×

Announcing: Slashdot Deals - Explore geek apps, games, gadgets and more. (what is this?)

Thank you!

We are sorry to see you leave - Beta is different and we value the time you took to try it out. Before you decide to go, please take a look at some value-adds for Beta and learn more about it. Thank you for reading Slashdot, and for making the site better!

US Offers New Plans 1 Month Before UN Meeting To Regulate Web

timothy posted about 2 years ago | from the flying-standby dept.

The Internet 128

Velcroman1 writes "Slashdotters have been reading for months about the upcoming ITU conference next month in Dubai, which will propose new regulations and restrictions for the Internet that critics say could censor free speech, levy tariffs on e-commerce, and even force companies to clean up their 'e-waste' and make gadgets that are better for the environment. Concerns about the closed-door event have sparked a Wikileaks-style info-leaking site, and led the State Department on Wednesday to file a series of new proposals or tranches seeking to ensure 'competition and commercial agreements — and not regulation' as the meeting's main message. Terry Kramer, the chief U.S. envoy to the conference, says the United States is against sanctions. '[Doing nothing] would not be a terrible outcome at all,' Kramer said recently."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Anything that comes out of the UN (5, Insightful)

na1led (1030470) | about 2 years ago | (#41846477)

is going to be bad for the rest of us.

Re:Anything that comes out of the UN (0)

Jmc23 (2353706) | about 2 years ago | (#41846707)

Historically, it's been bad for any country that isn't the US.

I think all the other countries would be happy to just get screwed equally. However, the bully has lost his enigma, so it might actually be his turn to bend over and...

Sorry, I don't even know what the topic is.

Re:Anything that comes out of the UN (0, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41846899)

Apparently to shit-talk the US for no particular reason?

Re:Anything that comes out of the UN (4, Insightful)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about 2 years ago | (#41847079)

Apparently to shit-talk the US for no particular reason?

Oh, c'mon now, you and I both know that there's plenty of legitimate reasons to shit-talk the US.

Our nation has earned its global reputation; don't be a whiny bitch, own that shit.

Re:Anything that comes out of the UN (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41847345)

Oh I don't deny that there are some valid reasons. Just as I have all kinds of reasons for being aggravated with other countries.

What gets old is people randomly showing up in my nerd forums just to cry about how much they a country... which usually just turns out to be karma-whoring.

Re:Anything that comes out of the UN (5, Funny)

Dishevel (1105119) | about 2 years ago | (#41847407)

Cool. So we will just talk about reputations that are earned.
The US. Does not give a shit about anything outside the US.
France
A stuck up surrender Monkey country that can not figure out why guaranteeing jobs for life could be a bad thing.
Germany
Nazi fuckers that want to rule the world and have great need for really freaky sex.
Israel
Bad ass little fuckers that are US puppets.
Saudi Arabia
Terrorist bastards that hate women.
Iraq
Terrorist bastards that hate women.
Iran
Terrorist bastards that hate women.
Afghanistan
Terrorist bastards that hate women.
Pakistan
Terrorist bastards that hate women.
Syria
Terrorist bastards that hate women.
Egypt
Terrorist bastards that hate women.
UK
Tea sucking bastards that taxed the US in to freedom.
Ireland
Terrorist bastards that hate not drinking.
Scotland
Drinkers that wear dresses.
Russia
Vodka drinkers that sell their women.

Need I go on?
   

Re:Anything that comes out of the UN (2)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about 2 years ago | (#41847515)

Need I go on?

Probably don't need to, but I've gotten a kick out of what you wrote so far (especially the one about France; silly, silly French people)...

Carry on!

Re:Anything that comes out of the UN (4, Insightful)

fredprado (2569351) | about 2 years ago | (#41847543)

I would be really happy if US didn't give a shit for anything that happens outside it. Unfortunately it is the other way around, it wants to make sure everything that happens outside it goes accordingly to its agenda.

Re:Anything that comes out of the UN (1)

Dishevel (1105119) | about 2 years ago | (#41847603)

Only if it affects us.
If it does not then fuck it. :)

Re:Anything that comes out of the UN (2)

fredprado (2569351) | about 2 years ago | (#41848437)

Or if it may affect you in the future, or if it may be used for one party or another in a way to gain political leverage and win elections, or if it affects corporate interests even if they go against the majority's interests. If you add all "ORs" there is very little left out in the end...

Re:Anything that comes out of the UN (2)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about 2 years ago | (#41847545)

One argument:

The US. Does not give a shit about anything outside the US.

If we (and by we, I of course mean "our government") didn't give a shit about anything outside our own borders, we wouldn't spend 23 times as much blood and treasure as the next nation showing off how big our (militaristic) dick is.

Re:Anything that comes out of the UN (3, Insightful)

BlueStrat (756137) | about 2 years ago | (#41847999)

If we (and by we, I of course mean "our government") didn't give a shit about anything outside our own borders, we wouldn't spend 23 times as much blood and treasure as the next nation showing off how big our (militaristic) dick is.

And while "showing off how big our (militaristic) dick is" we save most of the EU from having to learn to speak Russian and much of the rest of the world from having to learn to speak Chinese, not to mention saving all those countries from having to spend a much larger portion of their GDP on defense, while the people that benefit in those same countries piss and moan about US military might.

I'd be fine with rolling back US military participation with NATO and the UN and drastically reduce our economic support as well. Let the other countries spend their own people's money on their own military...or learn to speak Chinese or Russian.

Strat

Nationalism, ye gods (4, Insightful)

Tenebrousedge (1226584) | about 2 years ago | (#41848197)

You're right of course. But instead they've learned to speak English.

Are you entirely sure that's what you want to base your argument on?

So I have a crystal ball that tells me how the rest of this conversation will go. I will introduce many facts detailing exactly how awful [wikipedia.org] US hegemony has been for most of the world. You will bring up the few times this has been positive, but largely rely on nationalistic fervor. The conflation of monologues will end with sentiment to the effect of "Love it or leave it." and other such vaguely ad hominem remarks. We will each leave convinced we have carried the day, and some day far in the future, you or your progeny will be ashamed that, when confronted with evidence of heinous acts, you chose to serve your own tribe and not humanity.

Re:Nationalism, ye gods (1)

ediron2 (246908) | about 2 years ago | (#41850541)

Bravo. No modpoints, but that's about how I feel every time I get sucked into political debates nowadays. Especially my temporary frustration when someone goes godwin or pops the 'love it or leave it' cliche. Why can't I love my country enough to stage an intervention and get its sorry ass into rehab?!

Re:Anything that comes out of the UN (0)

Rik Rohl (1399705) | about 2 years ago | (#41849507)

Lemme guess: You watch Fox News a lot?

Re:Anything that comes out of the UN (2)

ozmanjusri (601766) | about 2 years ago | (#41849605)

Need I go on?

You forgot Poland.

Re:Anything that comes out of the USA (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41846757)

is going to be REAL bad for the rest of us....
----
there fixed it fer ya , i will add what is bad for the usa usually is great for the rest of earth these days.

Re:Anything that comes out of the USA (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41846845)

typical communist nigger loving fucktards frequent shitdot. Nothing new. This is why shitdot needs to be fucking crashed and all shitdot sheeple need to be fucking killed.

- na1led (1030470)

Re:Anything that comes out of the USA (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41847359)

Haters gonna hate. Suck it up, Eurotrash, if it wasn't for U.S. you wouldn't have an Internet in the first place.

Re:Anything that comes out of the USA (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41847481)

If it wasn't for the US, they would be in World War VI by now.

Re:Anything that comes out of the USA (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41847913)

I fucked your dad. I fucked him in the arse. Your mum watched. After fucking your dad your mum licked my cum out of your dad's arsehole.

With parents like that, no wonder you are fucked up.

Re:Anything that comes out of the USA (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41849655)

You dug 'em out of the grave to do all that? How do you get a twenty years dead corpse to lick your cum?

Re:Anything that comes out of the USA (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41850673)

I didn't say I did it recently your moron. But I do remember your parents being a bit thick too. Which would account, at least partially, for you reading stuff into what I wrote that isn't there.

Re:Anything that comes out of the USA (3, Informative)

magic maverick (2615475) | about 2 years ago | (#41847877)

NREN [wikipedia.org] 's, such as JANET [wikipedia.org] , AARNet [wikipedia.org] and many others existed. The Internet could easily have formed without the US portion. Yes much of the tech and standards came from the USA, but it is easily replaceable.

Re:Anything that comes out of the USA (1)

Dr Damage I (692789) | about 2 years ago | (#41850713)

You're absolutely right. That evil evil internet that came out of the US is REAL bad for everyone not in the US.

Re:Anything that comes out of the UN (0)

0racle (667029) | about 2 years ago | (#41846785)

No kidding. Don't get me started on that damn World Health Organization.

Sweeping generalizations are always wrong. There are programs in the UN that do good work (WHO). Then there is this plan, which is so obviously bad for everyone except the governments asking for it. You can make that case without looking like a fool by dismissing the UN with a handwave.

Re:Anything that comes out of the UN (0)

ljw1004 (764174) | about 2 years ago | (#41846873)

is going to be bad for the rest of us.

I guess that's ironic, in the sense that *THE WHOLE WORLD* is in the UN!

The UN is nothing more and nothing less than the collective wishes of the world's nations.

Re:Anything that comes out of the UN (3, Insightful)

Hentes (2461350) | about 2 years ago | (#41846941)

And the majority of the world's nations are barbaric. Your point?

Re:Anything that comes out of the UN (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41848841)

The point would be that that is our wish. The wish is might be different from yours, but your still don't have to nuke us for having a wish which might be theoretically not optimally suited for the "interests" of the US, what ever those mythological, war causing creatures of the night might be.

Re:Anything that comes out of the UN (2)

KeensMustard (655606) | about 2 years ago | (#41849179)

The point being that I don't trust the safeguarding of my information to a person or group who thinks I'm a barbarian. Humanity is not actually divided into Americans and lesser humans.

Re:Anything that comes out of the UN (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41850337)

Fun fact: before the fall of the Roman Empire, the civilized Romans called the savages from other, lesser, nations barbarians. The civilized cared very little for barbarian lives, much less so for their opinions (as if a barbarian would be capable of forming an opinion if they can't even speak Latin, right?). It's quite amusing how millenias can pass, but, still, everything is just the same as it always was.

you need a reality check (3, Insightful)

kenorland (2691677) | about 2 years ago | (#41846969)

The UN is nothing more and nothing less than the collective wishes of the world's nations.

It is the collective wishes of the world's governments, most of which are run by crooks, corrupt politicians, and dictators. It is about representative of the people of this world as the Supreme Soviet was representative of the will of the people unfortunate enough to live in the USSR.

The UN was never intended to be a representative or democratic government. It is a body of international diplomacy in which even the worst of the worst have a voice, for the purely practical reason that those people also have guns and bombs.

Re:Anything that comes out of the UN (1)

rgbrenner (317308) | about 2 years ago | (#41847145)

The UN is nothing more and nothing less than the collective wishes of the leaders of the world's nations.

FTFY

The UN might be a great thing if everyone was able to elect their leaders (or at least their representatives in the UN) in free elections. But that isn't going to happen anytime soon, so the free people in the world should be critical of anything and everything from the UN, and feel completely free to disregard anything from the UN that reduces their rights.

Unelected leaders rule over several billion people. Letting them have a say over the remaining several billion would be even more unjust.

Re:Anything that comes out of the UN (2)

fredprado (2569351) | about 2 years ago | (#41847581)

You fool yourself if you think elected leaders are much better. Neither kind relates even remotely to the will of the people they represent.

Re:Anything that comes out of the UN (1)

Dr Damage I (692789) | about 2 years ago | (#41850721)

Elected leaders share the blame for their misdeeds with the people who voted for them. Elected leaders are therefore less culpable than unelected ones who share the blame for their misdeeds only with the people who follow their orders.

Re:Anything that comes out of the UN (2, Informative)

SirGarlon (845873) | about 2 years ago | (#41846919)

I fail to see how the world food programme [wfp.org] , the construction of refugee camps [unhcr.org] , malaria and AIDS prevention [who.int] , child protection and education [unicef.org] are bad for anyone, let alone "the rest of us."

Unless, of course, you mean that you're unwilling to pay taxes to support such efforts. In which case you'd seem like a selfish bastard but I'd reluctantly agree that human decency should be optional. I would go on to point out that most of the UN's humanitarian programs are financed by voluntary contributions [wikipedia.org] from member states.

Re:Anything that comes out of the UN (1)

alexander_686 (957440) | about 2 years ago | (#41847223)

Sure, I can tell you why.

The UN bureaucracy is the type of bureaucracy that gives bureaucracy a bad name. It is a bloating gold-plated nepotistic thing. Having low accountability, it is better at making grand statement, pushing paper, and corrupt official lining their own pockets.

  It galls people that UN officials are running around Africa in luxury cars administrating food aid. One wonders if they are running a efficient organization.

And I know some good people who are doing good things with the UN, so I am speaking of (major) reform not removal.

Re:Anything that comes out of the UN (4, Insightful)

Vaphell (1489021) | about 2 years ago | (#41847263)

world food programme? easy target, as it's riddled with nasty unintended consequences

1. people let's say in Africa starve - long story short their environment/tech level can't support that many people. Food from external sources means artificially raised survivability. People multiply, now there are more mouths to feed, and you are back at square 1. Disparity between productivity and needs is even greater which means even greater dependence on external support. Population of Ethiopia (country in more or less perpetual state of famine) grew from 48M to 84M in ~20 years (1990-now).
Feeding Africa is counterproductive: there is a lot of talk how we should reduce global population growth and shit, on the other hand the world subsidizes the very hotspots of rapid unsustainable population growth.

2. dumping free food on developing markets kills any viability of local food producers who can't compete with free/subsidized food from the west. In other words they will be always dirt poor and always dependent on free food because so called humanitarian help takes away their only fishing pole and gives them fish instead. With no way to support from the work of their hands, they will never be able to lay solid foundations for healthy, sustainable economy.

I don't mind disaster relief programs, but perpetual humanitarian help needs to go asap.

Re:Anything that comes out of the UN (2)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | about 2 years ago | (#41847639)

Population control runs into political difficulties. Firstly because contraception is considered evil by many religious organisations, and secondly because many political groups consider the right to a family to be utterly inalienable and any government attempt to intrude on that, even non-coercively, abhorent. Thus population control can only work when it is either done under-the-radar and indirectly, or by a government which has little need to care how popular the program is (China).

The best population control: Prosperity (2)

Chibi Merrow (226057) | about 2 years ago | (#41848169)

I have to disagree. Japan and the US have pretty awesome population control. We make our citizens wealthy, educate them, and give them lots of distractions and increase their life expectancies and they willingly choose to practice population control themselves.

In the US, we only have population growth because of immigration. In Japan, their population is declining at a rather frightening pace.

I think the OP was right: Stop concentrating on feeding these people, unless you can also teach them how to feed themselves.

Re:The best population control: Prosperity (2)

Grishnakh (216268) | about 2 years ago | (#41849505)

You're forgetting that, until relatively recently, there were tons of dirt-poor people in the US and there were no welfare programs; poor people just starved to death. Remember the dust bowl of the 30s? Or how things were in the 1800s? Millions of immigrants came here from Europe, and if they didn't succeed, they died. It was a pretty brutal life. We only were able to make all our citizens wealthy enough to not worry so much about food in recent years, and most of that was thanks to the post-WWII economic boom and later the economic effects of being the most powerful country in the world. African countries haven't struck the lottery like that; there's no way for them to make their citizens wealthy the way we do here.

Re:Anything that comes out of the UN (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41848801)

Thus population control can only work when it is either done under-the-radar and indirectly, or by a government which has little need to care how popular the program is (China).

Or we can just rely on traditional, time-tested methods of population control.

War, famine, pestilence, and slavery.

Re:Anything that comes out of the UN (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41850003)

... perpetual humanitarian help needs to go ...

For a while there, the US relief program was enforcing tubal ligation (permanent birth control) on some districts. Everyone was saying how horrific the typical US unilateral process was. But stopping pregnancy reduced the number of mouths to feed, and as pro-condom Thailand discovered, made families wealthier since less of the wage was consumed by groceries.

It is also the only solution in Africa, where the Catholic taboo on condoms does not mitigate the traditional promiscuity.

Re:Anything that comes out of the UN (1)

ediron2 (246908) | about 2 years ago | (#41850531)

baby, bathwater.

A couple good perpetual humanitarian programs:

Education: Educate women to the 6th grade, and populations go down, infant mortality goes down, etc. Well, etc a **lot**. Everything improves as women get educated. It's the mother of all correlative humanitarian acts.

Infrastructure: not so universally awesome, but potable water, roads, communications all help more than they destroy economies.

I'm sure more exist. My point was simply that your last several words were hasty and seem incorrect.

Re:Anything that comes out of the UN (1)

na1led (1030470) | about 2 years ago | (#41847627)

You mean the food that goes to militias instead of the real poor, and how much did all that food and camps cost us? How much of that money went to the fat cats? Feeding a corrupt system doesn't help anyone, even if it feeds a few mouths.

Re:Anything that comes out of the UN (3, Insightful)

KeensMustard (655606) | about 2 years ago | (#41847389)

Yes - the UN Declaration On Human Rights was certainly bad - for those of us who like to water board suspects and dislike having our actions questioned.

By way of comparison I don't remember the UN ever calling for the assassination of someone who merely published some factual material, nor did they declare such a person an "enemy of the state" nor are they in anyway implicated in an actual character assassination practiced on that person.

Also worth noting that the UN has never invaded a country on a false pretext and killed a 120 000 people. That is a lot of people. Their bodies make quite a large pile. There is an odd game of priority at play here on /. . Two US citizens get killed by drone strike - that's a travesty. Hundreds of innocent non US citizens are killed by drone strikes - that is merely unfortunate. Some people in a far off land are angry because of a stupid cartoon - that is an attack on our freeeeeeedom. A document reveals that a member of my own Parliament is a CIA informant - I had no right to that information and it should be suppressed from me, the voter.

The UN is by not by any means a perfect organisation - certain countries (e.g the US) arguably carry far more say than they should. But nevertheless they aren't the ones standing on a huge pile of bodies at this point in time. I don't know that they can be fully trusted. I know for sure that the US government cannot.

Re:Anything that comes out of the UN (0)

na1led (1030470) | about 2 years ago | (#41847679)

And how many people died in the Darfur Genocide? Where was the UN during that crisis?

Re:Anything that comes out of the UN (1)

Tynin (634655) | about 2 years ago | (#41848029)

And how many people died in the Darfur Genocide? Where was the UN during that crisis?

Where was the rest of the world? Genocide should never happen, and we all shoulder some of the blame for the lack of action by every government on the planet.

Re:Anything that comes out of the UN (1)

na1led (1030470) | about 2 years ago | (#41848451)

Well I thought that was the whole point of have a United Nations.

Re:Anything that comes out of the UN (1)

KeensMustard (655606) | about 2 years ago | (#41849233)

And how many people died in the Darfur Genocide? Where was the UN during that crisis?

Where were you? Do you hold yourself personally responsible for the deaths in Darfur? If not, then your comparison is ridiculous.

Re:Anything that comes out of the UN (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41850097)

... they aren't the ones standing on a huge pile of bodies ...

The US demanded that UN peace-keepers go into Hungary, then England and USA flip-flopped on what the peace-keepers could do while rapes and massacres of muslims occured.

The US had no trouble supporting South Korea when it was invaded. They even started a counter-invasion of North Korea. China stopped that when it realised who would be sneaking over their borders.

The US gave a 'shock and awe' compaign to seduce the UN into supporting the invasion of Iraq. The UN didn't agree but England and Australia supported the invasion anyway.

While the US complains that Russia perverts the operation of the UN, the USA uses the UN as a PR machine for its national interests.

Re:Anything that comes out of the UN (2)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | about 2 years ago | (#41850565)

"Anything that comes out of the UN is going to be bad for the rest of us."

It's time we pulled the plug on the UN. Stop subsidizing its operation, stop paying dues, stop giving accommodation to the visiting representatives, and rent out the building.

We have no need of them anymore. In fact, they need us a hell of a lot more than we need them, yet as often as not they have been acting against our interests.

Take all the U.S. money away, and bid them good day. Then turn the building into a bunch of rented offices.

Re:Anything that comes out of the UN (1)

jandersen (462034) | about 2 years ago | (#41851077)

Wow, you're such a shining wit. So, all it takes to be modded "insightful" on /. is to parade the same, old, ignorant nonsense without even trying to articulate a genuine opinion. Sometimes I do wonder why the hell we spend money on computers, internet - or learning to read, for that matter - when this is all that comes out of it. I don't mind people having another opinion than me, but I really hate it when they can't be asked to think or learn.

There are many good arguments for placing the governance of these things under the control of a supra-national institution, and so far, what I have heard against had only been FUD about 'UN is bad', 'UN will introduce censorship and stifle trade' and so on. This is classic FUD: fear of the unknown - one wonders what happened to the good old 'To boldly go ...'. Have Americans become a bunch of hand wringing old grannies, afraid of stepping outside your front door in case you are ravished by all these foreigners?

I would have though America is plenty strong enough to take on the rest of the world, even if the cards are stacked in your favour.

Dubai? How ironic... (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41846495)

What is going to happen to me if I write blogs calling for a new government in Dubai? The US might have its problems but they pale in insignificance compared to the UN. It's like having Pat Robertson control the internet.

Nothing. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41849589)

"What is going to happen to me if I write blogs calling for a new government in Dubai?"

Nothing.

Why? The USA for example are on the UN and they would veto anything that made you culpable for extradition over merely that.

Time for the not-internet (1)

ibsteve2u (1184603) | about 2 years ago | (#41846509)

ain't it?

My Plan (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41846513)

Tell the UN to go stuff itself. The US isn't perfect, but it is less imperfect than any other solution I've seen proposed.

Re:My Plan (5, Insightful)

tnk1 (899206) | about 2 years ago | (#41846569)

More to the point, it currently *works*. It's not like the system is broken now, it's just that some other people want pieces of the pie. And they could have that, if they wanted it, by building and maintaining their own infrastructure.

However, they don't want to do that. They just want to make money off of, and regulate, what other people built and bought for them.

Re:My Plan (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41846609)

Ultimately, the goal of the U.N is to tax the US consumer. This is their best path to that.

Control the internet. Impose a use and sales tax.

It'll never happen, because the internet is an agreement not a thing to own, but it's what they're after.

Re:My Plan (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41846689)

Honestly, if they make the Internet horrible we will just make a new internet. They can't control all the internets.

Re:My Plan (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41847277)

why not?

Re:My Plan (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41846763)

You already do pay sales and use tax in the US when you purchase things. Welcome to years ago.

Re:My Plan (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41846895)

You don't pay it to the UN, though.

Seriously, isn't it well past time the US government just threw the UN out of New York? Why do they still put up with it?

Re:My Plan (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | about 2 years ago | (#41846991)

Because it does not work the way you seem to think. Nor should we toss it out. It is a great forum for diplomacy.

Re:My Plan (1)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about 2 years ago | (#41847149)

It is a great forum for diplomacy.

Not to mention, if we bailed on the UN, how would we control who gets recognized as having a right to exist? [upi.com]

That's right, I went there.

Suck it, Bibi.

Re:My Plan (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41849745)

It is a great forum for diplomacy... yes.... NOT GOVERNANCE or recommendation for governance of things such as the Internet.

Re:My Plan (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41846945)

Just as the EU desperately seeks what they call "own resources" so too the UN has long desired the power to regulate and tax. The whole effort behind the Tobin Tax and its European form, the Financial Transactions Tax, has been to acquire the first legal step to full taxation for these bodies and has nothing to do with saving puppies or whatever else they are promising from it.

Now I am not opposed in principle to democratic federations, but the UN can't be one until all the members are democratic too. And if only the democratic members did something like a "UN with regulation and taxes" they'd reinvent the need for a non-binding forum like the UN as a place of discussion with those who are not yet democratic. That's why so many internationalist hopes have been pinned on the European Union as a way of achieving a stepping stone on the way to their ultimate goal. Now, like I said, the ultimate goal isn't actually bad in theory - the Star Trek universe has a world federation after all - but it's extremely bad in practice, or "for the foreseeable future", as anyone who pays attention to how modern politics work in Washington or the UN knows.

It's extremely unwise to let these creeps get a single claw-hold on anything that smells remotely like binding regulation, even more so if it's regulation to do with the freedom of speech or taxes. We really need to start talking seriously about massive cuts to the funding of the UN, cutting them to say 5 or 10% of their current budget, so that they don't have any idle time or resources to come up with these schemes. Aid and development programs have pretty much been shown to be useless now, if not outright scams in most cases especially those of the UN, so we can safely ignore any crocodile tears about UNICEF and puppies when we cut their budget.

Re:My Plan (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | about 2 years ago | (#41846981)

What taxes does the UN currently impose and where the hell do you get these crazy ideas?

Re:My Plan (1)

Nadaka (224565) | about 2 years ago | (#41846721)

Eh? Its starting to break down. The copyright cartels have infested the FBI and ICE and have started waging war against the internet with illegal domain seizures in the last year or two.

Re:My Plan (1, Troll)

game kid (805301) | about 2 years ago | (#41846905)

But at least they're our infestuous copyright cartels! *chants U-S-A! ad infinitum*

Re:My Plan (-1)

Jmc23 (2353706) | about 2 years ago | (#41846749)

Right. It works for us who don't have to live near steaming piles of toxic e-waste. What's with all these people that want to think of the poor, why can't they just do what we did and sell it to some other ignorant people. Do you know how much time and effort has been put into this system of I shit on you and you shit on someone else? Next thing you know they'll want us to take responsability for all our actions!! Long live the USA!!

Re:My Plan (2)

magic maverick (2615475) | about 2 years ago | (#41847103)

They did build and do maintain their own infrastructure. The majority of the physical Internet infrastructure is outside the USA. Funny that, seeing as how the majority of the world is not the USA.

And it doesn't work. The USA government seizes domains for no other reason than the website operators are accused of "pirating" copyrighted material. (And simply having links to the material is good enough apparently.)

It is broken. It does need fixing. And even if it wasn't broken, I wouldn't trust the USA as far as I could throw it. I also don't trust the UN, but I trust them slightly more.

Re:My Plan (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41847625)

Megaupload. Eric Holder/DoJ had a toy and couldn't resist using it. Now the United States is at risk of losing control of the single greatest tool to ever grace mankind. Now we pray that the barbarian hoards will have a comparable level of respect for the First Amendment principles as the internet's previous steward.

Fucking with DNS opened "pandora's box". I hope it was worth it.

Re:My Plan (1)

Xest (935314) | about 2 years ago | (#41850999)

Well it is broken, we have unilaterally enforced global internet censorship enforced at the behest of the US and we're getting highest bidder TLDs that completely break the hierarchial structure of the internet and create massive costs for businesses wanting to protect their trademarks whilst opening the doors for more effective phishing and fraud in the longer term, whilst tipping the balance of the internet more in favour of large organisations who can afford to pay.

But back to that censorship thing, you realise the US is the only nation on earth that has and can impose global censorship on the internet? That to me is broken, I believe no one should be able to and taking it out the hands of any one nations control and ability to unilaterally impose that is the only solution.

I would be happy with a US declaration, written into it's constitution if need be to give a cast iron guarantee that they will cease all censorship and whilst retaining control, still listen to global voices on issues such as ICANN's tlds (most people in the world didn't want it).

I believe this is even less likely than ITU taking control though, hence why I support that option as it's the most likely to fix the current problems and create a stalemate where no more damage can be done. If things are left as is, the US is only going to grow ever more authoritarian in it's control over the internet as it's influence wanes and it gets ever more desperate to protect it's IP through censorship.

The thing that annoys me most about these discussions is that the people who defend the status quo are also often the same ones who are quick to condemn the likes of China for internet censorship within their own borders. It's such a double standard and they become blind to it when their own government does it but not just nationally- internationally too.

What will preserve Internet as we know it (4, Insightful)

e065c8515d206cb0e190 (1785896) | about 2 years ago | (#41846681)

is the fact that countries won't ever agree on how to regulate it.

Just like they can't agree on war and peace at the UN.

And thats a Good Thing (tm)

Re:What will preserve Internet as we know it (1)

Cinder6 (894572) | about 2 years ago | (#41846693)

At the same time, it will make it extremely difficult to improve it.

Re:What will preserve Internet as we know it (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41846805)

Internet improvements don't require any kind of government controls.
The improvements that matter have just been made by many individuals and organizations on their own.

improve what (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41846913)

improve what ? HOW TO REGULATE IT....haha nice try....

Re:What will preserve Internet as we know it (2)

dkf (304284) | about 2 years ago | (#41847413)

At the same time, it will make it extremely difficult to improve it.

What, "improvements" like ICANN's new TLD wheezes?

Re:What will preserve Internet as we know it (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41847239)

The only free internet we'll ever have, is when we can get drives big enough for everyone to download the current current one. Which I'm pretty sure, will be called treasonous in the USA punishable by life in prison, treasonous in China, killed by lead poisoning, blasphemous in a lot of parts of the world, and criminal in every other country.

Well, I for one, am glad I lived to see this, personally I consider the internet, mankind's greatest creation.

Re:What will preserve Internet as we know it (3, Funny)

jittles (1613415) | about 2 years ago | (#41847351)

I think we can all agree that War and Peace was a very long and dry book. The fact that there is no UN resolution stating the same is due to the fact that Russia and the former USSR have veto power in the UN.

Re:What will preserve Internet as we know it (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41847957)

"I think we can all agree that War and Peace was a very long and dry book."

I don't agree that it's dry. It's a great novel that you've obviously never read -- not even an abridged version, I'll bet -- so why are you propagating stereotypes about things you know nothing about, you jackass?

Re:What will preserve Internet as we know it (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41848663)

is the fact that countries won't ever agree on how to regulate it.

The countries won't, but the transnational corporations just might. Then all it takes is a little bribery^W lobbying of politicians and everyone's on the same page.

If they ruin our internet, we will make our own. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41846717)

And there is nothing they can do about it without serious legal changes.

Same goes for the US as well.
The UN are bad, but the US are actually worse NOW. They are pushing their weight around too much.

They piss in our cereal and they see what happens.
It has happened before, it will most likely happen again.

here comes the darknets (1)

S414m4n63r (2765269) | about 2 years ago | (#41846819)

all this law is going to is create things much much worst then the internet we have right now, im sure most of us have seen free-net imagine that 100x bigger because crap laws like this force people to move there

Law enforcement types (0)

future assassin (639396) | about 2 years ago | (#41846907)

are drooling over regulations and laws. More money for them from the gov. The war on Marihuana will end eventually so they need a new "War on ..."

Re:Law enforcement types (3)

RazorSharp (1418697) | about 2 years ago | (#41848937)

I know this is repeated a lot here on /., but don't confuse incompetence with malice. The sad thing is that many of those law enforcement types actually think they're doing the right thing. When they engage in unconstitutional wiretapping, when they detain people indefinitely, and even when they bust some hapless stoner; more often than not they're acting under the delusion that they're taking the morally correct course of action.

The evil fucks who know what they're doing is wrong and do it anyway: the lobbyists who are paid to get these draconian laws passed and the people who pay them - they're the ones who really write our legislation. Congress and law enforcement - for the most part I just see incompetence.

Re:here comes the darknets (1)

RazorSharp (1418697) | about 2 years ago | (#41848877)

Would that really be that bad? It makes me think of good old Diablo II where there was the ultra-regulated network and the open network where hackers could go wild. Or Halo 2 or Starcraft, where you could connect to their networks or use private networks (strangely enough, this worked the opposite as DII - people went usually went to the private networks to avoid the cheaters). Okay, those examples are old but that's when I played video games. I guess the financial industry might be a good example, I believe they rely on a closed network of some sort but I'm not sure of the particulars (hey some karma whore, here's an opportunity for +5 informative).

Anyway, the point being is that if the world wide web is strictly regulated then there are benefits as well as drawbacks. The benefits would obviously be better security, which would make people feel better about using credit cards and personal information and all that jazz. The drawbacks (loss of freedom in every way imaginable) could be countered by a sort of wild west darknet that perhaps relies on a different protocol or something. Ideally something where anonymity is guaranteed (to the best that it can be) that would be used for non-commercial purposes. Maybe I'm dreaming, but as you said, laws like this could be what drives people to non-www networks. It's not like they don't already exist, most people just currently have no reason to use them.

It'd be like gopher but fully functional.

Really? (0)

HarrySquatter (1698416) | about 2 years ago | (#41846823)

and even force companies to clean up their 'e-waste' and make gadgets that are better for the environment

How horrible!!!

Doing Nothing... (1)

SirAstral (1349985) | about 2 years ago | (#41846951)

is exactly what they should do. It is evident that everyone wants more control, and not in the consumers/citizens best interest.

Proof again... nothing new is under the SUN... people keep voting in or supporting, or ignoring the people causing all the problems.

If your elected official says, "We can't just do nothing!", then its time for a replacement.

Re:Doing Nothing... (1)

freeze128 (544774) | about 2 years ago | (#41846989)

'[Doing nothing] would not be a terrible outcome at all,' Kramer said recently.

Yeah, that sounds like something Kramer would say.

Fuck the US & the UN (0)

magic maverick (2615475) | about 2 years ago | (#41847043)

You know, there are a lot of idiots (and otherwise smart people) going on about how the ITU is terrible and the UN will ruin everything, and such. You know, like how the ITU really ruined international phone calls, and the UPU (IPU) has totally fucked up handling of international mail. And some of them will say something stupid about the UN building their own Internet (considering the US built the Internet etc. etc.) or how the US is doing such a good job of things.

Well, here's my take:
The USA may have initially funded and the initial technology behind the Internet may have come from the USA, but it doesn't matter. It really doesn't. It's like saying that just because some random Chinese person made fireworks that China should have control over fireworks for the rest of eternity. It doesn't work like that. Moreover, the rest of the world has built the Internet. Without the rest of the world it would just be a USA based network, and frankly that would be pretty boring. (And many countries had their own internal networks that were joined to the Internet, that could have been joined together perfectly well without the USA based portion.)

And the USA isn't doing a good job of managing the domain name system anyway. Not only are domain names being seized left right and center, ICANN (a subdivision of the US Department of Commerce) is creating an insane system where any big corporation can create whatever top level domain they want.

And, even if the ITU did take over control of the domain name system, they require unanimity (according to same random /. post I saw) to actually make decisions. And surely the USA wouldn't agree on censorship! (Oh wait, they actually would.)

So, my proposal: fuck hierarchy in the domain name system. A simple peer-to-peer system, each system recognizes friends and if enough friends say that this domain name points at this IP address, then that's what happens. If you want a domain name, you just have to convince people to recognize you have the domain name. It makes it harder for businesses (because there is no enforced hierarchy), but, you know, fuck 'em. Maybe .com and .biz and .scammer could all be in a hierarchy, and the rest of us could go our own way with a bit of anarchy. OK, my distributed domain name system is probably not workable. But I know there are a lot of smart people who could easily come up with a workable system. And the major problem as I see it? Well, corporations and government. You know, the people wanting to keep control over the Internet and everything.

If corporations jumped on board, a distributed DNS could be up and running in days. Push some OS updates out and Bob's fucking your uncle (you didn't know your uncle was gay? the way he pays so much attention to the football didn't tip you off?)

Re:Fuck the US & the UN (1)

englishknnigits (1568303) | about 2 years ago | (#41847533)

And some of them will say...how the US is doing such a good job of things.

Citation needed. The argument isn't that the US is doing such a good job, the argument is that the UN would do an even worse job. I'm not saying which side of that argument is correct, I just want you to argue about the correct thing instead of setting up a straw man.

Re:Fuck the US & the UN (1)

magic maverick (2615475) | about 2 years ago | (#41847799)

OK, some people are merely arguing that the US is doing a better job than the UN could do. It doesn't detract from my point that the US is a doing an awful job (from the point of view of a person who actually cares about communication between people, but doesn't care about the rights of corporations or governments) and that a decentralized system would be far better.

How does the U.N. think they're going to do this? (3, Interesting)

kheldan (1460303) | about 2 years ago | (#41847403)

The Internet, since DARPA handed it over to the general public, has been developed by private corporations, not governments, who are the Johnny-come-latelys to this game. If the U.N. gets too uppity about wanting to control/censor/ruin the internet, what's going to stop the core companies from just pulling out and starting an entirely different Internet? Without all the companies that provide the backbone bandwidth all the way down to the last-mile ISP's, there wouldn't BE an internet.

Re:How does the U.N. think they're going to do thi (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41847583)

If we don't go along, they'll scweam and scweam and scweam until they're sick, and then you'll be sorry.

Re:How does the U.N. think they're going to do thi (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41847623)

Vaguery. All the governments need to do is say "all communication" instead of "internet". makes it a little harder to work around.

Re:How does the U.N. think they're going to do thi (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41850147)

... Without all the companies that provide the backbone ...

It's the job of member governments to convert a treaty into laws which regulate its citizens and then enforce them.

Cool.. instead of free rfc we pay $$$ to the ITU (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41848159)

Remembering what ISDN specifications costed in the 1980's, I welcome spending $4000 to find out what the new 401.2.3.128382 http code means.

ewaste? (1)

chrismcb (983081) | about 2 years ago | (#41850625)

What the freak is e-waste? Do I have some one bits dribbling out the back of my computer? Is this stuff toxic? Is there some zero bits floating in my drinking water?
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?