Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?
The Internet Technology

US Refuses To Sign ITU Treaty Over Internet Provisions 154

An anonymous reader writes "The United States said today that it will not sign an international telecommunications treaty thanks to the inclusion of Internet-related provisions. According to the BBC, the U.K. and Canada have also pledged not to sign the treaty in its current form, while delegates from Denmark, the Czech Republic, Sweden, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Costa Rica, and Kenya also have reservations."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

US Refuses To Sign ITU Treaty Over Internet Provisions

Comments Filter:
  • Norway too (Score:5, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 14, 2012 @09:10AM (#42285951)

    Norway is also refusing to sign

  • Re:Norway too (Score:5, Informative)

    by ajdlinux ( 913987 ) on Friday December 14, 2012 @09:13AM (#42285965) Homepage Journal
    As is Australia. [dbcde.gov.au]
  • Re:Treaties (Score:5, Informative)

    by serviscope_minor ( 664417 ) on Friday December 14, 2012 @09:27AM (#42286045) Journal

    Treaties no longer apply to the United States.

    Well, not if they don't sign. That's kind of the point. If you don't sign it doesn't apply. And they won't sign. That sounds entirely reasonable.

    There are many bad things sure, but this isn't one of them. For various reasons most of the western world don't seem to want to give the ITU control over the internet, and would rather control resides with the USA for the time being.

    As a non American westener, I'd agree that this is by far the best choice.

  • Re:Treaties (Score:5, Informative)

    by tech10171968 ( 955149 ) on Friday December 14, 2012 @09:39AM (#42286099)

    FTFA: "Some countries at the table, however, have submitted proposals that would also give the UN some power when it comes to Internet regulation, which the U.S. and other countries oppose. Ambassador Kramer has been speaking out against the Internet component of the treaty since before the conference started on Dec. 3, but more than a week later, they are still included in a draft that's on the table."

    Maybe you missed that part. Seems the countries opposing this (no, not just the "evil" US) are doing so precisely because no one actually "owns" the internet as it stands now. The second we allow a governing body, *ANY* governing body, to do so is the second we start seeing people get censored by tin-pot dictators wishing to cover up the evidence while committing all sorts of atrocities against their own people - and, yes, that goes for the US as well. If you look at quite a few of the countries who back this treaty (China and Russia are two of them), it's easy to come up with a list of folks who'd love nothing more than to narrow down the avenues through which information gets out, and for some pretty nefarious reasons.

    I think the only reason you were modded "+5 Insightful" was because of your anti-American rant, not due to actual logic.

  • Re:Treaties (Score:5, Informative)

    by Arancaytar ( 966377 ) <arancaytar.ilyaran@gmail.com> on Friday December 14, 2012 @09:49AM (#42286177) Homepage

    I find the US' anti-UN attitude as irritating as you do, but it's not just the US. As the summary mentions there are many other nations in opposition, and the European parliament attacked the ITU as vocally and before the US did. This move was supported and partly spearheaded by MP Amelia Andersdotter of the European Pirate Party. When she's against something concerning the internet, something just might be wrong with it.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Telecommunication_Union#Proposed_Changes_to_the_Treaty_And_Concerns [wikipedia.org]
    http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/11/24/european_parliament_votes_against_itu/ [theregister.co.uk]

  • Re:Treaties (Score:1, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 14, 2012 @10:12AM (#42286335)

    Jon Stewart, the Comedy Central spoof news show host, really? Well, that is quite serious.

    Perhaps, Vint Cerf or Tim Berners-Lee are better experts in how the Internet works, though? See Berners-Lee comments http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-20594779 [bbc.co.uk]

  • Re:Treaties (Score:5, Informative)

    by girlintraining ( 1395911 ) on Friday December 14, 2012 @10:20AM (#42286391)

    while citing exactly zero facts to support your arguments and pointing out exactly zero treaties that the U.S. has "violated".

    A correctable problem, if you'd just ask nicely instead of being a total jerk and assuming that just because I didn't list them means they don't exist and I'm therefore wrong.

    List of Notable Treaties the US has withdrawn from (broken)

    • Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty; Signed 1972, withdrawn 2001.
    • Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention (BWC) and Draft Proposal. Signed 1972, ratified 1975, withdrawn 2001.
    • Chemical Weapons Convention. Signed 1993, ratified 1997. Originally would have allowed countries to inspect other countries (including the US) for evidence of banned chemical weapons production. The treaty was modified to exempt only the United States from it.

    There's also a number of treaties we haven't signed that are notable. For example, the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, Convention on Discrimination of Women (Iran and Sudan are amongst the very few countries that also haven't signed on), Convention on the Rights of the Child (142 have signed so far), Mine Ban Treaty, Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC).

    There's also a number of treaties that, while we haven't formally withdrawn from or issued a statement on, we're in clear violation of and have stated our intent to continue doing so. Guantanamo Bay, for example, is a violation of numerous Geneva Conventions.

Can anyone remember when the times were not hard, and money not scarce?