back to article 60 countries sign declaration to keep future internet open

The United States, along with some 60 other countries, today presented a declaration in which they pledge to "reclaim the promise of the internet" from "a trend of rising digital authoritarianism."  The global community is increasingly reliant on the internet, the Declaration for the Future of the Internet (DFI) said, and as …

  1. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Ban encryption / internet open.

    1. VoiceOfTruth

      You first.

      You evidently have so much confidence in having no encryption that you post as an anonymous coward. Hmmm.

      1. heyrick Silver badge

        DNFTT.

        Banking, tax returns, shopping, etc with no encryption would be foolhardy, so...

        DNFTT!

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        I really should have explained myself. What I'm saying is you can't keep the internet open and ban encryption. The two are incompatible. To keep the internet open it needs to be safe for people to communicate and without encryption that is gone. These are the same governments looking to remove encryption.

  2. VoiceOfTruth

    Banning access

    -> For its part, Russia has acted to restrict internet access for its citizens throughout its war with Ukraine

    Have you tried getting to rt.com for a while from the UK? Thought not. The so-called 'free west' has banned access.

    1. Arthur the cat Silver badge
      Megaphone

      Re: Banning access

      Have you tried getting to rt.com for a while from the UK? Thought not. The so-called 'free west' has banned access.

      I had to enable JS to get past some DDOS shielding, but it's freely available.

      Looks like VoiceOfTruth is yet another VoiceOfPutin. Do fuck off, there's a good puppet.

      1. DS999 Silver badge

        Re: Banning access

        Worked for me here in the US too, more lies from Putin lapdogs.

        1. VoiceOfTruth

          Re: Banning access

          Unreachable from the UK. The USA is not the whole world.

          1. heyrick Silver badge

            Re: Banning access

            Unreachable from France (using Orange ADSL, if it's done at provider level).

            1. heyrick Silver badge

              Re: Banning access

              For the thumbs down, you might like to read this news article (in French) that says, yes, it is blocked in France. It's neither my decision, nor do I care, I'm simply reporting what happens.

              Additionally, my phone reports "ERR_CONNECTION_REFUSED" which suggests the blocking is at packet level, so using an alternative DNS wouldn't work. A VPN or proxy, perhaps, but we're getting into techie stuff now. For the average Joe, it is blocked, end of story.

              PS: I do note the irony of talking about two bullshit providers being blocked in the comments of an article where the same country has pledged to have an open internet.

              1. Dr_N Silver badge
                Holmes

                Re: Banning access

                Works for me. Your internet must be broken.

          2. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Banning access

            I can reach RT from the UK using my desktop and browsers, no tricks involved. Just finished reading an interesting article on 'the hoax of mass graves'.

          3. pluraquanta

            Re: Banning access

            It's not unreachable in the UK, it works fine. Maybe it's your browser, maybe it's your DNS provider.

            1. VoiceOfTruth

              Re: Banning access

              It is neither. It is 3.

              1. pluraquanta

                Re: Banning access

                Well unless you changed it manually, 3 is your DNS provider (though they may be using a 3rd party). You could try changing the DNS in your network adapter to 1.1.1.1 (cloudflare's DNS) or running ipconfig /flushdns in command prompt.

          4. DS999 Silver badge

            Re: Banning access

            Unreachable from the UK. The USA is not the whole world.

            Even if true it is blocked for some in the UK, who cares? Other than reporters, no one needs to read Putin's lies.

            Sorry your guy is such a dumbshit and is taking your country into North Korea like dark ages. Maybe you should do something about it, like putting a bullet in the back of his head. Russia has form with revolutions, time for another.

            1. VoiceOfTruth

              Re: Banning access

              -> Russia has form with revolutions, time for another.

              Er, hello. How did the USA come into being?

    2. doublelayer Silver badge

      Re: Banning access

      This is not the first time you've said that, and like that time (and any others I haven't noticed), you're wrong. It loads from my connection, through my VPN, and through a couple endpoints I've tried. Some of the endpoints I've tried are in other countries. Just like last time, people in countries I didn't tried verified that it works for them too. If you're intent on lying, you can lie better. Or you could stop, because it's annoying.

      1. VoiceOfTruth

        Re: Banning access

        -> This is not the first time you've said that

        I think this is the first time I have ever mentioned it. If you think I have mentioned it before, please point out where.

        Where are you? I am in the UK and it is unreachable at this moment. And this morning. And yesterday. And a few days ago. I rarely checked rt.com but has been unreachable from here for days.

        1. doublelayer Silver badge

          Re: Banning access

          I'm not in the UK, but since it was in your comment, I tunneled to an IP address in the UK through a UK ISP and loaded again. It loaded immediately with no problems. I checked the routings. They worked as expected.

    3. rheya

      Re: Banning access

      there have been illegal invasions before, but never quite the same media furore as on this occasion. Israel's theft of Palestinian land - no problem, Iran, Libya, Afghanistan also no problem, i won't even feign sarcasm, the explanation is very simple its called double standards.

  3. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    More parsing, vicar...?

    "Governments limiting access, disinformation, cybercrime, illegal and harmful content..."

    Well I suppose Govts limiting disinformation, cybercrime etc could be seen as making the internet less open, but somehow I doubt that's what the State Department meant, nor is it what they said.

    I'm not sure I'd want to be a "signee" either - does that mean the agreement has to be tattooed on your body for all to see?

    I suppose the usual suspects would be happy to be signatories, though the State Department document is the sort of waffly newspeak feelgood business-drivel best used for wrapping street food of choice.

  4. monty75

    Mad Nad

    Mad Nad Dorries, minister for lack of culture, was also part of this shindig. You know, the same Mad Nad who wants to downstream a tennis pitch and segregate off “our” nice internet from the rest of the world’s nasty internet.

  5. BillyMunny

    Unrestrict Encryption

    WTF is it with the Russo / Sino trolls in here, advocating an encryption ban?

    We need MORE encryption, end to end. Otherwise, we are not safe to speak our minds or have confidence that we are not being surveilled. Without encryption (and associated AUTHENTICATION), we cannot trust the security of transactions.

  6. Pascal Monett Silver badge

    "respect user's right to privacy"

    Okay, I'm ready to respect that - at the condition that the user does not take it as an excuse to assault, insult and harass another user.

    Respect of privacy works both ways, and if you do not respect the individual you're talking to, you have no right to expect anonymity.

    It is high time that policing of the Internet happens. I would actually accept a scheme where my posts could be anonymous to users, but targetted to law enforcement if that could cut down on the amount of assholes who think they can insult my mother in any way they see fit without consequence.

    Free Speech is not an excuse for gratuitious insults.

    1. VoiceOfTruth

      Re: "respect user's right to privacy"

      -> I would actually accept a scheme where my posts could be anonymous to users, but targetted to law enforcement

      Hmm. Very thin end of the wedge. It would only take a bit of thought crime and then you would be in trouble. The police are not the arbiters of morality. Give them a tiny bit of power and they will abuse it. They always have.

    2. Version 1.0 Silver badge

      Re: "respect user's right to privacy"

      In the US we all have freedom of speech and can walk around town with a gun in our pockets, Freedom to carry a gun is not an excuse for gratuitous shots but it does happen occasionally. I agree that Freedom of Speech is a significant factor but we need to accept that Freedom of Anonymous Lies is causing a lot of near misses these days on all sides.

  7. VoiceOfTruth

    rt.com reachability

    I have confirmed using a vpn to Germany that the site is available from there. But where I am in the UK it is unreachable.

    It would appear to be limited to the Three mobile network, but why that is so remains unclear: https://www.ispreview.co.uk/talk/threads/rt-news-inaccessible-on-three-uk.38074/page-2

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: rt.com reachability

      But where I am in the UK it is unreachable.

      Remind me, which part of the UK keeps UTC+3 business hours?

  8. VoiceOfTruth

    An update to an earlier post about rt.com

    In my first post on this article I wrote 'The so-called 'free west' has banned access.'

    I was wrong. It does appear to be a problem/decision specifically on the 3 mobile network which is preventing me from accessing the site. I can access this

    I wish to apologise for jumping in with both feet. I certainly know how to diagnose network access problems and would normally have done this, and been pointing fingers at 3. Instead I wrongly assumed that this was a policy decision somewhere in the UK. It's easy to make a wrong assumption about that, given that RT is now banned by Ofcom, and there was talk of other sorts of internet bans.

    But I was wrong in this case. I won't withdraw my comment, I will leave it there for others to see.

    1. codejunky Silver badge
      Thumb Up

      Re: An update to an earlier post about rt.com

      @VoiceOfTruth

      "But I was wrong in this case. I won't withdraw my comment, I will leave it there for others to see."

      How on earth does this get 5 downvotes? Who has a problem with someone apologising for a mistake? Kudo's @VoiceOfTruth

  9. heyrick Silver badge
    Headmaster

    In the linked DFI press release

    "Under this vision, people everywhere will benefit from an Internet that is unifiedunfragmented;"

    Editing error? Missing an "and" or was one word supposed to replace the other? They...don't quite mean the same thing.

    [the way my brain works, this leapt off the screen and smacked my eyeballs repeatedly; I trust the icon will be appropriate]

  10. Blackjack Silver badge

    *Looks at Russia and China

    Yeah good luck with that.

  11. John70

    Google announced its support for the declaration (only governments were signees), saying that the DFI outlines a clear path to addressing some of the internet's most pressing threats.

    Isn't Google one of those "pressing threats"?

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2022