20 ms·

UN council: Nations, stop switching off the internet

136 points by TheAuditor 10y ago

reustle 10y ago
Does anyone have the full list of the 15 countries that wanted to remove the text that the article mentions? From the article it links [1] I can find: Russia, China, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kenya, South Africa, Indonesia, and India [1] http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/07/01/un_officially_condemns_internet_shutdowns/ http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/07/01/un_officially_condem...
- cdubzzz 10y ago
  Can this submission URL also be updated to the above? Why go through Slashdot for this? Also the actual resolution from the article: https://www.article19.org/data/files/Internet_Statement_Adopted.pdf https://www.article19.org/data/files/Internet_Statement_Adop...
  - josephb 10y ago
    Agreed. The slashdot "value add" for this article appears to be in the negative.
- DyslexicAtheist 10y ago
  on the slashdot site it says: >> Thirteen countries, including ... where did you get 15 from?
  - rbjorklin 10y ago
    From the article: "Some were surprised by the 13 other countries that lined up with Russia and China"
  - tremon 10y ago
    "13 other countries that lined up with Russia and China" Although a paragraph further it says "Russia and China were joined by 15 other countries"
- sctb 10y ago
  Thanks, we updated the link from http://m.slashdot.org/story/313215 http://m.slashdot.org/story/313215.
- tim333 10y ago
  [1] States voting in favour of the amendment and against the resolution were: Bolivia, Burundi, China, Cuba, Ecuador, India, Indonesia, Kyrgyzstan, Qatar, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, United Arab Emirates, Venezuela, Vietnam; https://www.article19.org/resources.php/resource/38429/en/unhrc:-significant-resolution-reaffirming-human-rights-online-adopted https://www.article19.org/resources.php/resource/38429/en/un...
throwawayIndian 10y ago
India isn't really a full democracy; it says it is a "democracy" as long as it is convenient to say so. India has hardly ever stood for free speech or even understands what free speech is all about. For example, during 1984 massacre of Sikhs in Delhi these jokers were playing shehnai[1] all day on their only state-owned TV channel Doordarshan[2]. This I know, because I lived there then. And now they even have a prime minister with sketchy/convicted/ruling-overturned background who is well known to have massacred people/colleagues based on their beliefs/position. One can only imagine what goes on behind those free speeches. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shehnai https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shehnai [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doordarshan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doordarshan
- chimeracoder 10y ago
  > And now they even have a prime minister with sketchy/convicted/ruling-overturned background who is well known to have massacred people/colleagues based on their beliefs/position You're vastly overstating what is "well known" about Modi, to the point of spreading blatantly false propaganda[0]. But even if you weren't, this has nothing to do with democracy or free speech. (Nor is it particularly unusual in democratic countries). > India isn't really a full democracy; it says it is a "democracy" as long as it is convenient to say so. India has hardly ever stood for free speech or even understands what free speech is all about. "Democracy" doesn't mean "free speech". And in fact, India's de jure protections on free speech are far greater than (for example) what the UK grants. [0] While Modi has some figurative skeletons in his closet, it's completely wrong to say 'it is well-known that Modi has massacred colleagues based on their beliefs'.
  - DasIch 10y ago
    Without free speech you don't have well informed voters. Without well informed voters your democracy is just an authoritarian state that makes decisions by voters as proxy.
    - kiba 10y ago
      Without free speech you don't have well informed voters What about uninformed bullshitting speech that cause voters to not make the 'well-informed' choice?
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
MilnerRoute 10y ago
Slashdot had a good discussion about this. https://yro.slashdot.org/story/16/07/03/0340234/un-council-seriously-nations-stop-switching-off-the-internet https://yro.slashdot.org/story/16/07/03/0340234/un-council-s... There's now a group that's also pushing to also make cryptography and anonymity a basic human right.
- killbrad 10y ago
  Maybe I'm just jaded, but everyone on slashdot has always seemed like a cynical, tin foil hat wearing, "neckbeard".
rayiner 10y ago
The vote was 20 in favor, and 14 against. And of course the result is meaningless. Imagine the horrific outcome if the UN had proportional representation and actual power.
- tremon 10y ago
  If the UN had proportional representation, the vote would have gone against, since both China and India voted that way. Can you articulate what horrific outcome you're thinking of? I'm not good at imagining what other people find horrific.
  - ptaipale 10y ago
    Generally, countries with good human rights record (Western democracies) would be constantly out-voted by authoritarian countries with large populations (China and Russia, and with some less authoritarianism but still poor human rights record, India). I also find sad that people feel they need to speak of South Africa as a democracy. Mandela is gone and the leadership is what it is.
    - dmoy 10y ago
      Agree on China pop. Russia has less than half the pop of US, and it's declining.
      - ptaipale 10y ago
        Yes, but still about as large as France and Germany combined. Also other nations with authoritarian and anti-freedom stances have large populations (Pakistan >200M, Nigeria >180M, Iran 80 M, Bangladesh >170M, etc). If voting power is based on population, China and India alone could outvote Western democracies.
    - drivingmenuts 10y ago
      > good human rights record (Western democracies) slightly less-awful human rights records Made it more accurately descriptive.
hammock 10y ago
"Stop switching off the internet [we need it to surveil you]"
- chipperyman573 10y ago
  Nothing is forcing people to use the internet. All the States already had complete access to the internet anyway - this is about to end users.
GigabyteCoin 10y ago
Can somebody explain why authoritarian governments are even allowed a vote or membership in the UN? What does it matter what a few elites at the top want for "their" country, when millions of their citizens usually want the exact opposite? I doubt that many citizens in the 15 countries that voted against would agree with their leadership on this matter, for example.
- stormbrew 10y ago
  The UN exists as a forum for all governments to come together. It would have a different purpose altogether if there were some democratic bar that would have to be met to join. Also, who would decide what that bar is? There's quite a lot of grey here, and it would be very very easy for certain very powerful countries to set the bar where it was politically convenient for them rather than at some place that actually makes sense. This already happens a bit, hence why the Republic of China (aka Taiwan) is excluded, and it is almost certainly to the detriment of the people of those countries as well as their governments, imo.
  - DanielBMarkham 10y ago
    It's also not a world government. It's a treaty organization designed to prevent another world war. Member nations can come and organize and say whatever they like. These things have no binding effect. So in a way, this is akin to a "strongly worded letter"
- douche 10y ago
  You'd have to throw out two members of the security council, if your criteria is that you can't be a authoritarian government controlled by the elites. I'm not sure you could get a majority of US citizens to agree with what their government does in the UN.
- chrischen 10y ago
  People have an unalienable natural right to vote with violence and force. If people do not like their government and the government does not provide peaceful ways for the people to get their way then the people can always take power by force. So if millions of people want the opposite, they would enact it but force of they want it enough.
unicornporn 10y ago
Nations: uhm, no.
smilekzs 10y ago
Regardless of the result, I highly doubt that the GFW would be removed or even relaxed... What does it take to shove a decision down the throats of people operating the GFW?

136 points by TheAuditor 10y ago

Does anyone have the full list of the 15 countries that wanted to remove the text that the article mentions? From the article it links [1] I can find: Russia, China, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kenya, South Africa, Indonesia, and India [1] http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/07/01/un_officially_condemns_internet_shutdowns/ http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/07/01/un_officially_condem...

cdubzzz 10y ago
Can this submission URL also be updated to the above? Why go through Slashdot for this? Also the actual resolution from the article: https://www.article19.org/data/files/Internet_Statement_Adopted.pdf https://www.article19.org/data/files/Internet_Statement_Adop...
- josephb 10y ago
  Agreed. The slashdot "value add" for this article appears to be in the negative.
DyslexicAtheist 10y ago
on the slashdot site it says: >> Thirteen countries, including ... where did you get 15 from?
- rbjorklin 10y ago
  From the article: "Some were surprised by the 13 other countries that lined up with Russia and China"
- tremon 10y ago
  "13 other countries that lined up with Russia and China" Although a paragraph further it says "Russia and China were joined by 15 other countries"
sctb 10y ago
Thanks, we updated the link from http://m.slashdot.org/story/313215 http://m.slashdot.org/story/313215.
tim333 10y ago
[1] States voting in favour of the amendment and against the resolution were: Bolivia, Burundi, China, Cuba, Ecuador, India, Indonesia, Kyrgyzstan, Qatar, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, United Arab Emirates, Venezuela, Vietnam; https://www.article19.org/resources.php/resource/38429/en/unhrc:-significant-resolution-reaffirming-human-rights-online-adopted https://www.article19.org/resources.php/resource/38429/en/un...

throwawayIndian 10y ago

India isn't really a full democracy; it says it is a "democracy" as long as it is convenient to say so. India has hardly ever stood for free speech or even understands what free speech is all about. For example, during 1984 massacre of Sikhs in Delhi these jokers were playing shehnai[1] all day on their only state-owned TV channel Doordarshan[2]. This I know, because I lived there then. And now they even have a prime minister with sketchy/convicted/ruling-overturned background who is well known to have massacred people/colleagues based on their beliefs/position. One can only imagine what goes on behind those free speeches. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shehnai https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shehnai [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doordarshan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doordarshan

chimeracoder 10y ago
> And now they even have a prime minister with sketchy/convicted/ruling-overturned background who is well known to have massacred people/colleagues based on their beliefs/position You're vastly overstating what is "well known" about Modi, to the point of spreading blatantly false propaganda[0]. But even if you weren't, this has nothing to do with democracy or free speech. (Nor is it particularly unusual in democratic countries). > India isn't really a full democracy; it says it is a "democracy" as long as it is convenient to say so. India has hardly ever stood for free speech or even understands what free speech is all about. "Democracy" doesn't mean "free speech". And in fact, India's de jure protections on free speech are far greater than (for example) what the UK grants. [0] While Modi has some figurative skeletons in his closet, it's completely wrong to say 'it is well-known that Modi has massacred colleagues based on their beliefs'.
- DasIch 10y ago
  Without free speech you don't have well informed voters. Without well informed voters your democracy is just an authoritarian state that makes decisions by voters as proxy.
  - kiba 10y ago
    Without free speech you don't have well informed voters What about uninformed bullshitting speech that cause voters to not make the 'well-informed' choice?

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

MilnerRoute 10y ago

Slashdot had a good discussion about this. https://yro.slashdot.org/story/16/07/03/0340234/un-council-seriously-nations-stop-switching-off-the-internet https://yro.slashdot.org/story/16/07/03/0340234/un-council-s... There's now a group that's also pushing to also make cryptography and anonymity a basic human right.

killbrad 10y ago
Maybe I'm just jaded, but everyone on slashdot has always seemed like a cynical, tin foil hat wearing, "neckbeard".

rayiner 10y ago

The vote was 20 in favor, and 14 against. And of course the result is meaningless. Imagine the horrific outcome if the UN had proportional representation and actual power.

tremon 10y ago
If the UN had proportional representation, the vote would have gone against, since both China and India voted that way. Can you articulate what horrific outcome you're thinking of? I'm not good at imagining what other people find horrific.
- ptaipale 10y ago
  Generally, countries with good human rights record (Western democracies) would be constantly out-voted by authoritarian countries with large populations (China and Russia, and with some less authoritarianism but still poor human rights record, India). I also find sad that people feel they need to speak of South Africa as a democracy. Mandela is gone and the leadership is what it is.
  - dmoy 10y ago
    Agree on China pop. Russia has less than half the pop of US, and it's declining.
    - ptaipale 10y ago
      Yes, but still about as large as France and Germany combined. Also other nations with authoritarian and anti-freedom stances have large populations (Pakistan >200M, Nigeria >180M, Iran 80 M, Bangladesh >170M, etc). If voting power is based on population, China and India alone could outvote Western democracies.
  - drivingmenuts 10y ago
    > good human rights record (Western democracies) slightly less-awful human rights records Made it more accurately descriptive.

hammock 10y ago

"Stop switching off the internet [we need it to surveil you]"

chipperyman573 10y ago
Nothing is forcing people to use the internet. All the States already had complete access to the internet anyway - this is about to end users.

GigabyteCoin 10y ago

Can somebody explain why authoritarian governments are even allowed a vote or membership in the UN? What does it matter what a few elites at the top want for "their" country, when millions of their citizens usually want the exact opposite? I doubt that many citizens in the 15 countries that voted against would agree with their leadership on this matter, for example.

stormbrew 10y ago
The UN exists as a forum for all governments to come together. It would have a different purpose altogether if there were some democratic bar that would have to be met to join. Also, who would decide what that bar is? There's quite a lot of grey here, and it would be very very easy for certain very powerful countries to set the bar where it was politically convenient for them rather than at some place that actually makes sense. This already happens a bit, hence why the Republic of China (aka Taiwan) is excluded, and it is almost certainly to the detriment of the people of those countries as well as their governments, imo.
- DanielBMarkham 10y ago
  It's also not a world government. It's a treaty organization designed to prevent another world war. Member nations can come and organize and say whatever they like. These things have no binding effect. So in a way, this is akin to a "strongly worded letter"
douche 10y ago
You'd have to throw out two members of the security council, if your criteria is that you can't be a authoritarian government controlled by the elites. I'm not sure you could get a majority of US citizens to agree with what their government does in the UN.
chrischen 10y ago
People have an unalienable natural right to vote with violence and force. If people do not like their government and the government does not provide peaceful ways for the people to get their way then the people can always take power by force. So if millions of people want the opposite, they would enact it but force of they want it enough.

unicornporn 10y ago

Nations: uhm, no.

smilekzs 10y ago

Regardless of the result, I highly doubt that the GFW would be removed or even relaxed... What does it take to shove a decision down the throats of people operating the GFW?