Leaked Documents Show the U.N.'s Internet Power Grab...
thenerfherder.blogspot.com
thenerfherder.blogspot.com
On a tangential note, Google reports a record number of requests from governments to remove things from their search results. Not just places we normally associate with censorship, but lots of supposedly more "liberal" western democracies as well. Control over the net is simply too powerful of an incentive for governments to maintain the principle of keeping their hands clear.
A UN resolution means zip-all for US law, French law, Chinese law, etc. So by definition it can't be as bad as SOPA/PIPA in the us or ACTA in europe. However it might give some cover to those who are pursuing those types of policies.
If this resolution is being pushed mostly by Russia/China, I'd look at it the same way I look at arab league censures of Israel. It's more indicative of the countries that voted for it than some abstract concept of "the UN", and won't have much effect on reality.
Any devolution of ICANN's powers to the UN (which, if not massively fucked up, is probably healthier for the internet than keeping it under one country) would likely be an administrative handover. I seriously doubt it would be done on the basis that the G77 voting as a block could take control of the net.
For an analogy, look at the way the UN peacekeepers typically handle things. They go someplace where there's peacekeeping.. and then they sit there. They don't do anything and avoid taking a side at all costs. If either side says they're not welcome anymore, they're gone.
The UN isn't a government, it's a really big conference room.
Having the Internet controlled primarily by the US and US-friendly organizations may not be ideal, but it would be better than having it controlled by a China, Russia, Mid-east dominated body.
The objective of whom? Please, name names. Or don't bother.
If I don't trust the motives and agendas of some of the regimes behind that push, so sue me? The US isn't exactly a paragon these days, and our political system somewhat corrupted by the influence of highly-concentrated wealth, but I also see signs of a long-overdue self-corrective reaction to that, enabled in large part by the open Internet.
Is such a reaction possible in other more restrictive, more authoritarian regimes? Doesn't look like it, and ones like China are doing all they can make sure it stays that way, but who knows. We shall see...
In other situations Russia and China fight to reduce the power of the UN. Mostly situations where western powers are seeking UN legitimacy for piercing national sovereignty, such as in the run-up to the U.S. invasion of Iraq. Today Russia opposed UN intervention in Syria, and I think China does as well.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_peacekeeping#Hum...
[edit] The US abstained - http://usun.state.gov/briefing/statements/2010/151133.htm
I don't know how much you can read into things. In war, you usually have the bad guys and the worse guys. If you put a good person in a war zone he or she will do bad things.
Bingo. Not for the country as a whole, or the people within it, but definitely for the executive branch.
I don't know how much you can read into things.
I don't think there is any real need to look for a subtle subtext here. The UN certainly isn't bothering to be particularly subtle.
In war, you usually have the bad guys and the worse guys.
In that case you accept no possibility of a defensive or peacekeeping force working on behalf of ordinary people and think that soldiers are mindless thugs who will just loot anyone they are sent to protect. I don't accept that and think that it is possible to have a culture of respect on the ground, but only if that permeates the entire organisation and only if infractions by those people that you are imposing on a situation are publicly investigated and properly dealt with as a matter of absolute policy.
If you put a good person in a war zone he or she will do bad things.
If I take that statement at face value, then I'd have to say that history contains plenty of examples to the contrary.
It seems like the article authors or the leakers are "reading between the lines" but I'd be happier to have a link and a reference number so I could read the proposal in context.
Which is still almost zero.
Also it should be said the UN sets norms for the world to follow which in many areas are extremely valuable.
I don't think it is all that bad. It's not like China needs the UN's permission to censor......
"As the Americans learned so painfully in Earth's final century, free flow of information is the only safeguard against tyranny. The once-chained people whose leaders at last lose their grip on information flow will soon burst with freedom and vitality, but the free nation gradually constricting its grip on public discourse has begun its rapid slide into despotism. Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master."
It's also quite surprising to see Crovitz's WSJ editorial referred to as an "article". It's classic unsubstantiated fear mongering, typical of the editorial section of that paper.
This seems to come up every few years ago, then there's buzz about it, and then everyone realizes that the Internet works just fine and everything goes back to normal.
From a technology standpoint, sure.
From a jurisdiction, big brother, we hold all the power standpoint, the current setup of "the Internet" is dysfunctional at best.
Having the ITU be the responsible party for resolving cross-border disputes over internet policy isn't entirely crazy. However I wouldn't expect too much of it one way or the other; by their very nature trans-national governance entities are mostly advisory; and make a convenient stalking horse for multiple national agendas.
Also -
China is proposing "to give countries authority over the information and communication infrastructure within their state"
Isn't this already the case? Who has authority for communication infrastructure within a country if not the government of that country? Or is the insinuation that the government would seize ownership of the infrastructure?
Basically. A lot of people have been pretending that the Internet (even the part inside your country) is exempt from all laws... because it's the Internet.
My belief is that the reason there is a lack of pushback by the US is because the elements most in line with this ignorant proposal are those at the helm.
It seems crazy, but if lots of people start using it, and more people provide relays, then it will be faster AND less likely to be blocked.
EDIT: Actually, I2P, since it's P2P and fully anonymous.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405270230382220457747...
That's always the excuse authoritarian leaders give when they crack down on dissidents.
Plenty of crazy drafts get passed around in the UN all the time, but the beauty of it all is that no entity is forced to change. Instead you get plenty of gawking and reprimanding that doesn't have any enforcement. The noteworthy exception is the SC, but its permanent members can veto anything that they disagree with.
When it comes to the UN, nothing matter if it doesn't come from the UNSC (and even then, it only really matters if everyone's OK with it). ECOSOC and the ITU have a bunch of treaties underpinning them, but they've all got enough cave-outs to drive a supertanker through. The ITU can hem and haw all it wants about how ICANN should be turned over to them, and nothing will happen save a follow-up report coming out in a year about how this hasn't happened, and how unfortunate that is.
The larger issue, as other have alluded to, is that this is more evidence that the global south isn't happy with the US-centric management of the Internet (which isn't news), and that they'r getting organized to try and make this an issue (which is). Having said that, if you'd like to see how well that group does getting things of substance passed when the US isn't interested, check out most things the UN Office of Disarmament Affairs leads end up.
The brass tacks reality of the internet is that the ICANN roots only have power because individual networks expliticlty cede them that power. If you want to secede from the ICANN DNS, you can replace your root.hints file anytime you want.
http://files.wcitleaks.org/public/T09-CWG.WCIT12-C-0028!!MSW...
Launch of wcitleaks http://jerrybrito.org/post/24541436396/today-were-launching-...
another article I found interesting http://techdailydose.nationaljournal.com/2012/06/officials-s...
"First, China is proposing "to give countries authority over the information and communication infrastructure within their state" and require that online companies "operating in their territory" use the Internet "in a rational way"- in short, to legitimize full government control."
It's ok if the US censors sites and takes down websites by changing DNS data, but it's not not ok for other countries - and I do not express any opinion about China in this - to request this to do?
Rewrite of http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405270230382220457747...
However, both this article and the WSJ seem to take the quotes very much out of context. For example:
'What it shows is breathtaking. First, China is proposing "to give countries authority over the information and communication infrastructure within their state" and require that online companies "operating in their territory" use the Internet "in a rational way" - in short, to legitimize full government control.'
I could only find a similar quote in the alternate version of the document linked: http://files.wcitleaks.org/public/CWG-WCIT12_TD-62E.pdf and only in a section discussing network security and cross-border network attacks:
---
"a) Member-States have the responsibility and right to protect the network security of the information and communication infrastructure within their state, to promote the international cooperation to fight against network attacks and disruptions.
b) Member-States have the responsibility to require and supervise that enterprises operating in their territory use ICTs in a rational way and endeavour to ensure the effective functioning of ICTs, in secure and trustworthy conditions.
c) User information in information and communication network should be respected and protected. Member-states have the responsibility to require and supervise that enterprises operating in their territory protect the security of user information."
---
Which in the context where it appears seems to be a discussion on a Chinese proposal about the need for countries to have policies and procedures to deal with cross-border network attacks. In any case, it seems like there are calls for clarification and some discussion that it is unnecessary, especially this portion:
---
"We believe the proposed text in C 59 imposing new treaty rights and obligations on Member States regarding domestic network security is both unnecessary and beyond the appropriate scope of the ITRs. The United States looks forward to a further explanation from China with regard to the proposed amendments, and we note that we may have further reaction at that time. Source C 75 (USA)"
"The intention of the proposal is to refer only to network security and not content, that is, to the security of the infrastructure. The intention is to encourage Member States to cooperate to improve infrastructure security. Further, article 8 should concern only dissemination of information and a new article should be envisaged for security matter. (China)"
"Portions of the proposal (e.g. rights at national level) are already covered by the Preamble and should not be added here. Provisions regarding responsibilities of Member States excessively expand the scope of the ITRs. (USA)"
---
In those contexts, the statement seems much less nefarious, and as the US representative mentions, probably unnecessary.
I don't have the time to source the other quotes and summaries but I can't help but think that the articles are poorly researched at best.
I find any secrecy like what happens in many treaty negotiations to be concerning, I don't need to be sold there, but to trust your interpretation I need more transparency from you.
How does your secret decoder ring work?
What will happen though, the US has peaked in power, will censor more sites through DNS, Asia and Europe will be fed up at some point and the internet (DNS) will break up. In the long run power will balance itself with the amount of people in countries and economic power.