ITU getting serious about botnets [LWN.net]

ITU getting serious about botnets

Posted Nov 30, 2007 8:17 UTC (Fri) by nix (subscriber, #2304)
In reply to: ITU getting serious about botnets by brouhaha
Parent article: ITU getting serious about botnets

So the EU Commission (the source of the majority of the more 
boring-yet-necessary new laws in most of Europe, even eurosceptic parts 
like the UK) is not a governmental organization? Fascinating.

Your extreme US-centricism is plainly obvious from your claim that 
legislators are universes complete unto themselves that receive advice 
from no other governmental bodies. I'd be very scared of legislators that 
worked that way: who else are they ignoring? (It's odd: to a first 
approximation, the only people you can find against the UN as a whole are 
a bunch of nasty dictatorships and... parts of the US, the country which 
*founded* it.)

The UN and the EU had the same design intent: to eliminate war on 
different scales (worldwide large-scale versus European), to try to stop 
any repetition of WWII. Both are doing lots of different things these days 
as well, but branching out from `stop large-scale wars' to `stop 
large-scale supranational threats' doesn't seem like all *that* much 
mission creep to me. This sort of thing is what these organizations are 
*for*, and being legal bodies they will use legal weapons to do it.

(Yes, they suck at it and they're inefficient. Point me at any human 
organization that isn't. They might get something done, anyway. The EU 
should get involved, though, because unlike the UN it actually *can* get 
its constituent governments to pass laws.)

(Log in to post comments)

ITU getting serious about botnets

Posted Nov 30, 2007 17:02 UTC (Fri) by brouhaha (subscriber, #1698) [Link]

So the EU Commission (the source of the majority of the more boring-yet-necessary new laws in most of Europe, even eurosceptic parts like the UK) is not a governmental organization? Fascinating.

I don't see how you derived that from what I said.

Your extreme US-centricism is plainly obvious from your claim that legislators are universes complete unto themselves that receive advice from no other governmental bodies.

What I said was that the vast majority of advice on changing laws doesn't come from supranational governments or organizations. In the US, most of the input into new laws or amendments at the federal level comes from other parts of the US government (e.g., the executive branch), states, and corporations.

Do EU countries really work that much differently? I thought only a small portion of the laws of individual EU countries was forced upon them by the EU. Or, if you don't like the phrase "forced upon", I could say "given to".

ITU getting serious about botnets

Posted Nov 30, 2007 23:03 UTC (Fri) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link]

The figure for UK laws which consist of implementation of EU directives is 
around 50%, IIRC, and rising.