Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
The Internet China United States Technology

Russia, China, and Others Seek Greater Control Over Internet 174

Posted by Soulskill
from the whoever-controls-the-cat-pictures-controls-the-universe dept.
kodiaktau writes "A proposal put forth by Russia, China, Saudi Arabia, Algeria, Sudan and the United Arab Emirates seeks greater international control and government of internet addressing. 'A leaked draft (PDF) of the Russia-led proposals would give countries "equal rights to manage the Internet including in regard to the allotment, assignment and reclamation of Internet numbering." This could allow governments to render websites within their borders inaccessible, even via proxy servers or other countries. It also could allow for multinational pacts in which countries could terminate access to websites at each others' request.' The move would basically undermine ICANN and decentralize control of internet addressing: 'The revision would give nations the explicit right to "implement policy" on net governance and "regulate the national Internet segment," the draft says.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Russia, China, and Others Seek Greater Control Over Internet

Comments Filter:
  • From the official speech [itu.int] delivered by the ITU's secretary-general at the first Plenary of World Conference on International Telecommunications in Dubai last week:

    We have the power to create a brave new world, where social and economic justice prevails – together.

    And no, that quote is not taken out of context.

  • by StormyWeather (543593) on Sunday December 09, 2012 @09:41AM (#42232983) Homepage

    Now is their chanc to experience the awesomeness ofRussian and Chinese control.

  • by caspy7 (117545) on Sunday December 09, 2012 @09:49AM (#42233013)

    This reminds me of the scene at the beginning of Serenity in which the children question why the Browncoat rebels would reject civilized living.

  • by 1s44c (552956) on Sunday December 09, 2012 @09:54AM (#42233055)

    The current situation:
    One country can implement rules to abuse the whole world. Each country can implement rules to screw over its own citizens and manipulate traffic routed though that country. Many countries already abuse their own citizens ( China, UK, Netherlands, etc. )

    Without US control:
    Each country can implement rules to screw over its own citizens and manipulate traffic routed though that country. Many countries already abuse their own citizens ( China, UK, Netherlands, etc. )

    How can this not be a Good Thing(tm)?

    Besides the part in the summary about blocking access via proxy servers is bull. Even with the deep packet inspection currently implemented in the UK they can't block VPN links which can be easily hidden in other traffic.

  • Dis-unity (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Commontwist (2452418) on Sunday December 09, 2012 @10:00AM (#42233083)

    So instead of working towards an Internet that blends everything together in a rich, international and multicultural mosaic they wish to deny everything in areas where a select, privileged few rule, creating a blander Internet that caters to their dogma. Nice way to block other people's viewpoints and thus create greater cultural, religious, and political misunderstandings.

    Kings of the hill, indeed.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 09, 2012 @10:15AM (#42233175)

    "Social and Economic Justice" = Totalitarianism in a nutshell.

    I completely disagree with that statement, although it can be perfectly abused for that purpose of course. Then again, so can "spreading democracy".

  • by Alwin Henseler (640539) on Sunday December 09, 2012 @10:17AM (#42233181) Homepage

    With today's centralized structure of backbone connections, it shouldn't be too hard for governments to 'squeeze the pipes'. Which for most users, should do the job of blocking 'undesired' sites. I don't see why a government would even need the help of outside organizations (or other countries) for that.

    Technically inclined users will be able to find ways around that. And it'll be very hard (if not impossible) to stop those users. That is, unless a government is prepared to f**k with such basics as encrypted connections. Which would make many legitimate uses (eg. online banking, webmail) impossible too. So from a government's POV it's basically a choice between "no internet at all", or "a mostly controlled internet, but with loopholes for those who know to find them".

    With wireless routers becoming very common, it's not hard to imagine that some mesh networking protocol will pop up. Retrieve firmware from your neighbor (to get around what government allows to be sold commercially), upload to your router @ home, send messages around the net by passing them to a neighbor's router, that router passing it onto the next neighbor, and so forth a 100 times until it reaches its destination. All in P2P style with full use of encryption technology. Maybe not efficient (or a replacement for general web browsing), but good luck blocking that.

  • by cynyr (703126) on Sunday December 09, 2012 @10:30AM (#42233295)

    some examples of breakage this would likely cause...

    UK decides that it would like to have control over *.com. Implements rules for it, and give out www.google.com to Microsoft (they paid more). Now what happens in the USA when I ask the root DNS servers for the IP(s) for www.google.com? Do I sometimes get UK Bing?

    If your answer was "simple, each country runs its own namesever!" How do I get to www.bbc.co.uk? Does the BBC have to setup a server in the USA?

    Actully what i think should happen is all non-countrycode TLDs should go away. Then we could have a international internet body (IIB) that basically agrees that the only allowed TLDs are country codes and that each country is responsable for maintaing them. *.com would then become *.com.usa *.gov would become *.gov.usa. In Australia they could have *.com.au, and *.gov.au. This would allow each country to have control, and wouldn't break the internet.

    Also it could be decided by this IIB that all servers must use the country code of the country they are located in. Recognized countries are the same set that the UN recognizes. So if google wants to setup www.google.bz they would have to have at least a forwarding server in Belize.

  • by gmuslera (3436) on Sunday December 09, 2012 @10:40AM (#42233345) Homepage Journal
    Reminds me another country that supports revolutions and even invades foreing countries for "freedom of people" too.
  • Re:soviernty (Score:4, Interesting)

    by rickb928 (945187) on Sunday December 09, 2012 @12:22PM (#42233953) Homepage Journal

    Why shouldn't they indeed? But, what is a country?

    If it is the leader, dictator, government, bureaucracy, then indeed they can and will set the rules, and they will need the valves on the intertubes available to them to control the flow of information - ideas, values, concepts, the like.

    But if a country is to include the people, then perhaps the people will want to know things, things other than those approved of and delivered by their dictator, government, bureacracy.

    The current Internet is already so ubiquitous that cutting off a country results in an immediate acknowlegement that the people of that country have been denied access to the most important and powerful forces we have - ideas, information, values, and the like. It seems, to me, that the ITU is being used by many countries' powers to regain control and be able to suppress the people even more efficiently. That alone is reason enough to oppose this, but the leaders of this movement are themselves potentially some of the least trustworthy and most likely to misuse these powers.

    The US may not be blameless or without fault, but we should tell these other countries that if they find it necessary to exert this level of influence and control over the Internet, they should do so within their own borders, and leave us out of it please. Just have their ISPs rearchitect their systems, and give them the cutoff and isolate switch. No need to get us involved.

    The second greatest attraction of freedom is its existence elsewhere.

  • by poity (465672) on Sunday December 09, 2012 @12:48PM (#42234117)

    If slashdotters can support Obama, despite knowing full well that he's done some disagreeable things, in order to prevent Romney from taking power, then it is entirely rational and congruent for them to also support the US, despite knowing full well that it's done some disagreeable things, in order to prevent Russia/China/Saudi Arabia/etc from taking power.

    What's the alternative, give it to Finland (the Ron Paul of the world) [wikipedia.org]? You know what... that's not a bad idea

  • by kaws (2589929) on Sunday December 09, 2012 @05:56PM (#42236679)
    I'm not so sure about that. Politicians have gotten to be pretty effective at distracting the general populace with issues that don't have a very big impact as far as governance is concerned. Wether or not stuff like marijuana or gay marriage is allowed won't directly impact the government in any way that will matter for how this country is ran but they seem to be some of the bigger issues discussed. Personally I don't care too much for those issues but no matter my opinion I think that stuff like the internet is a far more important issue. tldr; People getting involved isn't enough, it's people getting involved in the right issues that will truly make a difference.

"Atomic batteries to power, turbines to speed." -- Robin, The Boy Wonder

Working...