Obscure election will decide the fate of the open internet(washingtonpost.com)
washingtonpost.com
Obscure election will decide the fate of the open internet
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/09/28/un-international-telecommunication-union-election/
13 comments
Fearmongering from a (former?) spook at the CIA? I'm shocked!
> Should Ismailov win, he would serve as a conduit for the government of Russia’s internet policy goals, which historically have included censoring dissent.
Good thing that has never happened in the USA.
Good thing that has never happened in the USA.
There's a huge difference between people being booted off proprietary hosting systems (Cloudflare) or platforms (Twitter, Facebook, etc.) and censorship at the IP and BGP level with deep packet inspection and real time filtering.
The Internet in the USA and much of the world remains pretty damn neutral. It doesn't care much what bits you send over it. That's not the case in China, Russia, and a number of other more authoritarian countries.
We can encrypt everything of course, but if the censorship is at the wire level that may not be enough. Using meta-data, IPs tied to identities, and loads of other information sources it's possible to dynamically filter content and people by inference.
The Internet in the USA and much of the world remains pretty damn neutral. It doesn't care much what bits you send over it. That's not the case in China, Russia, and a number of other more authoritarian countries.
We can encrypt everything of course, but if the censorship is at the wire level that may not be enough. Using meta-data, IPs tied to identities, and loads of other information sources it's possible to dynamically filter content and people by inference.
"At least we're not China" has to be the lowest possible bar you could have picked. And it doesn't make a lot of sense as a point of comparison when the other candidate mentioned in the article isn't even Chinese.
You set the bar, not him, by inviting the comparison. Moreover, the poster makes the point that freedom of association, a component of free speech, requires private censorship - a feature, not a bug.
> You set the bar, not him, by inviting the comparison.
Would you like to explain to me how Ismailov became Chinese all of a sudden?
Would you like to explain to me how Ismailov became Chinese all of a sudden?
[deleted]
The American internet may be neutral but that means little when the legal system doesn't respect freedom of the press. For example, isn't Julian Assange is being prosecuted right now because he exposed government wrongdoing?
Do Americans really read this for more than the propaganda piece it is?
Edit: I mean Jesus, every paragraph is offensive: "As we look to the future, the United States must partner with our allies to set standards for emerging tech such as 5G, artificial intelligence, data surveillance and patent reform. And our leaders must ensure that Russia and China play by the same rules." Imagine this came from China, completely delusional.
Edit: I mean Jesus, every paragraph is offensive: "As we look to the future, the United States must partner with our allies to set standards for emerging tech such as 5G, artificial intelligence, data surveillance and patent reform. And our leaders must ensure that Russia and China play by the same rules." Imagine this came from China, completely delusional.
It's actually pretty important. See here for what sort of impact the ITU has:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33032452
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33032452
This never had any potential to decide the fate of the open internet. IETF generally documents what things are, not what some actors hope things to be.
Countries that want sovereignty (control) over the internet can limit connection and participation to the extent they can, but they can't dictate what other countries that fully participate in the internet do regardless of what positions they hold at ITU or other organizations.
Countries that want sovereignty (control) over the internet can limit connection and participation to the extent they can, but they can't dictate what other countries that fully participate in the internet do regardless of what positions they hold at ITU or other organizations.
That's not really true. The ITU dictates what all sorts of telco equipment has to adhere to, and a bad actor could make it so that only compromised hardware (eg Russian or Chinese produced, with clear state involvement) can follow these standards. The IETF deals with a bunch of stuff, but that stuff runs _on top of_ what the ITU deals with.
See here for more: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33032452
See here for more: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33032452
I would say the Internet has not run "on top of" telco networks for 10-20 years. Smart ISPs are running IP over MPLS over Ethernet over simple DWDM (OTN and even ROADMs are being dropped) which are mostly IETF and IEEE standards.
When it comes to cellular, 3GPP appears to be upstream of ITU so we need to be vigilant against 3GPP getting corrupted but I haven't heard about that happening yet.
When it comes to cellular, 3GPP appears to be upstream of ITU so we need to be vigilant against 3GPP getting corrupted but I haven't heard about that happening yet.
It depends. DSL and GPON are ITU-T standards. DOCSIS and Ethernet are not. 3GPP (mobile networks) does not seem to be ITU-T-dominated either, although they reuse some ITU processes. ASN.1 and X.509 are widely used in some Internet protocols and are ITU-T recommendations. I don't know what WAN looks like these days, but there seems to be some ITU standardization in the WDM area. So it's rather mixed.
I'm not sure to what degree ITU-T standardization of obnoxious features matters in practice. Not everything gets implemented. A lot of dual-use features are present on ISP networks in Western democracies because they are required by law. Institutional safeguards generally keep users from government harm in these countries, and not lack of standardization of the more invasive surveillance technologies.
I'm not sure to what degree ITU-T standardization of obnoxious features matters in practice. Not everything gets implemented. A lot of dual-use features are present on ISP networks in Western democracies because they are required by law. Institutional safeguards generally keep users from government harm in these countries, and not lack of standardization of the more invasive surveillance technologies.
> It depends. DSL and GPON are ITU-T standards.
The IEEE has PON stuff:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethernet_in_the_first_mile#Pas...
Though most PON deployments seem to be ITU-based… for historical/inertial/first-mover reasons?… but that can be changed by throwing money at the 'problem' (should it become one).
The IEEE has PON stuff:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethernet_in_the_first_mile#Pas...
Though most PON deployments seem to be ITU-based… for historical/inertial/first-mover reasons?… but that can be changed by throwing money at the 'problem' (should it become one).
The ITU and IETF are very different. Although these are often lumped together as "Standards organisations" we should squint even at the word "Organisation" when it comes to the IETF.
The IETF isn't an organisation - like the ITU or a Boy Scouts troop - it's an Activity, like dancing. Humans can participate in the IETF if they want, corporations cannot (corporations also can't dance) and since it isn't an organisation the IETF has no members and writes documents reflecting the consensus of participants.
In this particular case an even more important difference is their approach to standardisation itself, the ITU produces "de jure" standards. The organisation produces documents which say how something shall be and that has the force of law. ITU members are sovereign entities, so they have police forces and armies, in principle they can choose to "enforce" the standards they've agreed, and only in practice do we end up relying on the fact that you might as well implement say I.762 as make up some other way to do it.
The IETF produces documents how participants agreed things ought to work, but sometimes that's how they really work ("de facto" standards) and sometimes it isn't. For example the IETF published a document about how early browsers wanted Cookies to work, which briefly mentions how Netscape Navigator's first implementation did it, assuming this will quickly be superseded. It wasn't, the IETF RFC about cookies is only really useful today as either an aspiration or because it obliquely documents what you actually need to do, mimic Netscape (and guess which shortcuts work and which do not).
The ISO and ITU approach works great where the main objective is to agree something and what it is exactly is secondary. For example the A-series paper standards from ISO are very nice, but if ISO had standardised what is now "US Letter" instead that would still be pretty useful even though it's an ugly shape without the nice properties of the A-series. However as you get into technical details this approach works much less and less well.
In contrast the IETF approach works better for these details, because of the objective of consensus rather than an insistence on democracy, it will usually identify when there actually just isn't any agreement and standardise only what's actually agreed - the cookies example I mentioned is an example where this didn't work, but it's not that common.
This has led to some conflict with "traditional" standards organisations which feel like they ought to just be able to write a document saying "No, it works like this" and have that take effect. Whether its ECMA, or the ITU, or even ISO this doesn't tend to go well for them but you can imagine it's frustrating even as they operate a liaison mechanism, to find that somehow the IETF is good at this while they can't comprehend how it even works.
The IETF isn't an organisation - like the ITU or a Boy Scouts troop - it's an Activity, like dancing. Humans can participate in the IETF if they want, corporations cannot (corporations also can't dance) and since it isn't an organisation the IETF has no members and writes documents reflecting the consensus of participants.
In this particular case an even more important difference is their approach to standardisation itself, the ITU produces "de jure" standards. The organisation produces documents which say how something shall be and that has the force of law. ITU members are sovereign entities, so they have police forces and armies, in principle they can choose to "enforce" the standards they've agreed, and only in practice do we end up relying on the fact that you might as well implement say I.762 as make up some other way to do it.
The IETF produces documents how participants agreed things ought to work, but sometimes that's how they really work ("de facto" standards) and sometimes it isn't. For example the IETF published a document about how early browsers wanted Cookies to work, which briefly mentions how Netscape Navigator's first implementation did it, assuming this will quickly be superseded. It wasn't, the IETF RFC about cookies is only really useful today as either an aspiration or because it obliquely documents what you actually need to do, mimic Netscape (and guess which shortcuts work and which do not).
The ISO and ITU approach works great where the main objective is to agree something and what it is exactly is secondary. For example the A-series paper standards from ISO are very nice, but if ISO had standardised what is now "US Letter" instead that would still be pretty useful even though it's an ugly shape without the nice properties of the A-series. However as you get into technical details this approach works much less and less well.
In contrast the IETF approach works better for these details, because of the objective of consensus rather than an insistence on democracy, it will usually identify when there actually just isn't any agreement and standardise only what's actually agreed - the cookies example I mentioned is an example where this didn't work, but it's not that common.
This has led to some conflict with "traditional" standards organisations which feel like they ought to just be able to write a document saying "No, it works like this" and have that take effect. Whether its ECMA, or the ITU, or even ISO this doesn't tend to go well for them but you can imagine it's frustrating even as they operate a liaison mechanism, to find that somehow the IETF is good at this while they can't comprehend how it even works.
Yeah, but the ITU-T gets no say on what happens at the IP layer and up (and also at some layers below IP, like MPLS). They want a say, and they've been trying for years with their Internet2 concept, but so far they've not made much progress.
A detailed article about the election and the proposed "many networks approach to global internetworking" proposed by one of the candidates which appears to be at the heart of peoples' concern can be found at:
https://www.theregister.com/2022/09/29/itu_plenipotentiary_o...
https://www.theregister.com/2022/09/29/itu_plenipotentiary_o...
It's good to be aware and keep an eye on these things, but I find the evidence that this specific election is concerning (at least in this op-ed) to be less than compelling.
> One of China’s Huawei-supported proposals for the International Telecommunication Union would fundamentally redesign internet protocol (IP) addresses into a less secure, state-controlled model.
If anything, the last redesign of IP, IPv6, showed that there's very little standards committees can do to push a change like that on the Internet. Not when every individual ISP has to adopt the standard (or bridge the legacy standard) for it to work. So worst-case scenario, a standard is proposed that China and Russia adopt, which (a) has little bearing on what the rest of the world does and (b) is already something they can choose to do unilaterally in the national-level internets without needing UN support.
> One of China’s Huawei-supported proposals for the International Telecommunication Union would fundamentally redesign internet protocol (IP) addresses into a less secure, state-controlled model.
If anything, the last redesign of IP, IPv6, showed that there's very little standards committees can do to push a change like that on the Internet. Not when every individual ISP has to adopt the standard (or bridge the legacy standard) for it to work. So worst-case scenario, a standard is proposed that China and Russia adopt, which (a) has little bearing on what the rest of the world does and (b) is already something they can choose to do unilaterally in the national-level internets without needing UN support.
This is fearmongering and war propaganda. The infrastructure is out of this group's control.
"the U.S. tech sector leads the way in exporting technology abroad that embodies a commitment to a free and open internet."
At first I thought the writer must have lived under a rock for the last 10 years, then I remembered that oh right, he was a deputy director for the CIA.
At first I thought the writer must have lived under a rock for the last 10 years, then I remembered that oh right, he was a deputy director for the CIA.
Depending on his definition of "tech sector" and "export" he's not necessarily wrong. US exports Signal, Firefox, BSD's, and other privacy-respecting/preserving FOSS that runs the internet (I don't include Linux b/c it's quite not as much a US product as the others).
The only interesting point in that article was that it openly calls China an adversary of the US.
On the political stage, China is a huge frenemy. The US and China are deeply tied to each others' fates by trade, but they certainly compete in many areas of national prestige, technology, ideology, etc.
I think it's a fair claim to say that a major US trading partner and ally in the business of international peace has adversarial ideological positions to the United States on the topic of free speech.
I think it's a fair claim to say that a major US trading partner and ally in the business of international peace has adversarial ideological positions to the United States on the topic of free speech.
relevant username
>adversarial ideological positions ... on the topic of speech
my parse of this is:
"what you are permitted to say about the Overton window differs between countries"
I suppose we had long reached metalevel propagandizing.
>adversarial ideological positions ... on the topic of speech
my parse of this is:
"what you are permitted to say about the Overton window differs between countries"
I suppose we had long reached metalevel propagandizing.
"Since its invasion of Ukraine last year"
Which timeline is this article from?
Which timeline is this article from?
Yeah, good catch. The invasion started in 2014, that's 8 years ago.
> One of China’s Huawei-supported proposals for the International Telecommunication Union would fundamentally redesign internet protocol (IP) addresses into a less secure, state-controlled model.
I'm not the first on the thread to cite this paragraph.
Good luck with that. Maybe they ought to review the last time(s) [1] governments tried to manage network software.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_Open_Systems_Interc...
I'm not the first on the thread to cite this paragraph.
Good luck with that. Maybe they ought to review the last time(s) [1] governments tried to manage network software.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_Open_Systems_Interc...
If Russia and China have a plot to censor the internet, does this[0] mean France and New Zealand have decided to join forces with them? The US might be running out of allies.
[0] https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/129944717/christch...
[0] https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/129944717/christch...
Disaster averted.
https://www.itu.int/en/mediacentre/Pages/PR-2022-09-29-ITU-S...
Paywall bypass: https://archive.ph/DuZ3X
2) This is fearmongering. The ITU doesn't really have control over the protocols they talk about and, although the Secretary-General, can, of course, set the direction of the agency's program work, at the end these bigger decisions are taken by Member States by consensus, who are ultimately the ones running the show. The previous Secretary-Generals were Chinese and we didn't see a turn like the one prophetized in the article either. For a better take, listen to the latest episode of the Inside Geneva podcast: https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/insidegeneva