
UN council: Nations, stop switching off the internet - TheAuditor
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/07/01/un_officially_condemns_internet_shutdowns/
======
reustle
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_condem...](http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/07/01/un_officially_condemns_internet_shutdowns/)

~~~
DyslexicAtheist
on the slashdot site it says:

>> _Thirteen countries, including_ ...

where did you get 15 from?

~~~
tremon
"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"

------
GigabyteCoin
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
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
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"

------
rayiner
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
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
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.

~~~
paradite
_> 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)._

Did you notice the irony in your comment? You praise the "good record" of
Western democracies, but do not want a "democracy" within UN, because in that
way, the idea of democracy would work against the "Western democracies". That
seems to be some kind of "selective democracy", i.e. only apply democracy when
it works to your advantage.

If you really support democracy, why not embrace it in the UN and let the
decision be based on votes?

~~~
douche
It's consistent with US representative democracy. Read through the
deliberations of the Constitutional Convention and the Federalist Papers, and
you can't help but notice that they were as worried about the tyranny of mob
rule as they were of the arbitrariness of monarchy - which was rather
pointedly illustrated in the French Revolution just a few years later.

People are stupid, and generally don't know what is best for them, and the
more of them you get together, the more likely they'll develop mass insanity.
You need some kind of buffer to moderate the fickle will of the public.

~~~
LeifCarrotson
> People are stupid, and generally don't know what is best for them, and the
> more of them you get together, the more likely they'll develop mass
> insanity.

People all have a similar amount of intelligence. Given that the effect you
acknowledge is partially due to large groups, I wonder if it's more a problem
of party politics, or an us-versus-them mentality, or collective decision-
making...

------
throwawayIndian
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
> 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'.

~~~
throwawayIndian
> India's _de jure_ protections on free speech are far greater than (for
> example) what the UK grants.

Nope, it is isn't. Comparison between UK & India with vastly different
citizenry, laws, enforcement and track record is a non starter.

> You're vastly overstating what is "well known" about Modi, but even if you
> weren't...

I wish to bring your statement forward: it is spot on here!

You're right. We can never be certain about Modi's role in the massacre
without the democracy in question being available, i.e. a democracy that
stands for: equity, representation, freedom and justice. Note, it includes
free speech.

Is it not a fact that people were killed or instigated to be killed by the
state then?

~~~
chimeracoder
> Is it not a fact that people were killed or instigated to be killed by the
> state then?

That is not the claim I contested. Nor is it the statement you made, which
was:

> [Modi] is well known to have massacred colleagues based on their
> beliefs/position

though it seems that you have now moved the goalposts to:

> We can never be certain about Modi's role in the massacre [because of a lack
> of free speech and democracy]

------
MilnerRoute
Slashdot had a good discussion about this.

[https://yro.slashdot.org/story/16/07/03/0340234/un-
council-s...](https://yro.slashdot.org/story/16/07/03/0340234/un-council-
seriously-nations-stop-switching-off-the-internet)

There's now a group that's also pushing to also make cryptography and
anonymity a basic human right.

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

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

~~~
chipperyman573
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.

------
smilekzs
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?

------
unicornporn
Nations: uhm, no.

