If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Washington Post)   That UN conference that was going to take over the Internet, then promised not to take over the Internet, totally tried to take over the Internet last night. Good News; US and about 20 other countries won't sign the treaty   (washingtonpost.com) divider line 59
    More: Interesting, United States, internet, private networks, International Telecommunication Union, internet freedom, treaty, signing ceremony, press conference  
•       •       •

2529 clicks; posted to Politics » on 14 Dec 2012 at 1:03 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



59 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-12-14 09:39:06 AM
If you stop a minute to look at this from a rational standpoint, this is the best thing the United States could have done. The internet is integral to how the world functions and the last thing anyone should want is to put control of it in the hands of an organization predicated on trying to take over every government in the world today.
 
2012-12-14 09:58:37 AM
They'll just hop into their black helicopters and follow the orange balls on the power lines to the internet and destroy it manually. Wake up, sheeple!
 
2012-12-14 10:35:52 AM

Lucky LaRue: If you stop a minute to look at this from a rational standpoint, this is the best thing the United States could have done. The internet is integral to how the world functions and the last thing anyone should want is to put control of it in the hands of an organization predicated on trying to take over every government in the world today.


First, that is not the UN goal. Second, by not having a common global framework, the internet will be at the mercy of bad player throughout the world. Next time the US electronic economy is being brought to it knees by cyber attacks originating in other countries, don't ask the UN for help.
 
2012-12-14 10:42:15 AM
Maybe, just maybe, the U.S. government actually learned something when it received massive backlash from the people about SOPA.

/wishful thinking
 
2012-12-14 10:45:44 AM
There's a red, under my bed
And there's a little green man in my head
 
2012-12-14 10:49:34 AM
"One man's spam is another man's political speech"

As evidenced by my politics gmail account.
 
2012-12-14 11:03:02 AM

mrshowrules: Next time the US electronic economy is being brought to it knees by cyber attacks originating in other countries, don't ask the UN for help.


Exactly how would the UN help with that?
 
2012-12-14 11:55:02 AM

Lsherm: mrshowrules: Next time the US electronic economy is being brought to it knees by cyber attacks originating in other countries, don't ask the UN for help.

Exactly how would the UN help with that?


It provides a framework to address Internet security both in ensuring that it is open and free but also that isn't abused. When some perform a DDOS attack from a country, they are not only attacking some place, they are also preventing access to the internet to legitimate access.

So for example if a botnet from Ukraine (and other countries) is targeting a company in the US, there should at least be a mechanism for possible remediation with local ISPs (either voluntary or enforced) if there is a criminal aspect to this or if simply it is negatively impacting the Internet itself.

This Treaty does do this but it lays the a framework for this these types of mechanisms and agreements between Governments to take place. Encourages them.

If you are not sure what the UN and the ITU can accomplish, just remember that you can call any place in the world today because of them.
 
2012-12-14 11:58:27 AM

Lsherm: Exactly how would the UN help with that?


Um, strongly worded email? I mean, helloooo???

Jeez do you need everything spoon-fed to you?
 
2012-12-14 01:06:04 PM
Basically, this was about Saudi Arabia and friends asking the US to please shut down Twitter and Facebook, and the US saying LOLNO, they make us way too much money
 
2012-12-14 01:09:09 PM
Is it just me, or did that article entirely skip any mention of what the proposed treaty actually does?
 
2012-12-14 01:09:20 PM

mrshowrules: Lucky LaRue: If you stop a minute to look at this from a rational standpoint, this is the best thing the United States could have done. The internet is integral to how the world functions and the last thing anyone should want is to put control of it in the hands of an organization predicated on trying to take over every government in the world today.

First, that is not the UN goal. Second, by not having a common global framework, the internet will be at the mercy of bad player throughout the world. Next time the US electronic economy is being brought to it knees by cyber attacks originating in other countries, don't ask the UN for help.


7/10 you really come across and genuinely ignorant. I like it!
 
2012-12-14 01:10:02 PM

mrshowrules: Lsherm: mrshowrules: Next time the US electronic economy is being brought to it knees by cyber attacks originating in other countries, don't ask the UN for help.

Exactly how would the UN help with that?

It provides a framework to address Internet security both in ensuring that it is open and free but also that isn't abused. When some perform a DDOS attack from a country, they are not only attacking some place, they are also preventing access to the internet to legitimate access.

So for example if a botnet from Ukraine (and other countries) is targeting a company in the US, there should at least be a mechanism for possible remediation with local ISPs (either voluntary or enforced) if there is a criminal aspect to this or if simply it is negatively impacting the Internet itself.

This Treaty does do this but it lays the a framework for this these types of mechanisms and agreements between Governments to take place. Encourages them.

If you are not sure what the UN and the ITU can accomplish, just remember that you can call any place in the world today because of them.


your opinions on the internet belong in the twilight zone.

a lot of what you want is akin to starting a war on drugs on the internet. it would just cost the world money and end up harming regular internet users more than it hurts them.

We have cyber crime divisions in our major defense forces like the FBI and CIA, and for everything else, the internet has done a decent job policing itself to date.


the internet isnt broken and internet security isnt broken, i just see people wanting power they have no business having and im glad the US saw that too
 
2012-12-14 01:12:12 PM

mrshowrules: Lsherm: mrshowrules: Next time the US electronic economy is being brought to it knees by cyber attacks originating in other countries, don't ask the UN for help.

Exactly how would the UN help with that?

It provides a framework to address Internet security both in ensuring that it is open and free but also that isn't abused. When some perform a DDOS attack from a country, they are not only attacking some place, they are also preventing access to the internet to legitimate access.

So for example if a botnet from Ukraine (and other countries) is targeting a company in the US, there should at least be a mechanism for possible remediation with local ISPs (either voluntary or enforced) if there is a criminal aspect to this or if simply it is negatively impacting the Internet itself.

This Treaty does do this but it lays the a framework for this these types of mechanisms and agreements between Governments to take place. Encourages them.

If you are not sure what the UN and the ITU can accomplish, just remember that you can call any place in the world today because of them.


You are an idiot. Its about the UN censoring the internet so that revolutions like egypt and syria can be quickly squashed. UAE and Saudis are the ones who are asking for it and they are bastions of free speech amiright!
 
2012-12-14 01:15:19 PM

An-Unnecessarily-Long-Name: mrshowrules: Lsherm: mrshowrules: Next time the US electronic economy is being brought to it knees by cyber attacks originating in other countries, don't ask the UN for help.

Exactly how would the UN help with that?

It provides a framework to address Internet security both in ensuring that it is open and free but also that isn't abused. When some perform a DDOS attack from a country, they are not only attacking some place, they are also preventing access to the internet to legitimate access.

So for example if a botnet from Ukraine (and other countries) is targeting a company in the US, there should at least be a mechanism for possible remediation with local ISPs (either voluntary or enforced) if there is a criminal aspect to this or if simply it is negatively impacting the Internet itself.

This Treaty does do this but it lays the a framework for this these types of mechanisms and agreements between Governments to take place. Encourages them.

If you are not sure what the UN and the ITU can accomplish, just remember that you can call any place in the world today because of them.

You are an idiot. Its about the UN censoring the internet so that revolutions like egypt and syria can be quickly squashed. UAE and Saudis are the ones who are asking for it and they are bastions of free speech amiright!


Or you could, you know, read it. Either way.
 
2012-12-14 01:23:08 PM

tforbes: mrshowrules: Lsherm: mrshowrules: Next time the US electronic economy is being brought to it knees by cyber attacks originating in other countries, don't ask the UN for help.

Exactly how would the UN help with that?

It provides a framework to address Internet security both in ensuring that it is open and free but also that isn't abused. When some perform a DDOS attack from a country, they are not only attacking some place, they are also preventing access to the internet to legitimate access.

So for example if a botnet from Ukraine (and other countries) is targeting a company in the US, there should at least be a mechanism for possible remediation with local ISPs (either voluntary or enforced) if there is a criminal aspect to this or if simply it is negatively impacting the Internet itself.

This Treaty does do this but it lays the a framework for this these types of mechanisms and agreements between Governments to take place. Encourages them.

If you are not sure what the UN and the ITU can accomplish, just remember that you can call any place in the world today because of them.

your opinions on the internet belong in the twilight zone.

a lot of what you want is akin to starting a war on drugs on the internet. it would just cost the world money and end up harming regular internet users more than it hurts them.

We have cyber crime divisions in our major defense forces like the FBI and CIA, and for everything else, the internet has done a decent job policing itself to date.


the internet isnt broken and internet security isnt broken, i just see people wanting power they have no business having and im glad the US saw that too


To the extent the Internet works internationally it is because of ITU Standards (they are a UN body). International standards disappear and you lose that. Countries agreeing on standards is what allows the system to be inter-operable and international. It isn't magic. It is engineers and bureaucrats that allow this shiat to work across borders. The National representatives sit together and they decide on things they can agree on that will make telecommunications work better. Priority for life saving communications for instance. Do you think that is a UN power grab?
 
2012-12-14 01:23:31 PM
Good.
 
2012-12-14 01:24:10 PM

qorkfiend: Is it just me, or did that article entirely skip any mention of what the proposed treaty actually does?


It's buried in the article. Basically, the new bit is intended to be a framework for dealing with international spam. The US doesn't like it because they fear some repressive nations might use it to censor political speech. (Like they couldn't and don't already.) So basically, eat your spam for freedom.
 
2012-12-14 01:25:13 PM
sponsored by the International Telecommunication Union, a United Nations organization focused mostly on setting technical standards for global phone calls.

That's not a giant red flag with "WE ARE GOING TO VIOLATE YOUR FREE SPEECH RIGHTS" printed on it in eighteen-inch letters to anyone in the US familiar with our own history or anything. Not like our own FCC is one of the most blatant examples of "purely technical standards" turning into "unambiguously unconstitutional censorship" within decades of being founded.

//Just sayin', on the list of the no one that this is fooling, the US should be at the top. We know better than anyone that this is one of those 'minor' expansions of power that gets out of hand fast and is subsequently impossible to get rid of.
 
2012-12-14 01:26:41 PM

mrshowrules: Lsherm: mrshowrules: Next time the US electronic economy is being brought to it knees by cyber attacks originating in other countries, don't ask the UN for help.

Exactly how would the UN help with that?

It provides a framework to address Internet security both in ensuring that it is open and free but also that isn't abused. When some perform a DDOS attack from a country, they are not only attacking some place, they are also preventing access to the internet to legitimate access.

So for example if a botnet from Ukraine (and other countries) is targeting a company in the US, there should at least be a mechanism for possible remediation with local ISPs (either voluntary or enforced) if there is a criminal aspect to this or if simply it is negatively impacting the Internet itself.

This Treaty does do this but it lays the a framework for this these types of mechanisms and agreements between Governments to take place. Encourages them.

If you are not sure what the UN and the ITU can accomplish, just remember that you can call any place in the world today because of them.


That's all well and good, but as usual someone had to come along and overreach, so now no one gets to play.
 
2012-12-14 01:30:33 PM

mrshowrules: Lucky LaRue: If you stop a minute to look at this from a rational standpoint, this is the best thing the United States could have done. The internet is integral to how the world functions and the last thing anyone should want is to put control of it in the hands of an organization predicated on trying to take over every government in the world today.

First, that is not the UN goal. Second, by not having a common global framework, the internet will be at the mercy of bad player throughout the world. Next time the US electronic economy is being brought to it knees by cyber attacks originating in other countries, don't ask the UN for help.


I do not want to have lowest common denominator internet.
 
2012-12-14 01:33:29 PM

mrshowrules: To the extent the Internet works internationally it is because of ITU Standards (they are a UN body). International standards disappear and you lose that. Countries agreeing on standards is what allows the system to be inter-operable and international. It isn't magic. It is engineers and bureaucrats that allow this shiat to work across borders. The National representatives sit together and they decide on things they can agree on that will make telecommunications work better. Priority for life saving communications for instance. Do you think that is a UN power grab?


The standards aren't the issue here. They crossed over from uniform communication standards to content monitoring, which is when the US balked. Just because the ITU has done a great job in the past doesn't mean there aren't serious issues raised when the ITU moves from standardizing communication protocols and hardware to content response. I even understand the technical concern behind the request, but it smells like bullshiat. The only countries who wanted the spam provision were countries who have a vested interest in preventing open communication in their own countries: Russia, China, UAE, etc.

As for the "power grab" - the provision to extend the treaty from publicly-owned networks to any network, public or private, sure sounds like a power grab to me.
 
2012-12-14 01:41:19 PM

An-Unnecessarily-Long-Name: You are an idiot. Its about the UN censoring the internet so that revolutions like egypt and syria can be quickly squashed. UAE and Saudis are the ones who are asking for it and they are bastions of free speech amiright!


No the UAE and Suadis were trying to add these as amendments to the treaty which is what scared the US off.
 
2012-12-14 01:42:38 PM

mrshowrules: ITU can accomplish, just remember that you can call any place in the world today because of them.


Well, you can call any place in the world that has a phone, and the person who picks up may be charged the local equivelant of $5USD per minute, because the phone system is a state-run monopoly.

ITU is, culturally, a relic from a time when international telecom compatibility had to be done on a government-to-government basis. Incumbent phone services are rarely private companies. They are importent sources of revinue and control for governments. The Internet is a threat to this system.

By 2002 Panama, Cuba, Egypt, Israel, South Africa, Kenya, Mexico and Argentina banned Voice-over-IP services. Now VOIP is banned or taxed or blocked in some form or on some level pretty much anywhere that isn't the US or EU. Why? because is sucks revinue from state-run phone companies, (or in the case of Mexico, Carlos Slim's company, which may run the government itself for all anyone knows.) Panama now just taxes it. Telmex still blocks voip when they don't get their cut, and a government license is required to terminate VOIP calls in MX. And so on.

I'm not surprised that the split was between the First World and the Non-Aligned states. The ITU has been a sweet enabler for banana republics and tin-pot dictators. Telephones are money in the bank, and they would like the Internet to be the successor to the phone in the gravy train, not the end of the train itself.
 
2012-12-14 01:51:59 PM
I'd rather have the UN in charge of the interwebz than the US Congress. At least the UN generally has actual experts setting policy for it, rather than failed divorce lawyers from Duluth.
 
2012-12-14 01:53:40 PM
mrshowrules:...

I'll assume for a moment that you are not just trolling and are genuinely mistaken about this matter.

Look I'm usually the person rolling my eyes when someone like my boss goes on about how the UN is a massive conspiracy etc etc. But in this case, that is exactly what is being attempted. All the main players pushing for this are all the countries least friendly to free speech. These are countries that have always looked suspiciously upon the internet (rightly) as a threat. To understand their intentions, you only need understand their motivations.

There are already standards in place. ICAAN handles this already. There is nothing to gain from removing control from their hands to a UN body's hands. But do that and suddenly these oppressive countries have some measure of control over that pesky internet thingy.
 
2012-12-14 01:55:53 PM

DrRatchet: mrshowrules: ITU can accomplish, just remember that you can call any place in the world today because of them.

Well, you can call any place in the world that has a phone, and the person who picks up may be charged the local equivelant of $5USD per minute, because the phone system is a state-run monopoly.

ITU is, culturally, a relic from a time when international telecom compatibility had to be done on a government-to-government basis. Incumbent phone services are rarely private companies. They are importent sources of revinue and control for governments. The Internet is a threat to this system.

By 2002 Panama, Cuba, Egypt, Israel, South Africa, Kenya, Mexico and Argentina banned Voice-over-IP services. Now VOIP is banned or taxed or blocked in some form or on some level pretty much anywhere that isn't the US or EU. Why? because is sucks revinue from state-run phone companies, (or in the case of Mexico, Carlos Slim's company, which may run the government itself for all anyone knows.) Panama now just taxes it. Telmex still blocks voip when they don't get their cut, and a government license is required to terminate VOIP calls in MX. And so on.

I'm not surprised that the split was between the First World and the Non-Aligned states. The ITU has been a sweet enabler for banana republics and tin-pot dictators. Telephones are money in the bank, and they would like the Internet to be the successor to the phone in the gravy train, not the end of the train itself.


I agree that the ITU is outdated. That is the point. The current regulations were approved in the 1980's. You either update them or what? Throw your hands up into the air and say you give up.

The US has a very strong voice at these meetings and various committees. These thing are developed through consensus (not majority rule). So whenever anything is approved by a committee and not ratified by the Government, it is a failure of that Nation's bureaucracy.

I see two conflicting themes. The UN is making a power grab. The UN is tolerating and supporting certain domestic shenanigans. Which is it? The tin foil hats people versus the save the world, stop countries from suppressing their people crowd.

The ITU is trying to stay relevant. So they put some very basic motherhood statements together with a few non-contentious goals that appeared to be safe and people are crapping their pants. However bad you think the ITU is, it is better than the alternative which is nothing.
 
2012-12-14 01:58:10 PM

Dwight_Yeast: I'd rather have the UN in charge of the interwebz than the US Congress. At least the UN generally has actual experts setting policy for it, rather than failed divorce lawyers from Duluth.


The US congress is not in control over the internet as much as they would like to think. ICAAN is a private (aka non-governmental) non-profit organization.  I'm generally a fan of the UN, but trust me nothing good can come from this.
 
2012-12-14 02:24:24 PM
Obama opposes U.N. treaty.......somewhere a Tea Tard's head just exploded.
 
2012-12-14 02:24:30 PM
last week we refused to sign on to the UN treaty to register your disabled citizens, now we refuse to give internet control to the UN.

the UN just wants what is good for us, you know, like obama does.
 
2012-12-14 02:27:15 PM

Lsherm: mrshowrules: Next time the US electronic economy is being brought to it knees by cyber attacks originating in other countries, don't ask the UN for help.

Exactly how would the UN help with that?


They would draft a very strongly worded letter. And nothing stings like a document drafted by a committee of bureaucrats. Let me tell you, NOBODY wants that kind of smack down!
 
2012-12-14 02:31:43 PM

BigBooper: Lsherm: mrshowrules: Next time the US electronic economy is being brought to it knees by cyber attacks originating in other countries, don't ask the UN for help.

Exactly how would the UN help with that?

They would draft a very strongly worded letter. And nothing stings like a document drafted by a committee of bureaucrats. Let me tell you, NOBODY wants that kind of smack down!


Well, they might not have much luck if they email it.
 
2012-12-14 02:50:16 PM
This can't be true. Obama will never turn down an opportunity to let the UN take away our freedoms. Or something.
 
2012-12-14 02:51:56 PM

colon_pow: last week we refused to sign on to the UN treaty to register your disabled citizens, now we refuse to give internet control to the UN.

the UN just wants what is good for us, you know, like obama does.


It's funny that I would be considered on the same side of this issue as you, but you make those on this side of the issue seem like morons.

Thanks for helping...
 
2012-12-14 03:00:00 PM

mrshowrules: Lucky LaRue: If you stop a minute to look at this from a rational standpoint, this is the best thing the United States could have done. The internet is integral to how the world functions and the last thing anyone should want is to put control of it in the hands of an organization predicated on trying to take over every government in the world today.

First, that is not the UN goal. Second, by not having a common global framework, the internet will be at the mercy of bad player throughout the world. Next time the US electronic economy is being brought to it knees by cyber attacks originating in other countries, don't ask the UN for help.


Honestly, they won't. They'll ask me and my peers, just like they do today.
 
2012-12-14 03:07:31 PM

bk3k: colon_pow: last week we refused to sign on to the UN treaty to register your disabled citizens, now we refuse to give internet control to the UN.

the UN just wants what is good for us, you know, like obama does.

It's funny that I would be considered on the same side of this issue as you, but you make those on this side of the issue seem like morons.

Thanks for helping...


well, i'm pretty much anti-UN.
 
2012-12-14 03:08:39 PM

colon_pow: last week we refused to sign on to the UN treaty to register your disabled citizens, now we refuse to give internet control to the UN.


You need more tin foil. The brain numbing are getting through.
 
2012-12-14 03:09:28 PM

MooseUpNorth: colon_pow: last week we refused to sign on to the UN treaty to register your disabled citizens, now we refuse to give internet control to the UN.

You need more tin foil. The brain numbing are getting through.


Rays, dammit! Brain numbing rays!

/ I need an extra roll over here.
 
2012-12-14 03:11:41 PM

mrshowrules: Lsherm: mrshowrules: Next time the US electronic economy is being brought to it knees by cyber attacks originating in other countries, don't ask the UN for help.

Exactly how would the UN help with that?

It provides a framework to address Internet security both in ensuring that it is open and free but also that isn't abused. When some perform a DDOS attack from a country, they are not only attacking some place, they are also preventing access to the internet to legitimate access.

So for example if a botnet from Ukraine (and other countries) is targeting a company in the US, there should at least be a mechanism for possible remediation with local ISPs (either voluntary or enforced) if there is a criminal aspect to this or if simply it is negatively impacting the Internet itself.

This Treaty does do this but it lays the a framework for this these types of mechanisms and agreements between Governments to take place. Encourages them.

If you are not sure what the UN and the ITU can accomplish, just remember that you can call any place in the world today because of them.


You clearly don't work for a telco or a Tier 1 ISP, because to be honest, the international communication system works in spite of the ITU. The global numbering plan and all the technology was handed to them on a silver platter, and the they dragged their feet for decades. To protect 2 bit corrupt government run carriers they insist on procrustean backwards compatibility. The best way to describe the ITU is "in the rear, behind the gear, with their hands over their ears".

When something happens, or something needs to be done, the last place we think about is the UN and ITU. And usually the answer to bringing something there is "No, don't bother". IETF, yes, 3GPP, yes, IEEE, yes, MEF, yes, ITU, Hell No.

/Has worked with all five of those standards bodies
//Views the ITU as a jobs program for governments
 
2012-12-14 03:17:06 PM

mrshowrules: tforbes: mrshowrules: Lsherm: mrshowrules: Next time the US electronic economy is being brought to it knees by cyber attacks originating in other countries, don't ask the UN for help.

Exactly how would the UN help with that?

It provides a framework to address Internet security both in ensuring that it is open and free but also that isn't abused. When some perform a DDOS attack from a country, they are not only attacking some place, they are also preventing access to the internet to legitimate access.

So for example if a botnet from Ukraine (and other countries) is targeting a company in the US, there should at least be a mechanism for possible remediation with local ISPs (either voluntary or enforced) if there is a criminal aspect to this or if simply it is negatively impacting the Internet itself.

This Treaty does do this but it lays the a framework for this these types of mechanisms and agreements between Governments to take place. Encourages them.

If you are not sure what the UN and the ITU can accomplish, just remember that you can call any place in the world today because of them.

your opinions on the internet belong in the twilight zone.

a lot of what you want is akin to starting a war on drugs on the internet. it would just cost the world money and end up harming regular internet users more than it hurts them.

We have cyber crime divisions in our major defense forces like the FBI and CIA, and for everything else, the internet has done a decent job policing itself to date.


the internet isnt broken and internet security isnt broken, i just see people wanting power they have no business having and im glad the US saw that too

To the extent the Internet works internationally it is because of ITU Standards (they are a UN body). International standards disappear and you lose that. Countries agreeing on standards is what allows the system to be inter-operable and international. It isn't magic. It is engineers and bureaucrats that allow this shiat to work a ...


Please stop posting. The IETF, IESG and NANOG essentially run the internet, with a number of other bodies around the globe (APNIC, etc...). The ITU does not run the internet in any way. They are not involved in setting the standards, they are not involved in providing interconnect, they are to put it bluntly NOT INVOLVED.

They don't run the DNS root, they don't run registries, they don't run address allocations, they don't run route registries. International Universities and research labs have more to do with running the Internet than the ITU. 

The carriers that maintain the Internet do not listen to the ITU for any part of their operations.
 
2012-12-14 03:31:29 PM
i.chzbgr.com
 
2012-12-14 03:33:27 PM
the ability to censor anyone at anytime is not something I want when it comes to the internet.
 
2012-12-14 03:45:43 PM

MadHatter500: mrshowrules: Lsherm: mrshowrules: Next time the US electronic economy is being brought to it knees by cyber attacks originating in other countries, don't ask the UN for help.

Exactly how would the UN help with that?

It provides a framework to address Internet security both in ensuring that it is open and free but also that isn't abused. When some perform a DDOS attack from a country, they are not only attacking some place, they are also preventing access to the internet to legitimate access.

So for example if a botnet from Ukraine (and other countries) is targeting a company in the US, there should at least be a mechanism for possible remediation with local ISPs (either voluntary or enforced) if there is a criminal aspect to this or if simply it is negatively impacting the Internet itself.

This Treaty does do this but it lays the a framework for this these types of mechanisms and agreements between Governments to take place. Encourages them.

If you are not sure what the UN and the ITU can accomplish, just remember that you can call any place in the world today because of them.

You clearly don't work for a telco or a Tier 1 ISP, because to be honest, the international communication system works in spite of the ITU. The global numbering plan and all the technology was handed to them on a silver platter, and the they dragged their feet for decades. To protect 2 bit corrupt government run carriers they insist on procrustean backwards compatibility. The best way to describe the ITU is "in the rear, behind the gear, with their hands over their ears".

When something happens, or something needs to be done, the last place we think about is the UN and ITU. And usually the answer to bringing something there is "No, don't bother". IETF, yes, 3GPP, yes, IEEE, yes, MEF, yes, ITU, Hell No.

/Has worked with all five of those standards bodies
//Views the ITU as a jobs program for governments


You shouldn't assume to know what it is I do for a living. Let's just say that I have some involvement and leave it at that.

You say the global numbering plan and all the technology was handed to them on a silver platter. So what? You had a "them" to give it to. Some organization to approve it. Maybe even request it, promote it, seek consensus. Is it a big lumbering bureaucracy but that is normal for any international body.

You can abolish the ITU or make it better/stronger. I assume you are leaning towards the former and not the latter. In any case, the US worked on updating these regulations with all the other countries and approved them at the committee level. When you are on the party committee and refuse to come to the party afterwards, you just look like a wet blanket.
 
2012-12-14 04:03:58 PM

MindStalker: An-Unnecessarily-Long-Name: You are an idiot. Its about the UN censoring the internet so that revolutions like egypt and syria can be quickly squashed. UAE and Saudis are the ones who are asking for it and they are bastions of free speech amiright!

No the UAE and Suadis were trying to add these as amendments to the treaty which is what scared the US off.


further in the article, it mentions china and russia wanted this in as well. surprise surprise.
 
2012-12-14 04:30:03 PM

DrRatchet: By 2002 Panama, Cuba, Egypt, Israel, South Africa, Kenya, Mexico and Argentina banned Voice-over-IP services. Now VOIP is banned or taxed or blocked in some form or on some level pretty much anywhere that isn't the US or EU. Why? because is sucks revinue from state-run phone companies, (or in the case of Mexico, Carlos Slim's company, which may run the government itself for all anyone knows.) Panama now just taxes it. Telmex still blocks voip when they don't get their cut, and a government license is required to terminate VOIP calls in MX. And so on


Yep...sure is banned.

http://www.skype.com/intl/en-us/prices/call-rates/cheap-calls-to-isra e l/

http://www.tsviewer.com/index.php?page=list&listtype=country&country= z a

http://www.clanwarz.com/mumble/locations.php?Location=Tel.Aviv.Israel

Also how do you account for VOIP like Teamspeak, Ventrilo, Mumble working in Israel, South Africa, Mexico, Russia, etc? I know that stuff works there because I use it for ingame communication with people from over there almost daily.
 
2012-12-14 04:37:40 PM
"That UN conference that was going to take over the Internet, then promised not to take over the Internet, totally tried to take over the Internet last night. Good News; US and about 20 55 other countries won't sign the treaty "

FTFY

//another source
 
2012-12-14 04:59:06 PM
Is that the black helicopter New World Order Illuminati Trilateral Commission UN, or the Strongly Worded Letter Gang that Can't Shoot Straight UN?
 
2012-12-14 06:15:51 PM

mrshowrules: MadHatter500: mrshowrules: Lsherm: mrshowrules: Next time the US electronic economy is being brought to it knees by cyber attacks originating in other countries, don't ask the UN for help.

Exactly how would the UN help with that?

It provides a framework to address Internet security both in ensuring that it is open and free but also that isn't abused. When some perform a DDOS attack from a country, they are not only attacking some place, they are also preventing access to the internet to legitimate access.

So for example if a botnet from Ukraine (and other countries) is targeting a company in the US, there should at least be a mechanism for possible remediation with local ISPs (either voluntary or enforced) if there is a criminal aspect to this or if simply it is negatively impacting the Internet itself.

This Treaty does do this but it lays the a framework for this these types of mechanisms and agreements between Governments to take place. Encourages them.

If you are not sure what the UN and the ITU can accomplish, just remember that you can call any place in the world today because of them.

You clearly don't work for a telco or a Tier 1 ISP, because to be honest, the international communication system works in spite of the ITU. The global numbering plan and all the technology was handed to them on a silver platter, and the they dragged their feet for decades. To protect 2 bit corrupt government run carriers they insist on procrustean backwards compatibility. The best way to describe the ITU is "in the rear, behind the gear, with their hands over their ears".

When something happens, or something needs to be done, the last place we think about is the UN and ITU. And usually the answer to bringing something there is "No, don't bother". IETF, yes, 3GPP, yes, IEEE, yes, MEF, yes, ITU, Hell No.

/Has worked with all five of those standards bodies
//Views the ITU as a jobs program for governments

You shouldn't assume to know what it is I do for a living. Let' ...


Oh God, a Canadian UN worker.
 
2012-12-14 07:11:45 PM

mrshowrules: You shouldn't assume to know what it is I do for a living. Let's just say that I have some involvement and leave it at that.


Oh I have a guess now.. Does your employer have a 3 letter acronym which it could be referred to by chance?

Here is a hint for you - employers are actually known to propagandize their employees. Just because you might work for them doesn't mean you have an inside scoop on the truth.
 
2012-12-14 07:43:49 PM

clovis69: Also how do you account for VOIP like Teamspeak, Ventrilo, Mumble working in Israel, South Africa, Mexico, Russia, etc? I know that stuff works there because I use it for ingame communication with people from over there almost daily.


That's exactly why many governments would like ITU to take over governance of the Internet. As things stand, government "bans" are largly simbolic. Last I looked (about a year and a half ago) I found one VOIP outfit licensed to terminate calls in Mexico, and five unlicensed others that would terminate calls for a third of the rate. Belize telecom has been aggressive in blocking skype, google talk, etc but most others have thrown up their hands as far as filtering and are putting their efforts into bringing back the ITU.
 
Displayed 50 of 59 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report