Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
China The Internet

Following Huawei Report, US Rejects UN Telecom Proposals 150

Posted by Unknown Lamer
from the doubleplus-good-for-freedom dept.
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.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Following Huawei Report, US Rejects UN Telecom Proposals

Comments Filter:
  • How dare you! (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward

    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)

      by MightyMartian (840721) on Wednesday October 10, 2012 @09:17AM (#41607085) Journal

      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.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by cs2501x (1979712)
        Perhaps not necessarily. Most nations practice some kind of censorship to their media forms--and have since the dawn of their use. Content that a majority of individuals find objectionable, such as child exploitation images, are the low hanging fruit examples of such activities. It is the case, perhaps, that some countries feel the ideologies of others (including sexual expression, gender equality, etc) are in fact 'offensive'. When queried, many folks in China feel that censorship is actually good for the
        • Re:How dare you! (Score:5, Insightful)

          by poetmatt (793785) on Wednesday October 10, 2012 @09:39AM (#41607315) Journal

          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)

            by felipekk (1007591) on Wednesday October 10, 2012 @10:17AM (#41607807) Journal

            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...

            • by DarkOx (621550)

              voting involving several nations..

              and that would be far less democratic (at least for us in the USA) than it is now. Just look at what happens with the EC.

              Trust me Washing politicians would love nothing more than to be able to shield themselves from accountability to their electorate, by hiding behind the actions of some politician appointee at the UN, they can pretend to disagree with later.

              • by felipekk (1007591)

                I don't see a way to be less democratic than now, where one country "controls" something used by more than half the world's population.

                • by Anonymous Coward

                  The US only has control because everyone else wants to use the US's system. Any country could choose to replace DNS within their country. Look at China. They don't want to because that is work. They'd rather just take the existing system than build their own.

                • I don't see a way to be less democratic than now, where one country "controls" something used by more than half the world's population.

                  They can build their own. Considering the immense US-based public and private investment that has been made on everything Internet (from R&D to commercialization), I would say the US has every right to keep it under control.

                  You don't want it? Build your own interweebz infrastructure.

                  • by felipekk (1007591)

                    Sure, let's do our own and keep the US off from it.

                    I'm pretty sure it would do more harm to you than us...

            • by fikx (704101)
              The UN is an organization that lets governments of countries work out how to get along in the world...not the people of those countries, the governments. To me that's the import point and problem. The UN deals with the governments, not the people...so letting the UN make decisions is letting the governments (elected , tyrant, whatever) decide how the internet would work, not the people who actually want to use and benefit from it.
              the US may have a lot of problems (and getting worse) but at least it tries
          • Re:How dare you! (Score:4, Insightful)

            by Catbeller (118204) on Wednesday October 10, 2012 @10:19AM (#41607843) Homepage

            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.

            • by poetmatt (793785)

              That's not giving up control. that's giving up privacy. They are not the same. Even if they have backdoors into everything we still maintain control of the actual devices.

          • by rtb61 (674572)

            Oh crap and bullshit, it's all about who gets to profit from the core domain names and not just locally within individual markets but upon a global basis. No matter the delusions, the US will not retain control over the core domain names in other countries, that will inevitably come to an end. Not to forget any country that tortures, murders by remote control, ignores justice when even it suits and, enters into war based upon corporate greed can lay claim to freedom of anything. For the last forty years th

            • by cayenne8 (626475)

              Name the country who has killed more people than the US in the last decade or even 1 tenth that number.

              Yeah...but most of them had it coming.

              And not that they will be missed all that badly....

        • by Anonymous Coward

          There is a gradient here--and it's unfortunately slippery at both ends.

          What, are you saying that sliding/falling towards freedom is a bad thing? Screw that! And screw the Chinese, and anybody else who thinks censorship is a good thing. We must never let people like that ever have any control over any communication system. I don't care if they have a 99.999% of the majority. Censorship is bad, no matter what anybody thinks. We have to make the internet technically uncontrolable. No matter what it takes, and

        • by oic0 (1864384)
          In China when someone smiles and asks for your honest opinion on anything government related, you smile and agree. Its trained in to them in a country where anyone who sticks out gets nailed.
        • by DarkOx (621550)

          No there is no gradient here. I don't think any information or expression should be subject to censorship ever. Which is not to suggest the government can't or should not try and keep some state secrets.

          Even things like CP should not be restricted. Now the production of it should be illegal. It should constitute "rape of child" and it should probably be a capital crime; but the mere possession of a photo should not be.

      • Re:How dare you! (Score:4, Insightful)

        by damaki (997243) on Wednesday October 10, 2012 @09:24AM (#41607169)
        Why? Is my data safer when monitored by NSA made backdoors than by Chinese ones? Are the American ones of higher quality?
        • Re:How dare you! (Score:4, Insightful)

          by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 10, 2012 @09:35AM (#41607273)

          well, yes.

        • Re:How dare you! (Score:5, Interesting)

          by Samantha Wright (1324923) on Wednesday October 10, 2012 @09:36AM (#41607291) Homepage Journal
          Given that they cost somewhere in the vicinity of a billion dollars [wikipedia.org], I hope so?
        • by Anonymous Coward

          They have an interest in making sure your data is safe and not using it unless there are lives on the line, there is a diplomatic cost to using the data in any other case, so unless you are a terrorist they may gather but will not steal so obviously. Remember if you live in a democracy leaking the fact that they have been getting and using such data, except in the most vital cases, will hurt the American government, but not the Chinese ect. This does not mean that your data is safe with them, if you are

        • by Anonymous Coward

          Yes, your data is safer when monitored by the NSA. Because if the Internet is handed over to the UN, you will be monitored by the Russian government, the Chinese government, the Iranian government, the North Korean government, the Australian government, and any other government that wants to monitor you, i.e. all of them. And by the way, IT WILL STILL BE MONITORED BY THE NSA!

          I sure hope you weren't planning on saying anything bad about Mohammed. Or saying anything good about Nazis. Or mentioning Tiananm

          • Yes, your data is safer when monitored by the NSA. Because if the Internet is handed over to the UN, you will be monitored by the Russian government, the Chinese government, the Iranian government, the North Korean government, the Australian government, and any other government that wants to monitor you, i.e. all of them. And by the way, IT WILL STILL BE MONITORED BY THE NSA!

            I sure hope you weren't planning on saying anything bad about Mohammed. Or saying anything good about Nazis. Or mentioning Tiananmen Square. Or calling Taiwan a country. Or browsing for porn. Because these would all be illegal once the UN took control.

            I don't like what the US has done with its stewardship over the Internet, but I see it as the lesser of far more than two evils.

            Whilst I hate the idea of being monitored, if we're going to assume that we're going to be monitored whatever we do, I would prefer the playing field to be levelled - if the US gets to monitor everyone then so should everyone else.

        • Re:How dare you! (Score:4, Insightful)

          by Hentes (2461350) on Wednesday October 10, 2012 @10:25AM (#41607947)

          Simple monitoring can be circumvented by encryption, and opensource software is safe from backdoors. It's much easier to defend against spying than censorship.

      • by Anonymous Coward

        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.

        I am European (Greek) and i trust USA way more than China and Saudi Arabia, but i also trust some European countries, some of them more than the USA - so i think the internet will be safer in American AND European hands.

      • Re:How dare you! (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Catbeller (118204) on Wednesday October 10, 2012 @09:35AM (#41607279) Homepage

        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.

        • All true... and back to the question that matters.

          What power would you rather be ruled by?
          The Americans, The Chinese, The Russians, The Arabs?

          Yeah, sorry... I'm still going with the Americans.
          Perhaps there is a utopia out there somewhere where power is distributed and no one rules. Until that time, the best we as people can do is keep perspective to choose the best power to rule us.

          Heck, I'd even choose the Americans over the EU. The Americans value free speech more than than EU who'd probably move quickl

          • Decentralized DNS would inevitably bring back the late 90's market of snatching up and hoarding domain names and hawking them on ebay for millions. Want to pick up a new domain name for your business, but somebody else already has it with just a website that says "this domain is for sale"? I hope you have really good financing.

            Or worse, when somebody loses their domain key, then nobody gets that domain. And when computers get fast enough to forge those keys in short order (maybe not at the time of their cre

          • by BenoitRen (998927)

            Heck, I'd even choose the Americans over the EU. The Americans value free speech more than than EU who'd probably move quickly to ban offensive speech.

            What world are you living in? The EU isn't China.

            • Offensive speech is already banned in many European nations. Germany, for example, has penalties of up to a year in jail for insulting someone, and up to three years in jail for insulting religions like Christianity and Islam. And, yes, these laws are being enforced.

              • by BenoitRen (998927)

                What are you talking about? Please provide sources and citations because it sounds like you're talking out of your ass, just like when you talked about European democracy [slashdot.org].

                • What are you talking about? Please provide sources and citations because it sounds like you're talking out of your ass

                  http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beleidigung [wikipedia.org]

                  http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beschimpfung_von_Bekenntnissen,_Religionsgesellschaften_und_Weltanschauungsvereinigungen [wikipedia.org]

                  because it sounds like you're talking out of your ass, just like when you talked about European democracy

                  Those statements were correct as well. Here is a page that summarizes the data pretty well (it points to sources):

                  http://www.stop- [stop-kirch...ntionen.de]

        • Re:How dare you! (Score:5, Insightful)

          by rabtech (223758) on Wednesday October 10, 2012 @10:28AM (#41608003) Homepage

          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".

          • I hate to break it to you but you can't take over something you invented and were the primary driver of. ... Given all the options, and much like democracy as a form of government, US control seems like the "least worst".

            You're close, but the generalizing hides some important internal distinctions. The Internet was used in the early years by US universities for research (basic science and technology, some of it military related), governed by an attitude of sharing that is fundamental to science. However, that has since shifted to include significant usage and governing by politics and business. Politicians and businesses do not operate on the free sharing that science does. Thus "US control" means different things to differ

        • DNS is centralised by nature. It has to be. Someone has to be in charge to decide who owns what domain. That is why it should go. The concept of domain names is wonderfully useful, but also far too controllable. There are other ways to run a network. Copy-paste is a useful thing.
        • every country in the world does bad things. you have to quantify

          legal and social status of political expression is dramatically freer in the US than in china

          legal and social status of sexual expression is definitely freer in the US than in china

          perfect in the USA? absolutely not. are there some countries that do better than the USA? yes. on some kinds of expression, not all

          such that keeping control of the internet in the USA is a good option if you are concerned with internet freedoms. the best option? mayb

      • by Anonymous Coward

        [Citation needed]

        To be fair, as a European, I'd much rather live in the US than in say China or Saudi Arabia, but that comment the parent quoted really does make me vomit just a little as well. It seems all our governments are very much into spying on their citizens (and everyone else, really), and while I have no doubt the US' reasons for it are far less sinister than China's, but I still feel like it's a false argument. Also, the UN doesn't exactly equate to "the likes of China and Saudi Arabia".

      • 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.

        =======
        Lets hope that the Clandestine monitoring will not be discovered. After the election, we could hear about a reversal in the monitoring, to where it will be deemed as open.

    • 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.

      Well, maybe you should read this proposal by China Mobile [ietf.org] to split up the internet via "DNS Extension." Aside from the obvious criticisms [domainincite.com] and assuming we just blindly said "yeah, sure, China, whatever you want" let me ask you this: Will the situation improve for US citizens? Will the situation get worse for Chinese citizens? I think you have to agree that the answers to those questions are no and yes. Whether or not the United States spies on its own citizens is nothing more than an ad hominem attack to

    • Re:How dare you! (Score:4, Informative)

      by macraig (621737) <`mark.a.craig' `at' `gmail.com'> on Wednesday October 10, 2012 @09:36AM (#41607289)

      Why is this marked as Troll, when the Congress of the United States passed a law, which the President then signed, that granted legal immunity to American telecom corporations for illegally conspiring with the NSA and other agencies to monitor and collect the communications of the entire nation? How exactly is that so very different from what is alleged that Huawei and ZTE are or might be doing?

      The not so implicit point of the parent comment is that the United States would like to maintain its "right" to monitor and track and control and deny the ability to any other government that it perceives as hostile. Isn't that quite hypocritical of this government to consider other governments as hostile when it is repeatedly treating its own citizens as hostile with excessive secrecy, acts of Congress, Presidential orders, creation of whole new intelligence bureaucracies, legitimization of wiretapping, and more?

  • by Anonymous Coward

    So let me get this straight. The US is only against NONDEMOCRATIC countries that officially and openly spy on their citizens. If you give your citizens what appears to be a choice every four years, then it's OK to spy on them.

  • yeah, right (Score:5, Insightful)

    by hype7 (239530) <u3295110.anu@edu@au> on Wednesday October 10, 2012 @09:22AM (#41607145) Journal

    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.'"

    yeah, because the US would never do that [wired.com].

  • They can go suck eggs. Or create their own alternate internet.

    • by cs2501x (1979712)
      There is no internet without the voluntary collaboration of networks.
    • by Cimexus (1355033) on Wednesday October 10, 2012 @09:30AM (#41607223)

      "the UN countries"?

      Isn't that, like, almost every country? Including the US?

    • by Chrisq (894406)

      They can go suck eggs. Or create their own alternate internet.

      Seriously the fact that they might do this is one reason why you want a generally accepted governance. At the moment you remove piratebay from a DNS server and everyone is affected. If each company has its own DNS servers then you just remove it from one country and have to get court orders all over the place. Your email to sheila@hotgirls.com might get to one person if you are in the USA but someone entirely different in Europe if the web is fragmented.

      • Your email to sheila@hotgirls.com might get to one person if you are in the USA but someone entirely different in Europe if the web is fragmented.

        It wouldn't be the end of the world. In the US it will go to sheila@hotgirls.com.us and in Italy to sheila@hotgirls.com.it (or sheila@hotgirls.com.eu if they can get their act together), with sheila@hotgirls.com being nothing more than a (local) shortcut that refers to whatever country your in. Kind of like leaving off the domainname on intranet.
        But since none of the Sheilas will be female, it doesn't really matter.

  • IOIIITUSA (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Catbeller (118204) on Wednesday October 10, 2012 @09:25AM (#41607173) Homepage

    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.'"

    What... sheer... motherfucking... hypocrisy...

    IOIIITUSA : It's OK if it's the USA

    • Sure. However, from business standpoint, using network gear with a built-in backdoor to the PRC is probably not a great idea assuming you want to hold on to your IP, or otherwise wish to limit your network attack surface. Chinese espionage costs the US around 1 trillion dollars article here. I'm not certain over what period of time, but for any reasonable length of time, that's pretty bad in the aggregate, and downright awful for individual companies. I think it's apples and oranges, granting that both fr
      • article here [times247.com]
      • by sFurbo (1361249)
        As opposed to an american one, where the NSA probably have a backdoor and is eager to help with industrial spionage? I know, if I get one where the hardware is made in China and the software in the US, my company can get spied on by BOTH the US competition AND the Chinese competition!
  • "makes it very easy for nations to monitor traffic."

    Mr. Kettle, you are black. Sincerely,
    Mr. Pot.

    P.S. We need all you nations that are worried about dissent to worry about copyright infringement instead.
  • Fuck off (Score:5, Informative)

    by Aryden (1872756) on Wednesday October 10, 2012 @09:31AM (#41607243)
    I'm still trying to understand this "hand over" thing. How do you hand over an abstract? DO all server farms and cloud services have to move to Switzerland?
  • Thank goodness those US telecoms stand up for their customers' constitutional rights! They'd never stand for unconstitutional surveillance on their networks!

  • Dear U.S, UN and the ITU.

    We, the rest of the world, are tired of you screwing with us, so we are moving everything over to Bitcoin and Namecoin.

  • Instead monitoring traffic on behalf of corporations to find out who's watching the latest 30 Rock without paying Hulu is perfectly acceptable.
  • I haven't seen or heard of any instances where America has harassed, persecuted, censored, or arrested ANYBODY because of the opinions they expressed online, or the information they spread. This is not the case in China: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship_in_the_People's_Republic_of_China#Arrests [wikipedia.org] [wikipedia]. Why would anybody in their right mind want to give even the smallest bit of control to those whose track records have a history of abuse of power?
    • by Cigarra (652458)
      Here [huffingtonpost.com]:

      the government put Mehanna away for ... translating a book (a 2003 Saudi text, 39 Ways to Serve and Participate in Jihad, that was "intended to incite people to engage in violent jihad"); distributing a video showing the brutal treatment of dead U.S. military personnel in retaliation for a rape in Iraq; and giving a friend a film about jihadi fighters...

      Sentenced to 17.5 years in prison for spreading information. Sorry for bursting your bubble, but it had to be done. The US of A you think about it doesn't exist anymore.

    • by Arker (91948)

      I haven't seen or heard of any instances where America has harassed, persecuted, censored, or arrested ANYBODY because of the opinions they expressed online, or the information they spread.

      Then google Brandon J. Raub.

    • by Xest (935314)

      Hi.

      Have you heard of Julian Assange?

      Kim Dotcom?

      Any of The Pirate Bay folks?

      Any of the muslims who have just been extradited to the US despite breaking no UK law for exactly the reasons you cite?

      Unfortunately, just because you haven't heard of such things in your little world, doesn't mean they don't happen.

  • OK, I am far from a supporter of many things the U.S. government does or wants to do online. That said, the level of democracy that does exist, combined with public pressure in the U.S., and in the European Union, for that matter, has made it possible to block things like SOPA. Things don't work that way in countries like Russia and China, and there's no way I want the governments of those two countries to have the power to decide how the Internet works for everyone else. It's a non-starter. So what's your
  • The internet is under US control because the US invented it. Geez. If other countries don't like the fact that the US controls DNS, they should invent their own internet. This is sort of like how the Europeans are creating Galileo as they don't like the US control of GPS. Good for them.

    I'm speaking as a non-American, but it seems to me that it's the Americans' right to keep control of DNS, as it's theirs.
    • by Anonymous Coward

      The internet is under US control because the US invented it.

      That's why cars are globally controlled by the Germans ...

    • The internet is under US control because the US invented it. Geez. If other countries don't like the fact that the US controls DNS, they should invent their own internet

      I guess the US will be inventing their own world wide web then?

  • by rickb928 (945187) on Wednesday October 10, 2012 @10:18AM (#41607815) Homepage Journal

    "'makes it very easy for nations to monitor traffic"

    This is already easy in the U.S. Just ask the carrier(s) to give you some closet (literally) space, and you're in business.

    Sadly, we now live in a technologically enabled world. where if it's possible, it is considered both acceptable and dutiful to do so. Kinda like the earlier days of the Internet when courts started posting documets online. These were always poubic records, but the hassle of going to the court office and the gatekeepers there kept much of this out of easy view. There are a few sites out there that make a living exposing this public but obscure data. And sometimes, someone gets all wee-wee'd up that this 'got posted'.

    Then again, our police are engaged in a massive expansion of surrveilance, just because it got affordable and relatively innocuous.

    We are going to have to limit that, somehow.

    Most of the rest of the world has little if any options for addressing such grievances. I'm not inclined to give them the pwoer to make policy worldwide. Bad enough they do it to their people.

    • by joshio (950759)
      Yes, the US has regulations in place that require carriers provide "lawful intercept", which the government can use for pretty much anything whether it's actually lawful or not. But, guess what? This still requires carrier interaction, so the US can't spy on anyone and everyone around the globe just because they "own" the Internet. We can probably still spy on our Allies, assuming those countries ask their carriers to comply with US government regulations.

      On the other hand, if Hauwei or ZTE are actually b
  • So go along with all the posts expressing suprise that the United States' Government would be on the side of privacy in a debate. I have found the way to manipulate politicians into protecting internet privacy. Just say China and Russia are against privacy... ARE YOU?

    • by rickb928 (945187)

      Wow. Just wow.

      the US is *not* on the side of privacy on this one, just on the side of not having to defy the inevitable UN mandate to build the back doors into everything, or get labelled somehow.

      As if we care much what the UN does anyways, they are ineffective and dominated by the worst influences on the planet.

      Yes, there are worse gummints than the US. And they run teh UN. Lulz. Until we stop paying the rent for the place.

  • I insist my hypocrisy be labeled 'Made in the USA'!

Sigmund Freud is alleged to have said that in the last analysis the entire field of psychology may reduce to biological electrochemistry.

Working...