Following Huawei Report, US Rejects UN Telecom Proposals 150
jjp9999 writes "The Epoch Times reports that on Monday, the same day the Intelligence Committee released its report cautioning against Chinese telecom companies Huawei and ZTE, the U.S. said it will reject major changes to telecom at the World Administrative Telegraph and Telephone Conference in Dubai this December. The UN conference will be the first of its kind since 1988, and its members are pressing the U.S. to hand control of governing the Internet over to the International Telecommunication Union (ITU). Huawei and ZTE are both members of the ITU. Terry Kramer, the U.S. special envoy to the conference, said the US opposes proposals from some of the 'nondemocratic nations' that include tracking and monitoring content and user information, which 'makes it very easy for nations to monitor traffic.'"
How dare you! (Score:1, Insightful)
Terry Kramer, the U.S. special envoy to the conference, said the US opposes proposals from some of the 'nondemocratic nations' that include tracking and monitoring content and user information, which 'makes it very easy for nations to monitor traffic.'"
This quote is so rife with arrogance that it makes me vomit, coming from a
government that does nothing but blatantly spend money and spy on it's people.
Re:How dare you! (Score:5, Insightful)
And yet the Internet is still safer in American hands than being handed over lock, stock and barrel to the UN. As bad as the US may be on occasion, it's still better than handing the keys over to the likes of China and Saudi Arabia.
yeah, right (Score:5, Insightful)
yeah, because the US would never do that [wired.com].
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:How dare you! (Score:4, Insightful)
IOIIITUSA (Score:5, Insightful)
What... sheer... motherfucking... hypocrisy...
IOIIITUSA : It's OK if it's the USA
Re:How dare you! (Score:4, Insightful)
well, yes.
Re:How dare you! (Score:5, Insightful)
Ask Wikileaks, Assange, and anyone who supported them financially about how much better it is. "Better" depends entirely on whether or not you are fucking with American power. The Chinese do the same with whomever fucks with their power. This is about an empire taking over the internet at its core. DNS and so many other things should be decentralized and encrypted. No power base in the world will let that happen - they need to monitor us to maintain power.
Re:How dare you! (Score:5, Insightful)
The second the internet leaves US control (as much as spying is idiotic and unacceptable), even the concept of free speech is over. Instantly.
So think about how internet is in russia, china? If they hand control over you get that globally. So basically the US needs to stop doing a shit job managing the internet - but giving it up to the UN will make things worse.
Re:How dare you! (Score:4, Insightful)
That is an article of faith. However, it is baldly evident that it no longer is uncontrolled. The internet has been brought to heel, and will soon be locked down to the atomic level.
Quantum computing will come after that, and there will no longer be Too Many Secrets, Marty, because they will be able to crack any key-based encryption. This is a long game.
There will be encrypted comm, of course, using quantum-entangled computers, but WE will never see that. It will, by the mechanics of power, be reserved for the government and associated corporations to use. One law for me, and another for thee.
The end result will be a prison for us, with guarded, monitored, recorded internet services, and a closed secret world for our, let's just say it, masters. We've the social and governmental DNA for it already; we've already accepted secret wars and blacked-out war zones. We're okay with phone and car tracking. There's nothing to stop this.
Re:How dare you! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:How dare you! (Score:5, Insightful)
Yours sincerely,
Europe.
Re:How dare you! (Score:4, Insightful)
So think about how internet is in russia, china? If they hand control over you get that globally.
Well, that escalated quickly... Why do you think that? We're closer to having that right now where is the government of one country that controls everything than if it is given to the UN, where they'd go through a voting involving several nations...
Re:How dare you! (Score:4, Insightful)
Chinese companies make almost every circuit board, CPU, and radio comm chip in the world. They've had backdoors in "your" internet for over a decade. This happened in the name of reducing labor costs and breaking unions, and increasing profits for American companies. Now we really don't "control" anything with electrons flipping about anymore. You don't ever know what hidden capabilities are built into devices; they could lie hidden, sleepers, until needed. So who controls what is moot. We gave up control a long time ago.
Re:How dare you! (Score:4, Insightful)
Simple monitoring can be circumvented by encryption, and opensource software is safe from backdoors. It's much easier to defend against spying than censorship.
Re:How dare you! (Score:5, Insightful)
Ask Wikileaks, Assange, and anyone who supported them financially about how much better it is. "Better" depends entirely on whether or not you are fucking with American power. The Chinese do the same with whomever fucks with their power. This is about an empire taking over the internet at its core. DNS and so many other things should be decentralized and encrypted. No power base in the world will let that happen - they need to monitor us to maintain power.
I hate to break it to you but you can't take over something you invented and were the primary driver of. Many other countries have made huge contributions but the Internet was invented in the USA and it was US universities, companies, etc that made it what it is today.
The open nature of the Internet is due to the open nature of US and other western universities, along with some of the strongest free-speech protections to be found in any country of similar size or position.
Given all the options, and much like democracy as a form of government, US control seems like the "least worst".