.
I'm sorry but I fail to see how I'm not far freer today than I was a quarter century ago with re
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The UN has always done a better job of this sort of thing than the US alone, you only have to look at the history of WIPO and the WTO to see how bad the US is at playing fair.
WIPO was historically democratic, but America disliked this because in being democratic it let the poorer nations of the world vote for weaker intellectual property laws so that they too could benefit from medical and technological advancements much earlier than the US mandated IP laws allow. Because America didn't like this it decided
ITU regulations (Score:5, Insightful)
When I think of the ITU, I think of the regulations on another global communication system that can be used with equipment available to consumers: shortwave radio and amateur satellites. Consider the regulations ITU imposes on hams:
Now, can you give the reasons why similar regulations couldn't be imposed on the Internet? What reason does the ITU have in supporting the Internet as it is today? The ITU would almost certainly partition computers on the Internet into different classes (say, "clients" and "servers," where "servers" require special registration and must have some special identification), and would almost certainly create rules that force countries to respect the censorship systems of other countries. Hushmail-style backdoors are practically a given if the ITU has its way (which is not the say that the US would never impose such a thing within its borders; the difference is that the ITU would attempt to impose it globally).
Please, keep regulatory bodies out of the Internet. We should be working to return control of the Internet to its users, not to increase regulations on the Internet. I do not want the Chinese government deciding how the Internet is governed, or having any say in the rules of the Internet.
Re:ITU regulations (Score:4, Insightful)
The regulations on hams are a good thing, since it protects amateur radio from commercial operators that would otherwise fill up the bands with useless garbage. The regulations don't much affect hams themselves.
73, KC2YWE
Re:ITU regulations (Score:5, Informative)
In what way are rules forbidding communication with people in countries whose governments object to said communication beneficial to us? How are rules that prevent us from setting up amateur trunked systems beneficial to us? The rules are completely out of date, they hold us back, and they basically guarantee that big businesses that can pay for commercial licenses will dominate wireless communications.
It would be trivial to partition amateur bands into "classic" bands where the old rules apply, and "modern" bands that allow greater freedom. The rules do not have to prohibit all commercial transmissions, they can simply prohibit commercial "services" i.e. radio systems that are run for profit, so that we could set up packet radio systems that are useful and interesting.
Re:ITU regulations (Score:5, Insightful)
"Now, can you give the reasons why similar regulations couldn't be imposed on the Internet?"
Because you'd need international agreement?
I think that should be taken as a given, considering how many countries have national firewalls, how many countries block Tor, how many countries want to impose their own censorship on the Internet, and so forth. Again, how many countries objected to or refused to agree to the ITU's rules governing radio?
"What reason does the ITU have in supporting the Internet as it is today?"
The fact it's been a major factor in global economic growth and increasing globalisation?
The Internet philosophy of "any computer can be a service provider" is not a prerequisite of that. The ITU has every reason to require commercial operations on the Internet to have special registrations, and every reason to declare that "client" systems cannot act as service providers. The Internet would not look terribly different in such a case (people could simply rent hosting for small operations from registered service providers, etc.), and it would be a whole lot easier to regulate. It would also help rid the world of things like Tor, which the ITU has basically no reason to support and which plenty of countries have every interest in attacking.
"Please, keep regulatory bodies out of the Internet."
It's a bit late for that.
So you think we should add yet another regulatory body into the picture? At least now, the different nations have to try to impose their regulations without disconnecting themselves from the Internet, which is why censorship on the Internet is so difficult to enforce (not impossible, as China has shown, just difficult -- China expends quite a bit of effort on it, as do other countries with Internet censorship; it is not as easy as blocking particular websites and proxy servers). The ITU would be a global regulatory body, and would almost certainly try to require countries to respect each other's regulations -- which would mean that the free world would have to respect the censorship of countries like China, Ethiopia, and Saudi Arabia.
If we are going to have regulations on the Internet, I would prefer a system where the regulations are divergent and difficult to enforce.
"We should be working to return control of the Internet to its users, not to increase regulations on the Internet."
How does keeping it under US control assist in that goal when the US is going in the opposite direction?
It does not; moving control to the ITU would just make it more difficult to put control in the hands of the users.
"I do not want the Chinese government deciding how the Internet is governed, or having any say in the rules of the Internet."
Sure, and other people say the same about the US. Difference is that there is far more of them.
Only because the US does have so much control right now, and has already pissed people off. The US being in control of the Internet is not nearly as bad as the ITU would be, given that the US does not really care if China or Iran whine about how terrible it is to see political opinions online. The US has not even been able to establish a rudimentary national firewall because of the uproar; does that really seem worse than the Chinese government to you? Does that really seem worse than the ITU's regulations on other global communication systems?
The US could certainly do a better job, but it is light years ahead of the what the ITU would do, at least if you look at what the ITU does with radio. At least the US has not tried to force people to respect the national firewalls of countries like China.
Re:ITU regulations (Score:4, Interesting)
The ITU's rules are based on assumptions about the nature and role of communications services. It is not a stretch to think that ITU regulations would cement the role of commercial entities in providing online services, and the use of home Internet connections strictly for accessing those services.
Re:No way to enforce it? (Score:5, Insightful)
Stop right there. Many, perhaps most, of the "poorer nations of the world" aren't democratic. Letting each nation vote is not being democratic if the nations aren't ruled by their own people.
Re:No way to enforce it? (Score:5, Insightful)
Sorry, Mr. Shill of the Chinese Regime, you can't have it both ways. You can't blather on about how the US is opposing democracy in the WTO, then suddenly decide that democracy isn't all that important when talking about th member countries. If it's "ethnocentric" to insist on democracy at a national level, it's just as "ethnocentric" to insist on "one country, one vote" at the international level.
Re:FUD bad, ITU good. (Score:5, Insightful)
Only recently have things gotten to the point where traveling to a different country no longer requires renting a local mobile phone for the duration of your trip
Was there ever a point where connecting to the Internet required renting a computer during your trip? No, and we did not need the ITU for that.
Without the ITU, we'd still be in those old days
Yet as a result of the ITU, we have to pay cell phone companies for mobile Internet access, even if we have an amateur radio license. Why? Because the ITU's rules make it impossible to use packet radio to connect to the majority of websites and other online services in the world. So yeah, way to go ITU, keeping us in the those bad, "old" days where bureaucratic monopolies are the gatekeepers of our communications systems. Do you want to see the same sort of thing happen to the Internet -- you know, turning the Internet into a system where only commercial enterprises can run online services, because of ITU regulations?
That is not FUD; that is what the ITU does to communication systems. The ITU views non-commercial users as hobbyists, and sets up systems of regulation that (a) protect commercial interests and (b) prevent hobbyists from ever doing anything more than being hobbyists. Meanwhile, communications systems that the ITU did not touch allow (a) non-commcercial entities to run services and even become key players and (b) standards to be developed by the users, not just the bureaucracy and the commercial entities it supports.
No member state (i.e. country) will allow any wording to be agreed that requires it to do anything that it does not want to do, or otherwise jeopardizes its sovereignty.
Nice rule of thumb; now, here is an ITU rule that is law in the United States:
Section 97.111 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. Â97.111, authorizes an amateur station licensed by the FCC to exchange messages with amateur stations located in other countries, except with those in any country whose administration has given notice that it objects to such radio communications.
Yeah, way to go on that one ITU. I see no reason why the ITU would not try to impose such a rule on the Internet, if they were given the opportunity to do so. Again, this is not FUD, this is what the ITU has already done elsewhere.
that the same people who always spread FUD saying the UN is out to steal American sovereignty (can't happen, for the reasons I just described above) at the same time want control of the Internet to stay in American hands
Hi, I'm betterunixthanunix, and I want to see control of the Internet placed in the hands of it's users, not just some country, because the Internet is just a way for people to communicate and communication between people has nothing to do with sovereignty. If there is going to be a country that controls the Internet, I would rather it be a country that (a) has not even been able to establish a national firewall (b) has a legislature that has not been able to pass any key disclosure law and (c) is stuck in the "chipping away at free speech rights" stage (i.e. a country that has free speech rights in the first place). Letting questions of "sovereignty" come into this discussion legitimizes the censorship systems of countries like China, Ethiopia, and Saudi Arabia -- so to hell with their national interests, I will say what I want on the Internet and I am not going to spend a full nanosecond worrying about whether or not the governments of those countries might be offended.
If anything, upcoming discussions at the ITU might lead to more countries exercising their national sovereignty when it comes to the Internet
That's nice, but while you are busy working on helping countries exercise their sovereignty online (i.e. human rights abuses), I'll be busy helping people criticize their governmen
Re: (Score:2)
This is why I think the UN regulating the "Internet" may not be a bad thing. China and Russia will veto anything the USA wants and the USA will veto anything China and Russia want, nothing will actually happen and everyone wins. Even when everyone agrees there is no way to enforce anything, again everybody wins.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
China and Russia will veto anything the USA wants
Of course, pretty much everything on the Internet, except for some 20-year-old papers on particle physics from CERN, is there because somebody in the USA wanted it.
Google vs. Iran (Score:5, Funny)
Iran: Say, there Mr. Google, you owe us beellions and beelions of dollars.
Google: Who are you?
Iran: The Islamic Republic of Iran, that's who, now pay up.
Google: How about we pay you in Iranian rials.
Iran: Errr....no, no, we want dollars as our currency isn't worth very much right now.
Google: Okay, we'll get back to you on that.
Iran: Hey, you Mothers just removed Iran from Google Maps.
Google: Ooops, now who are you folks again?
Re:Google vs. Iran (Score:4, Informative)
"Iran: Errr....no, no, we want dollars as our currency isn't worth very much right now."
Must be an old joke. Iran dumped the Dollar for the Euro a couple of years ago.
http://www.dailymarkets.com/forex/2009/09/22/iran-replaces-the-us-dollar-with-the-euroand-so-it-begins/ [dailymarkets.com]
Re:Google vs. Iran (Score:4, Insightful)
Yeah, brilliant move I say.
DIAF (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
"The UN can kiss both sides of my rear - what have they actually done in the past 10-20 years that has actually been beneficial?"
You mean apart from ensure post can move between countries, international telephone calls can be routed, that international flights don't collide with each other, delivering aid and vaccination programmes to millions of people, coordinating international response to countless crises, ensuring important world heritage sites are designated as such, ruling on international disputes b
Re: (Score:3)
So you mean none of those things happened before the UN was founded in 1945 and none of them could happen without the UN? I don't think so. Those things happen because people or governments individually decide that they want to cooperate to make them happen. Often they actually don't happen because individual nations decide they can't or don't want to (or don't want to pay the price in blood and/or treasure to do so).
Here's a good example: telephone connectivity between Spain and Gibraltar was severely limi
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"My tax dollars shouldn't be paying for that stuff. To each their own - I shouldn't have to fund vaccine programs, education, international response, world heritage sites, international disputes, distributing funds, or working for better labor conditions in any country other than my own. Should I choose to do so, I'd make a difference by spending my money only on things that aren't part of nations that do things I'm against. " ...and yet, you expect other people to fund the police to protect you, the fire s
Re:DIAF (Score:4, Insightful)
My tax dollars shouldn't be paying for that stuff. To each their own - I shouldn't have to fund vaccine programs, education, international response, world heritage sites, international disputes, distributing funds, or working for better labor conditions in any country other than my own.
This is an odd statement to make. Let's say that you live in the US, you are a contributing member to many groups: your municipality, your county, your state, your country, your region (North America), NATO, WIPO, WTO, WHO, the World Bank, Interpol, the G8, the UN... and many more. The largest, of course, is the world. You are a human and live on this planet along with the rest of us. Most of these serve a purpose and non of those could operate without money.
You have, seemingly capriciously, set the boundary of your responsibility to your fellow man at the border of your country, which implicitly suggests that that responsibility does exist - you don't indicate that you're the "I got mine, fuck everyone else" sort. Instead you're saying "I got mine, fuck everyone who lives on this side of a line that I've decided exists at the border of my country instead of, say, at the border of my county." That doesn't seem odd to you? I think that's strange.
This is a first! (Score:5, Funny)
China trying to *prevent* malware.
Results of ITU control... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Results of ITU control... (Score:5, Funny)
Don't forget replacing TCP/IP with ATM and X.25.
Re: (Score:3)
Mixed feelings (Score:4, Interesting)
The malcontent within me actually looks forward to having the Internet governed by a coalition of China and a bunch of mufties. There are a lot of fools stumbling around the West that desperately need that experience.
No taxation without representation (Score:2)
No censorship either. Who the hell does the UN think it is? It doesn't represent the People of this planet. We don't even have a voice in the UN Assembly to make our objections be heard. And where's the UN Bill of Rights that forbids censorship of speech, the press, and expression?
The UN politicians are as honest as other men, not more so, and all the more dangerous since their power is not subject to the Elective control of the people, or the Shackles of a Constitution with enumerated rights. Time has
Re: (Score:3)
http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/ [un.org]
Re: (Score:2)
But the Declaration is exactly that - a declaration. It doesn't have the power of law and does not limit the UN's ability to..... for example..... pass a law forbidding websites that oppose Genetically-modified foods. OUR Bill of Rights says, "Congress shall pss no law abriding freedom of speech....." The UN does not have the equivalent, and therefore may pass any law they please.
Re: (Score:2)
You realize that the UN is, on the scale of things a relatively democratic body right? The UN by itself doesn't ever do anything, it's a handful of staff in a room. The "UN" is a collection of countries in the world with a 1 country, 1 vote system. There is then a practical realization that 5 countries in the world could fuck over plans of anyone else, and they get special treatment on matters related to security.
If the UN was fully democratic, say an election system by population, China and India would
Re:No taxation without representation (Score:4, Insightful)
The UN is a club for tired Marxist dictators who still dream of world domination.
It's well past time Americans threw it out of New York and sent it to a more appropriate location, like Zimbabwe.
Re: (Score:3)
We don't even have a voice in the UN Assembly to make our objections be heard.
The UN Assembly can maybe decide what condiments are allowed on the Secretary-General's sandwich without the approval of the Security Council. The Security Council can't lift a finger unless the US (which, based on your subject I'm assuming you're based in) government allows it to happen. So yes, your country's objections will be heard.
If you don't think your interests are represented by the US government, then that's a different sort of problem. But the US government can pretty much tell the UN to go to he
ITU == Little Known? (Score:5, Insightful)
What rock have you been living under?
Re: (Score:3)
What rock have you been living under?
Probably a non-technical one. IEEE and ANSI would probably also fall under the little-known category to them.
Another dupe (Score:5, Informative)
UN Takeover of Internet Must Be Stopped, US Warns [slashdot.org]
Posted by samzenpus on Fri Jun 01, '12 12:30 PM
samzenpus dupes himself with another run at this xenophobic scare piece.
Re: (Score:2)
Since it's over a month old, I wouldn't consider it a dupe. There are MANY people who never saw the original article. Also it covers different topics (per-click charges vs. speech censorship).
Get rid of the UN (Score:2)
Does the USA get affected? (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm a bit confused. Can the ITU in some technical manner remotely change how the Internet works inside the USA and Europe without our cooperation?
The three certain things... (Score:5, Insightful)
That would result in new fees to local governments and less access to traffic from U.S. "originating" companies such as Google, Facebook and Apple.
Ah, the truth wins out. They don't want to control the internet... they just want to tax the hell out of it.
Re: (Score:3)
No, actually, they want both. They just realize that actual control allows them to start charging for it.
Keep those old Dialup Modems! (Score:4, Funny)
UN is a worthless org. (Score:2)
I find it amusing that people who reject... (Score:3)
...overly powerful national governments often think the UN is a good idea.
What is the sum of many corruptions?
Not quite (Score:5, Insightful)
This isn't about giving control to the UN. This is not a UN vs US issue. It is a few countries that want further control of their part of the internet, and they see the current US ownership of mechanisms and institutions as an obstacle. They cannot directly and publicly confront the US to try to wrest control for themselves without international backlash. By using the UN as a pivot, their action can potentially gain legitimacy and bring about a dilution of power (thereby giving local actors more control). So by dressing it up as an issue of wanting to transfer more power from the US to the UN, they seek to accomplish two things: 1. launder their intentions with the name of the UN, and 2. embark on the first step in altering the status quo so as to ultimately remove existing checks to their power (mainly the US) to act unilaterally on their local nodes.
Why Not Talk About Real Threats to the Internet? (Score:4, Informative)
It's all about control (Score:2)
What happened to Internet 2.0? (Score:4, Insightful)
I think its time for a new Internet, the bureaucrats have ruined this one.
At least by creating a new Internet it will take 10 - 20 years before the politicians clue up that it exists and start legislation against its usage.
Surfing Long Distance (Score:3)
Russia and Iran propose new rules to measure Internet traffic along national borders and bill the originator of the traffic, as with international phone calls.
http://bash.org/?142934 [bash.org]
Remember when we used to joke about these things?
paranoia (Score:4, Insightful)
The typical US paranoia that anything not run by them is bad.
Sure, some countries want to do some things. As if there weren't tons of people, special interest groups and even political parties who want to spy, censor, become Big Brother, outlaw homosexuality and declare pi to be equal to 3.
Just because there are some crazies who want to do crazy things doesn't mean it'll happen. Writing your articles with such a focus is dishonest fearmongering. It would be trivial to write an identical article opposing US control of crucial Internet parts by pointing out some crazy demands by some dimwit backwater politician, of which there is no shortage.
First ... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:"Bill the originator of the traffic" (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Organizations have always known that they have to control communications to control the people. What governmental organizations are just realizing is that they need to take a bite of the wild-west shoot-em-up that is the internet if they want to remain relevant, and able to influence our thoughts and lives in any way.
Think about it - what good is an organization like the UN, who makes sure that counties can peaceably talk out their differences (in theory), work through international issues and work toward t
Re: (Score:2)
It's the opposite they pay there upstream for the connection more often than not. They can meter it now and send a bill even block access if it's not paid all without the UN or anything else outside there borders. They will be ignored of course since it's just a play to tax foreign companies and get hard currency. More eyeball networks trying to make themselves have power, they have yet to figure out that eyeballs will find ways to get the content anyways.
Re:Meh, the US already controls it (Score:5, Insightful)
Because they want regress the internet into a locally governed and very much controlled and filtered service. Remember that it's politicians that push for this, old and wrinkeled people that do not use internet for much themselves other than perhaps a archaic email client at work, they will never wish your well, they just want to stroke their ego by gaining more power, because in their minds, their _opinion_ equals divine truth.
The same is true in the US, but for once, the giant corporate lobby is against such intervention.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah and for every positive comment you make about some random old person, you can make it about me, a young person who's as smart as they come. You think intelligence is restricted to your generation, old timer? We all build on the generations that come before. The baby boomer generation in particular, however, "do not use internet for much themselves other than perhaps a archaic email client at work." Therefore it's reasonable to say that this generation by and large is out of touch with this whole intert
Re: (Score:2)
I'm pretty sure another country did that, within living memory. Now let me think, who was it...?
Re: (Score:2)
No more cheap Chinese goods or Japanese cars? You'll last six months at best.