9 ms·
Leaked Documents Show the U.N.'s Internet Power Grab...
- digitalengineer 14y ago"Well, we can't have all these people communicating directly with one-an-other now can we? Next thing you know they'll be exchanging ideas and experiences or organizing things on their own! Better regulate it".
- DanielBMarkham 14y agoThis is the third article I've read from various sources underlying the importance of the upcoming Dubai meeting. To me it sounds a heckuva lot worse than SOPA/PIPA was in the states. I tire of breathless articles, but unfortunately we are living in a time where multiple interested parties are all trying to use their political power to control what we see, read, think, and share. Hopefully this ITU/UN move will get the international press attention that it looks to me like it deserves. 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.
- jbooth 14y agoWell, if UN laws had much practical effect, then we'd have peace in the middle east and Africa right now, and we don't. 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.
- abruzzi 14y agoExcept that if as the article suggests, ICANN is replaced by a UN agency, UN law would become, in some ways, directly enforceable by that agency (at least insofar as the replacement agency has the ability to enforce.)
- jbooth 14y agoThere's no such thing as UN law. There are treaties between nations, frequently brokered at the UN, and there are UN resolutions, which are more like "this statement was not vetoed by anyone" than they are rulings of law. 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.
- SkyMarshal 14y agoThe objective of some is to turn it into a world government. This is just one more little step in that direction. 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.
- michaelfeathers 14y agoI wonder why there hasn't been much US response? Maybe the US isn't planning to be a signatory or isn't planning to legitimize it?
- adaml_623 14y agoMaybe the US is totally fine with all of the 'Authoritarian' controls proposed?
- evilbit 14y agoin light of google's "alarm" over take-down notices from usa, canada, and other "free" nations, i wouldn't be surprised in the least if our own governments were complicit in this authoritarian takeover.
- leonlee 14y agoNothing that ECOSOC (and by extension UNDG and ITU) pushes forth is legally binding and even if this particular trend gains momentum the USFG can always bargain with its wallet (assuming they aren't complicit). 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.
- JimmyL 14y agoThis. 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.
- jessriedel 14y agoDoes this blog post add anything to original Wall Street Journal article? http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303822204577470532859210296.html http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405270230382220457747...
- jaaron 14y agoNo. In fact, it's not much more than a cut and paste job.
- TazeTSchnitzel 14y agoPersonally, I think we should encourage using Tor for all internet use. 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.
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]
- doktrin 14y agoDoes anyone sincerely believe this obscure UN body stands a snowball's chance in hell of actually snatching authority from Icann? The only reason the US response has been lackluster is because the threat is insignificant. 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.
- trebuch3t 14y agoThe issue is less about the UN trying to take control of Internet authority, it is more about what seems to be growing discontent with the US having all of the control. See the Chinese RFC about "internal internets" mentioned yesterday. 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.
- TazeTSchnitzel 14y agoSorry to be pedantic; it was an Internet Draft, which anyone can submit, not an IETF RFC.
- grecy 14y ago> the Internet works just fine. 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.
- rmc 14y agoThe USA has started throwing it's weight around w.r.t. .com namespace. People are starting to realise that's not right.
- sageikosa 14y agoAuthoritarian regimes could attempt to use this idea to splinter themselves (perhaps in a coalition) into separate "Internet" blocs that use the same type of communication infrastructure, but different "information" infrastructure.
- huxley 14y agoI agree with the need for discussions like this to take place in the open so that people can be informed about what their representatives in government are discussing. International treaties are very important. 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 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.
- brown9-2 14y agoIt seems to me like this article confuses one member country proposing something as that proposal being accepted. Members at a meeting are free to propose all sorts of wacky stuff - that is why they are meeting to discuss the merits of the proposals. 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?
- sageikosa 14y agoWhat constitutes information infrastructure? And what does "within the state" mean? Available, hosted, owned by operators living within?
- wmf 14y agoIsn't this already the case? Who has authority for communication infrastructure within a country if not the government of that country? 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.
- dhughes 14y agoNot every country has the same laws as every other country.
- wmf 14y agoObviously, so different things will break in different countries.
- snowwrestler 14y agoBut every country has laws, and the Internet is not exempt just because we want it to be.
- zeruch 14y agoI am less concerned about the machinations of a bunch of second tier states trying to put the internet genie back in a bottle via largely toothless legislation, than I am concerned it will get used as a thin end of a wedge for those in the US who want some data autarchy imposed here at home. 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.
- aubergene 14y agoWho are the U.N. supposedly going to grab power from then? Why shouldn't ICANN be under the ITU? How is the ITU "obscure"? Do they do a bad job of regulating telecomms at the moment? Launch of wcitleaks http://jerrybrito.org/post/24541436396/today-were-launching-wcitleaks-org http://jerrybrito.org/post/24541436396/today-were-launching-... another article I found interesting http://techdailydose.nationaljournal.com/2012/06/officials-say-threats-from-net.php http://techdailydose.nationaljournal.com/2012/06/officials-s...
- wmf 14y agoIsn't ITU in charge of making international phone calls artificially expensive by funneling money to kleptocratic PTTs? And now they're proposing to bring the same caller-pays settlement to the Internet. http://news.cnet.com/8301-1009_3-57449375-83/u.n-could-tax-u.s.-based-web-sites-leaked-docs-show/ http://news.cnet.com/8301-1009_3-57449375-83/u.n-could-tax-u...
- Apocryphon 14y agoHow ironic they do not listen to the great U.N. Commissioner Pravin Lal. "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."
- tzs 14y agoI don't have time to read such a long document now. Can someone who has tell us if there is really something worrisome here, or if this whole fuss is just more noise from the same crowd that thinks bike lanes are a UN plot to strip us of our rights. (I'm not making that up: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/04/us/activists-fight-green-projects-seeing-un-plot.html?pagewanted=all http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/04/us/activists-fight-green-p...)
- forgotusername 14y agoDid you read the post?
- tzs 14y agoYes. I've never heard of the author, and based on the other HN comments some of his points appear a bit exaggerated. Hence, my question.
- elssar 14y agoExaggerated? Here's a link to the Chinese proposal to give each government control over the internet in it's country - DNS and all - https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-diao-aip-dns-00 https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-diao-aip-dns-00 This is the abstract - "With the reality of Internet, Autonomous Internet technology in this article constructs independent autonomous extensible domain name architecture and domain name hierarchy through current domain name architecture, provides independent root DNS server, inner/outer DNS resolution mechanism for each autonomous internet network system, and provides reformation and transition solution from current Internet to realize autonomy even in unilateral action." If you read the WSJ article linked, you'll see the ridiculous proposals like making snooping on email legal, and charging a fee on internet traffic that crosses national borders. Imagine having to pay for a google search, not to google but to your government. Actually that'd make google search payed, because they'd have to pay to crawl sites that are hosted in servers outside the US. And if you're under the impression that all of this is too ridiculous and surely sane politicians will not back this, you're underestimating the assholery and idiocy of politicians.
- ksadeghi 14y agoJust another reason to adopt Namecoin as an alternate DNS provider. Lots of work still needs to be done though for it to be easy enough to use by the average user.
- hexagonal 14y agoBlogspam. Rewrite of http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303822204577470532859210296.html http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405270230382220457747...
- elidourado 14y agoJust wanted to let everyone here know that you can access the documents directly on our site at wcitleaks.org, or follow @wcitleaks on Twitter for updates.
- Uchikoma 14y agoIrrelevant. 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.
- Uchikoma 14y agoOn the other hand, astonishing reading the blog post: "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?
- jasveer 14y agoWhat 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. The United States already does this. Second, several proposals would give the U.N. power to regulate online content for the first time, under the guise of protecting against computer malware or spam. The United States already does this (under he guise of protecting IP) Third, Russia and some Arab countries are proposing to be able to inspect private communications such as email. The United States already does this. Fourth, Iran and Russia are proposing new rules to measure Internet traffic along national borders and bill the originator of the traffic, as with international phone calls - essentially creating national toll booths for data. The infrastructure makes this possible already, today. If a state wanted to, it could impose data tarifs on telcos. >> Fifth, there is a proposal that would give the U.N. control over the Internet's Domain Name System, replacing ICANN which operates under a contract from the U.S. Commerce Department. ... speaks for itself. Frankly, I don't see the difference.