UN Considering Control of the Internet 402
Dangerous_Minds writes "News has surfaced in the wake of the WikiLeaks story that the United Nations is mulling total inter-government regulation of the internet. The initiative was spearheaded by Brazil and supported by other countries including India, China, Saudi Arabia and South Africa. Drew Wilson of ZeroPaid commented that while the Cablegate story may be bad, attempting to destroy WikiLeaks would only make matters worse for various governments around the world, given what happened when the music industry shut down Napster ten years ago."
global standards for policing the internet (Score:5, Insightful)
Otherwise known as least common denominator. Say what you want about the US, but do you really want China and Saudi Arabia defining global internet standards?
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Lowest common denominator sounds nice. The set of regulations that all nation states can agree on should be fairly lightweight, and the decision making process involved in keeping it up to date far less agile than the network itself. Now if governments also agree not to add their own layers on top this would be total win.
Re:global standards for policing the internet (Score:4, Insightful)
Indeed. It's a good thing that we can't agree on anything at all, or I would be worried.
One thing they can agree on (Score:4, Interesting)
There's one thing every government in the world can agree to ban from the Internet:
Classified government documents.
Second most likely to be banned is corporate trade secrets, third most likely is child porn, fourth is unauthorized copyrighted material and cicumvention tools, and fifth is pics of Mohammed.
Re:global standards for policing the internet (Score:5, Insightful)
Lowest common denominator sounds nice. The set of regulations that all nation states can agree on should be fairly lightweight,
You are assuming they start with an "allow everything" policy. If they start with a "deny everything" policy then "the set of regulations that all nation states can agree on should be fairly lightweight" will result with a very heavily restricted internet.
Re: (Score:3)
well, you can enjoy that all you want, but I'll take P2P DNS.
Re:global standards for policing the internet (Score:4, Insightful)
The UN cannot tie its own shoe laces. This will only justify the creation of a government approved 'regulation' process, which is often referred to as cencorship.
The Internet was nice while it lasted.
Re:global standards for policing the internet (Score:4, Insightful)
The Internet was nice while it lasted.
If the difficulty US law enforcement has had in policing child pornography on the Internet is any indication, any mandated censorship is going to be very difficult to pull off. Every so often, people will get busted, but for the most part free speech online will be difficult to kill. Let them try to censor the Internet; we'll just see an age of common people learning more and more about cryptography, steganography, and computer security.
Not that I think the Internet would be a nice place if everyone had to take those sorts of measures to protect their freedom of speech.
Re:global standards for policing the internet (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Add in some modern stuff like mesh network via built in wireless networking cards and pringle cans, and a dash of old stuff like UUCP [wikipedia.org] and any control of the internet would be fleeting at best.
Re: (Score:2)
global standards for policing the internet
Otherwise known as least common denominator. Say what you want about the US, but do you really want China and Saudi Arabia defining global internet standards?
I'd answer that but I'm being held in isolation, without bail, on trumped up rape charges, sorry.
Re: (Score:2)
If I know politicians, there will be compromises that make both parties happy, but that make all of us less free. We'd agree to China's speech restrictions (no more mentioning Tiananmen Square, for example) and they would agree to tighten the clamp on IP protection in their country. Their government would walk away happy that everyone will only know the Chinese Government's account of Tiananmen Square (nothing happened) and our government will walk away happy (reporting "Mission Accomplished" to their lob
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
China and Saudi Arabia and the US and North Korea and South Korea and Liechtenstein and Mexico and Canada and Australia and Britian and France and New Zealand and Japan and Russia and Sweden and Finland and Greenland and all other UN member states, yes.
Actually? No.
Zero policing is what I want.
Child porn, Islamic terrorists, Joe not-so-much-of-an-sex-pack? Sure.
I can decide where I spend my time myself.
Re:global standards for policing the internet (Score:5, Insightful)
US - China - North Korea - France - Australia - Britain -
Aren't these the countries always hitting YRO for opressive initiatives?
Re:global standards for policing the internet (Score:5, Interesting)
Only until the UN allows then to block these kinds of stories.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
It hilarious because for the most part western nations are trying to restrict things that most people agree should be restricted. They sometimes go to far but for the most part they get ruled in by their own laws. In other words every once and a while they try and go too far.
China and NK both have succeeded in their repression.
Re: (Score:3)
It hilarious because for the most part western nations are trying to restrict things that most people agree should be restricted.
Just from your list I could single out gambling (US) and not-child-porn-but-we’re-banning-it-anyway (Australia already, US appears to be headed in that direction); Britain has basically made it illegal to have data on your hard drive that looks like it could be encrypted data but which you don’t have (or won’t give the authorities) a password for...
China and NK both have succeeded in their repression.
He never said they were all equally repressive. The fact that some of the countries he mentioned are already much more repressive is beside th
Re: (Score:3)
Gambling isn't a freedom of speech issue. It is a taxation issue. One doesn't express ones self in online poker.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:global standards for policing the internet (Score:5, Interesting)
To be fair, a lot of right-wingers want government control of the Internet also. They just differ on what they want controlled. The religious right would love it if everything "harmful to children" (read: anything inappropriate for a 5 year old to read) was taken off the Internet. They've tried multiple times to get laws passed enforcing this but it has always been struck down in the courts. (This coming from the father of a 7 year old and a 3 year old... I'll police how my kids use the Internet, I don't need the government to do my job for me!)
Stop that! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:global standards for policing the internet (Score:5, Insightful)
Agreed, it's YOUR job as a parent, not the government. It's YOUR choice what you think is appropriate, not the government. When my kids were still young, there were NC-17 movies I didn't mind them seeing, while at the same time there were PG-13 movies I thought were too violent for them.
I didn't mind them watching Cheech and Chong with me (especially the ones with Pee Wee Herman, they loved his kid show on Saturday mornings, and so did I), but I wouldn't let them watch the "sanitized for TV" (read "dirty words and sex scene cut out") version of the Terminator.
Who would want their kids having nightmares?
Protecting children from economic predators (Score:3)
"The war play dilemma: what every parent and teacher needs to know"
http://books.google.com/books?id=-loYzCV11JcC [google.com]
It mentions an unholy alliance from Reagan administration media deregulation leading to boys being saturated with violent content 24X7 between media, food, toys, and apparel.
The version for girls:
"So Sexy So Soon: The New Sexualized Childhood and What Parents Can Do to Protect Their Kids"
http://books.google.com/books?id=O7NrhdwTeCkC [google.com]
Good luck. At least these two books will help you understand what
Re: (Score:3)
You either have a ridiculous amount of things to freely say or you're not really using Usenet for freedom-of-speech stuff.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe he prefers HD to SD. A 720p H.264 movie takes at least 4GB, and many takes 6GB+. 1080p takes even more.
And while I'm not a avid downloader, 39GB seems awfully limited. I guess I'm spoiled by my unlimited 10mbps package for about $30 (it's $60, but it comes with cable TV and phone with unlimited calls to landlines plus 120 free minutes to cellphones per month. The free calls already pay for the remaining $30).
700MB per film? (Score:2)
You must be downloading movies (125GB/700MB == ~150 movies)?
Who acquires 700MB rips anymore? Torrent users?
Last I checked, being able to "archive" to a CD-R isn't really top priority for anyone who enjoys and likely few who contribute to the scene. The scene is about providing or acquiring the same content you would normally get in a **AA approved package, only with better compatibility, picture quality, and freedom of use.
When the scene ceases to provide (for free, I might add) a better product than the morons that produce the product through legitimate distrib
Napster was ten years ago? (Score:2, Informative)
Holy crap, I'm old!
How much more (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Unless "normal people" is code for people who agree with you 100% of the time, no. After all normal people can't set their DVR to record a show, or find a printer on a network. You want "normal people" to decide how technology should be used?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
But normal people don't want freedom. Normal people don't want to live without the intervention of masters - they want to be the masters who "help" all those other poor unfortunates out there. You want freedom to choose. Most people are paralyzed with choice, and elect politicians who offer them freedom from choice. Not because th
Re:How much more (Score:5, Interesting)
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." - C.S. Lewis
Interesting quote. Here is another similar, but even more revealing, statement by Lewis: "The baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity at some point may be sated; and since he dimly knows he is doing wrong he may possibly repent" (from Reflections on the Psalms, Chapter 3.).
We have seen over the last half century a revolution in American political philosophy - that of self-justifying wealth. Ayn Rand style Objectivism/Libertarianism holds that self-interest is the highest moral principle and altruism is evil; wealth is proof of moral rectitude, and poverty is proof of sloth and moral degeneracy. This philosophy has provided us with the perfection of the robber baron, now dominating American political life - cupidity that is never satiated, and extinguishing all moral doubt. Wealth is virtue; there can be nothing wrong with how the wealthy acquire or use their wealth; there is nothing to repent, and thus there is no possibility that the robber baron will change.
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks for all that elitist bullshit about how stupid the commoners are
Please go read some Youtube comments and Yahoo! Answers! [somethingawful.com] for an hour.
Re:How much more (Score:5, Insightful)
He didn't say stupid. He said followers. Most people are followers. It's a reasonably well established fact of the pack dynamic. Under the right circumstances nearly anyone becomes a follower. Have you ever noticed that most groups, no matter how loosely organized, have leaders? From a gang of kids, to a raid group in an MMO, to a multibillion dollar company, if there's no one in charge, we put someone in charge. Depending on their personal charisma and the institutional nature of the group in question they may answer to rest of the group to one extent or another, but they're still "in charge". Even when the group rises up against the leader, the usual result isn't "no leader" it's a new leader.
We're hard wired to want someone in charge. Some of us want to be in charge, and some don't, but we all feel better if there is some one who is in charge. Of course we're all different, we want to have have various relationships with authority (possessing it, being close to it, being ignored by it, etc), and a very few of us would actually prefer to live completely outside of it, but in general its existence makes the vast majority of us happy.
Their greatest trick... (Score:4, Insightful)
Their greatest trick has been making you believe that you aren't in control already, if you live in the United States. They thrive on your apathy. They rejoice whenever some new mindless form of entertainment takes over. That's why Iran left gaming lines open [kotaku.com] during their crackdown of democracy.
Personally, I have no pity for the American public. We are receiving the democracy we are asking for, which is "whatever the powerful are willing to give me." The Tea Party just re-elected the only party that openly expresses more support for millionaires than it does for the middle class. The guy in the House who plays a major part in our environmental policy also quotes from Genesis to avoid discussion of the impact of climate change, because God promised that he wouldn't flood the earth again. (Despite some more barbaric claims in Revelation that He will indeed come back to destroy the world, and the claim that the rainbow is a symbol of God's promise, instead of a result of light refraction.)
Regular Joes can't be bothered to give a shit about extrajudicial assassination, or trillions of dollars wasted on war. Until they can address those sorts of issues, I'm afraid the openness of the internet will be easy fodder for elite control.
Re: (Score:3)
Please stop copying ad hominem politics from everyone on talk radio.
Re: (Score:3)
These people have worked hard to get where they are and I do not believe they should have to pay a higher percentage of tax because they are sucessful.
For myself, it comes down to civic duty -- everyone should feel the same amount of "pain" of supporting government. It should be just as much of a hassle, just as much of a burden for the rich as it is for the poor, and $1000 less from a poor person's salary is far far more damaging to them than it is for a rich person.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm getting that you are saying just because someone makes more money that they should pay a higher percent of that money in taxes. I don't agree with this on a fundamental level, for even at the same rates they are already paying more in taxes than someone who makes less money.
Is taking $10,000 away from someone who makes $30,000 more unjust than taking $400,000 away from someone who makes $1,000,000?
If they pay enough of a higher percentage what is the point of trying to better oneself as the gains quickly dwindle and the extra effort is more and more for not. In the end this line of thought is ultimately self defeating and will eventually lead to collapse, unless you can find a new source of income as the "rich" will not always be "rich".
Tax rates in the 50s were 90% for the top tier. America still had rich people willing to work hard then.
On your statement of rich Americans being traitors you need to define you definition of "rich". All to often to may people blame the "rich". If you poll pretty much any American they will consider those who make usually not that much more then themselves as rich, and thus being "rich" takes on a different meaning to different people.
I define it as the top 10% of income earners in the United States, who wield disproportional power and change tax laws to their own benefit.
Re: (Score:2)
Can we not have a "normal people's congress" on the internet or something?
No, we can't. As we should well know, when it comes to Internet voting, the whole thing is wildly inaccurate. Rounding errors, ballot stuffers, dynamic IPs, firewalls. If you're using these numbers to do anything important, you're insane.
And even more so with politics, where big bucks are at stake and evil bastards trying to snag as much of that cash as possible through possibly illegitimate means. For instance, a corporate employer could require that their employees log a vote for the position that the cor
Re: (Score:2)
We^h^hThey call themselves Anonymous
Re:How much more (Score:5, Insightful)
Can we not have a "normal people's congress" on the internet or something.
The problem with The People is that it consists of, well, people. This is something revolutionary do-gooders have come face to face with many times throughout history; and ordinary people aren't highminded, good or noble, they are just average. They don't care all that much for liberty when it comes to it, they are not all that concerned about democracy or justice in general. They just want life to be relatively easy to live from day to day.
Don't you realise that your democracy and your Congress etc were once exactly the "normal people's democracy/congress"? Only, normal people don't care enough to take part, so it always ends like this, and that is the fundamental problem we have to solve.
Apart from that - what kind of ordinary people did you have in mind? What if it turned out that what a large majority really wanted was to to ban firearms? Or were in favour of something you would find intolerable - would you still want that kind of democracy? Ordinary people are not necessarily nice.
Re:How much more (Score:5, Insightful)
@Darkman, Walkin Dude
But then from so many diplomatic leaks, regardless of what we think of the leaks, one fact remains. We now have absolute confirmation our control freak governments (in almost every country) lie endlessly to us (so our leaders can get their own way and so they show they don't really work for us), yet they say they represent us even though their actions prove they are really seeking to deceive us. That isn't Democracy. It shows we are really dealing with an increasingly Authoritarian lying greedy Kleptocracy which is increasingly showing signs of becoming an outright Totalitarian Dictatorship. Worse still its becoming a global problem.
But then the act of seeking power over someone else, is the act of seeking to dictate their will over the wishes of others. So is it any wonder people who seek power over others end up seeking to dictate their will over us on the Internet. After all, the Internet is helping to highlight how much our power hungry leaders lie to us and so don't really represent us. They know if we see the truth, we can argue against them, so they lie to us, for their own greedy gain.
If that isn't bad enough, here's a shocking dictionary definition that shows how bad our lying greedy leaders actions really are against all of us. See if you can guess the word it defines. "A violation of allegiance to one's sovereign or to one's state. The betrayal of a trust or confidence; breach of faith; treachery." The word it defines is Treason. Its shocking to think of it, but our leaders really our in complete betrayal of our trust and confidence; breach of faith; treachery against their entire country, all for their own greedy gain. They really are showing acts of Treason!. They don't represent us, even though they say they do, when they want us to vote them into power.
Some countries still have the death sentence for Treason. So is it any wonder more people are getting angry at all our leaders in most countries and why our leaders seek to control the Internet even more, to cut off ways for us to see the truth and discuss what our leaders are doing.
The Internet has revolutionised many industries already so perhaps its time it also revolutionised the management of everyone where openness is forced into our two faced leaders, to stop them being able to lie to us all. After all if they want to represent us, then they take the job on that basis.
Re: (Score:2)
More likely it is to control blasphemous material.
Say NO (Score:2)
The Excuses Worked (Score:2)
Sorry for the accidental rhyming.
Anonymous stands ready (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Thing is, reality is not a movie. Rarely do the well-intentioned, rag-tag band of rebels overthrow the evil world government and usher in a new era of freedom and prosperity.
Re:Anonymous stands ready (Score:5, Insightful)
Thing is, reality is not a movie. Rarely do the well-intentioned, rag-tag band of rebels overthrow the evil world government and usher in a new era of freedom and prosperity.
Usually, when the well-intentioned, rag-tag band of rebels do win, the resulting government devolves into a totalitarian regime as bad as what was deposed. In the US, our view is skewed because our well-intentioned, rag-tag band of rebels was not headed by such. Recall that some wanted to make Washington King of America, but he bared his wooden teeth at them and refused.
One World (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'd rather my One World Government be run out the Hague than Washington, thank you very much. At least the Hague is farther away.
Purpose? (Score:2)
So what impact would this group have on things such as 'Cyberwar'? A number of the governments mentioned in the article have sunk Billions of dollars into the development of such programs - I doubt they'd be happy to just 'write it off'.
Would this group go after China for hacking the Google servers? Or would it focus on catching nefarious individuals wanted for questioning? (Sorry Interpol - you might do decent things, but you deserve to catch flack for that.)
Would this group ease extradition between coun
All government is the absolute enemy of freedom (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
It's so hilarious, because this attitude is exactly what the Tea Party/Republicans/Blue Dogs/Obama are using to increase authoritarianism in the US. If people believed that government can be used to provide greater benefits to its citizens, they would participate more in governance, and their government would do things for them, instead of to them. Instead, they've been scared into thinking that all government is bad, and they either stop voting or vote for "small government" Republicans who in turn make th
Cry, the beloved country. (Score:5, Informative)
I'm from South Africa and I cannot believe a government that was once itself censored heavily, and violently when speaking out against such censorship, is now becoming one of it's staunchest supporters. First (draft) domestic legislation regulating what newspapers can publish, and now this.
Freedom? No, it doesn't seem to me like that was the end-goal of the struggle.
Mirrors (Score:2)
There are already over 2000 Wikileaks mirrors [wikileaks.ch], so it's going to next to impossible to shut it down in the first place.
In the wake of Thursday... (Score:5, Insightful)
News has surfaced in the wake of Thursday that the UN is mulling total inter-governmental regulation of the internet.
The UN has wanted control of the net for a while now, the WikiLeaks thing is just the excuse of the day for trying to take it.If it wasn't WikiLeaks, it would be some other reason.
Re: (Score:2)
The UN has wanted control of the net for a while now
Along with every other world power.
Re: (Score:2)
They would go under the name of "internet governance" and argue against "US domination", but he dream of dictatures i
Re: (Score:2)
It's ridiculous indeed.
Without him there would be other excuse or no excuse at all. So you are advocating that WE should take anything obediently, without fighting back because THEY might beat US even more ferociously, excusing themselves with OUR disobedience which is there in the first place because of THEIR actions?!?!?!?. I fail to see any reason here....
That's a great plan... (Score:2)
It'll hasten the spread of P2P DNS by a good bit.
Sure, UN, Sure (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Sure, UN, Sure (Score:5, Insightful)
NO controls (Score:5, Insightful)
Hang on, all these countries that want control of the internet, they are some of the biggest despots out there and love censorship. Why don't they have their own version like China, and keep everyone else that loves freedom and democracy stick to the "Wild Wild West" internet.
The UN are a bunch of retards who's time to disbanding has come. They claim to represent international laws, but enforce them for some countries, and ignore others. Get rid of the UN.
Just Say No (Score:5, Insightful)
Let me get this straight: The Emperor was caught with his pants down, some people took pictures and posted it to etc.com, people started learning via etc.com that the Emperor has no clothes on, and now the Emperor wants to ban all knowledge of the incident by destroying the greatest communications invention since the printing press. I think the approach in this situation is completely wrong. Several common sayings such as "we had to destroy the village in order to save it," "shoot first and ask questions later," and "shoot the messenger" all come to mind and none of them should be encouraged.
I propose the following solution to the problem: Do a comprehensive security audit of the information and everyone that had access to it. Find out who leaked the information, how they received access to the information, and how they removed the information from secured storage. In addition, do a comprehensive audit on the classification of documents. Having a minimal amount of classified material will cut down on the risk of loosing it. Document classification should be used to guard national security interests (e.g. the keys to the castle) instead of hiding potentially embarrassing material or promoting a political agenda. When you have successfully identified the responsible party and method of attack, fix the glitch and prosecute the offender to the fullest extent of the law. The Internet does not need collective punishment for the actions of a select few individuals.
Re: (Score:2)
No, it's more like this:
Emperor A got depantsed. Emperors B,C,SoA, and SaA propose standardizing pants to prevent depantsing.
Re:Just Say No (Score:4, Interesting)
Having a minimal amount of classified material will cut down on the risk of loosing it. Document classification should be used to guard national security interests (e.g. the keys to the castle) instead of hiding potentially embarrassing material or promoting a political agenda.
Just a comment on that: None of the cables that wikileaks has their hands on are classified as top secret. That's why a lot of it is basically gossip: It was given a low classification because it's simply unimportant (which is why someone was able to so easily get their hands on it, if the rumour of the press is correct). So in that regards, the classification system is working as intended: The really nasty stuff (US national security etc.) is literally top secret and still remains undisclosed.
Wikileaks cables:
# 15, 652 secret
# 101,748 confidential
# 133,887 unclassified
Re: (Score:3)
I used to consider myself Fiscally Conservative, but Socially Libertarian... think Gov. Bill Weld in Massachusetts.
Bill and Hillary Clinton made my skin crawl.
Then, George W. Bush got elected and completely betrayed every conservative fiscal principal, condoned torture, started two wars, and generally let big business/corporations have free reign with no risks to themselves personally.
I've since deiced that given the choice, I'd much prefer the liberals' view than what the conservatives are pushing these da
Common Sense (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
a serendipitous article on the first war on terror (Score:3)
Serendipitously, this article [reason.com] about the first war on terror - governmental suppression of 19th century peaceful anarchists - was just published by Reason.
The authorities made extensive use of agents provocateurs because the anarchists were too peaceful to be threatening enough. Accidental side effects included the Russian Revolution and the exacerbation of the First World War (which events of course led to the Second World War and the Cold War).
It looks like history is repeating itself.
The end of democracy (Score:5, Insightful)
Think again (Score:2, Interesting)
This IS democracy. It just isn't what you dreamed it would be. Quite a rude awakening, isn't it?
I have long believed that democracy is every bit as likely to deteriorate into authoritarianism as monarchy, dictatorship, communism, or any other form of government you can name -- possibly even more likely since democracy removes the element of ownership from government. A king, for example, wouldn't be nearly as quick to risk billions on war, because those billions actually belong to him, and he actually risks
Re: (Score:2)
They're doing what they know best (Score:2)
And that is.. controlling people. When things start getting out of hand, they start enforcing and censoring stuff. Like they want to do with internet now, because internet is biggest threat to them. Internet is communication freedom.
Authority never liked that, because it undermines their power to do what they want. Religion... Governments, no difference there. All they want is power. And if people don't rise up now, and let their voices be heard, whatever the cost, we and future generations are properly scr
Re: (Score:2)
Religion and sex are power plays
Manipulate the people for the money they pay
Selling skin, selling God
The numbers look the same on their credit cards
-- Queensryche (Operation Mindcrime) - Spreading the Disease
Coincidence? (Score:2)
Next up... (Score:2)
Inclusive ? (Score:5, Informative)
The Internet Governance Forum (IGF) has been grinding along for almost five years, so this is something of late news. Unlike the Australian commenter in the original article, the process is inclusive only as to governments, not people or even NGOs. This has the Internet Society (ISOC) worried enough that they have an online petition on it :
The UN Needs to Ensure an Open and Inclusive Approach to Internet Governance [ipetitions.com]
(Yes, you will get a fundraising pitch at the end, but that's not the reason for this petition.)
Those US ideals... (Score:2)
...has anyone considered that those ideals that are contained or implied in the US constitution only apply to USians?
Think about it. It makes sense.
U.N. to U.S.: (Score:2)
Government censorship of the internet? (Score:5, Insightful)
Are they insane? Do they have any idea what this will do to the economy, let alone the precious information they are trying to hide? It's almost like...wait, it's the UN?
Nevermind. Here's hoping they'll be as effective in this initiative as they are in everything else.
UN = Bad Idea (Score:5, Interesting)
The United Nations was a horrid mistake like the League of Nations before it.
World government by lawfare in a world mostly composed of anti-freedom governments was never a good idea. People should fear international law more than its absence.
Law is fine locally, useless internationally, because in the international context being free of law is an overwhelming advantage.
Folks. Relax. It's the UN (Score:3)
By the time they finally agree on a resolution, there is no longer an internet to govern.
Plus, whatever they'll agree on will be SO watered down that it amounts to little more than "look, we did something!"
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sorry, Tor and the myriad other proxy services floating around China would like a word.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sure they would - in the 5 mins they're available before they're blocked.
Re: (Score:3)
Of course you can regulate the internet - you can regulate anything in principle - but enforcing that regulation is something else altogether.
You can't get most countries to co-operate when they're dealing with the big issues; do you really think you're going to be able to get them to co-operate over that guy from country X who posted something objectionable about someone from country Y on that message board hosted in country Z?
Re: (Score:3)
Regulation will turn into taxation. Taxation will be self regulated. If you fudge your tax returns you go to jail. Wikileaks will be looked upon as a regulation violation and people would be dragged before a judge.
I knew this would be the result of Wikileaks where the end game is now a sped up process which otherwise would of taken the next 10 years to procure if left open-ended and unnoticed.
Wikileaks has set a new precedence welcoming the age of having to hold a broadcasters licence to setup a website.
Re: (Score:2)
And anyone who says you can't regulate the internet is dreaming. Ask the chinese.
How has that experiment been working out? That isn't exactly regulating the internet so much as doing the equivalent of registering all of the typewriters in a country and requiring a license to own one.
It is still possible to "distribute" anti-government information within China about the Chinese Politburo or to discuss frankly the events of the 1989 Tiananmen square massacre in Chinese. It isn't exactly easy, but it can be done and in spite of insane levels of government interference in trying to deal w
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, but this is where self regulation comes in to play. I can issue false tax returns but i'm rolling the dice and taking my chances.
The regulation will come in a form of a Govt Duty which will be attached to the licence.
Sure i can drive my car without a licence but the same risk takes place.
Re: (Score:2)
You poke a dog with a stick often enough and eventually it'll go for you. Something people in wikileaks and all those naive kids calling themselves Anonymous (or whatever silly name they've thought up this week) and similar groups don't appear to realise.
That works the other direction too.
Re: (Score:2)
The Chinese have had moderate, but by no means total success in in regulating the Internet via means that most Western Nations would find both technically difficult and legally impossible. first you have to have a population that is largely unwilling to do things that the government thinks are bad, which, all jokes about the nanny state aside, most western countries don't have. There are always a few million people here or a few hundred thousand there that will literally do something only *because* the go
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, and that's totally gonna get by the Supreme Court. Did you read the whole post or just the part you could make a smart-ass comment about?
Re:Only the naive didn't see this coming (Score:5, Insightful)
"You poke a dog with a stick often enough and eventually it'll go for you. "
I agree with that, but are you suggesting that the U.S. government is analogous to the dog and Wikileaks and its supporters are poking said dog with a stick? That's how I'M reading your words. It is with a mixture of sadness and frustration that I listen to the argument: "We better behave ourselves, or the government will crack down on the Internet!" I'm not saying that Wikileaks and Anonymous won't be used as an EXCUSE for government attempts to implement greater control of the Internet. That's a certainty. Actually ADVOCATING that we change our behavior to appease the government is the mentality of a serf or a slave. Better not do anything to make the Lord/Master angry because he'll punish us? Not only does that indicate a belief that the government has assumed the role of RULER of the people as opposed to "Representative" of the people, it indicates that the servitude is something that we must accept.
Wow! That thought just blows my mind. It just seems like we've very abruptly crossed a threshold into a whole new paradigm.
Re: (Score:3)
Thanks for the "suggestion" but I'll pass. Your hostility bespeaks an anger born of helplessness and frustration. I know how easy it is to get depressed with the goings-on of the world, but things are not yet hopeless.
To what "buzz words" are you referring? Serf? Slave? Please enlighten me as to the appropriate terminology for someone who cowers in fear and tells their fellow CITIZENS to behave themselves lest they incur punishment from their Lords and Masters?
"You can hallucinate some world where ...a
Re:Yes, yes, /. is all against this, but... (Score:4, Insightful)
Can someone shed light on whether they can actually control the internet, on a technical level?
Sure they can; the Internet is not like the old Usenet/UUCPNet, where it is controlled by its own users. All the UN would have to do is go after a handful of companies that really run the Internet, and by force of law require them to do whatever the UN wants them to do. Sanctions against a country could suddenly mean a loss of Internet access -- just force the ISPs to drop any route to that country from their routing tables.
The real question is, will they be able to convince the most powerful nations to play along? I am just going to guess that the answer is "yes," since the world's most powerful nations also happen to stand to gain the most from having a controlled Internet.
Re: (Score:3)
The real question is, will they be able to convince the most powerful nations to play along? I am just going to guess that the answer is "yes," since the world's most powerful nations also happen to stand to gain the most from having a controlled Internet.
I'm going to say No, the US will not allow their baby to fall under the UN.
Re: (Score:2)
And how much are you going to pay to get them to stop?
Re: (Score:2)
"The harder you squeeze the soap, the faster it flies out of your grasp." -- My Grandma T