Do We Need a New Internet? 690
Richard.Tao and a number of other readers sent in a NYTimes piece by John Markoff asking whether the Internet is so broken it needs to be replaced. "...[T]here is a growing belief among engineers and security experts that Internet security and privacy have become so maddeningly elusive that the only way to fix the problem is to start over. What a new Internet might look like is still widely debated, but one alternative would, in effect, create a 'gated community' where users would give up their anonymity and certain freedoms in return for safety. Today that is already the case for many corporate and government Internet users. As a new and more secure network becomes widely adopted, the current Internet might end up as the bad neighborhood of cyberspace. You would enter at your own risk and keep an eye over your shoulder while you were there." A less alarmist reaction to the question was blogged by David Akin: "If you build a new Internet and you want me to get a license to drive on it, sorry. I'm hanging out here in v.1."
Absolutley Not (Score:5, Insightful)
as old ben would say (Score:5, Insightful)
They don't deserve (and won't get) either.
Users (Score:5, Insightful)
Build all the "new" Internets you want. As long as you have clueless users on your network, you'll have attack vectors.
Oh hey (Score:5, Insightful)
my letter to the editor (Score:5, Insightful)
To the Editor:
Re "A New Internet? The Old One is Putting Us in Jeopardy," by John Markoff (Week in Review, Feb. 15, 2009):
Mr. Markoff both misstates and overstates the security problems faced by the Internet as currently designed.
He never uses the word "Windows," but the virus outbreaks he describes are almost entirely a Windows phenomenon, and due to the poor design of that operating system. Microsoft's apologists have been saying for years that this was only because Windows' market share made it the more attractive target. But Apple's share of the desktop market has skyrocketed recently to 15% without any outbreaks of viruses targeting the Macintosh. And Microsoft has never commanded more than about half of the server market; the other half runs open-source operating systems such as Linux (used by Google) and FreeBSD (Yahoo), on which viruses are essentially unknown.
Markoff says it's hard to prove your identity on the internet, and proposes government regulation as a solution. But many people have been proving their identities for years now using proven technologies like public-key cryptography. The U.S. government played a negative role in the development of these technologies by attempting to regulate their distribution through export-control regulations originally intended for munitions.
NO. (Score:4, Insightful)
the success of internet is based on its freedom and anonymity.
Re:Harden up (Score:1, Insightful)
More like control freaks who want to take away other people's liberty convincing them that it's for their own good.
Re:Oh hey (Score:4, Insightful)
There are a lot of people with money and power who would like to make more money and get more power by controlling the flow of information.
Re:Privacy vs. Anonymity (Score:5, Insightful)
This so-called new Internet isn't about privacy as it is criminalizing bad behavior. So, you get to face charges when your machine gets a virus and now you have to prove that it really wasn't your fault.
Are you ready to handle that? When your car or your gun gets stolen, you can report it. Then you're off the hook if someone commits a crime with it after you report the incident. Most folks won't be able to tell when their computer gets owned in a botnet. Most people would rather quit the Internet forever than risk criminal prosecution over something they don't really understand or have any confidence in managing.
Yeah, anonymity on the internet is broken. (Score:3, Insightful)
> ...asking whether the Internet is so broken it needs to be replaced.
Yeah, I agree. Anonymity on the internet is completely broken. It is trivial for law enforcement to get a subpoena to force websites to reveal the IP addresses of users, and also trival for law enforcement to get a subpoena to force ISPs to reveal who had that IP address at a given moment in time. Granted, there are ways to make sure that the IP address you are using can't be traced to you, but those methods are kind of a pain in the ass.
> ...where users would give up their anonymity and certain freedoms in return for safety
WTF? Any rearchitecting of the internet needs to have subpoena-proof absolute anonymity built in from the beginning. This "proposal" is like suggesting we rearchitect transportation to make sure that vehicle occupants receive no shelter from the weather.
Re:as old ben would say (Score:4, Insightful)
The article is alarmist, here are some quotes,
"Unless we're willing to rethink today's Internet," says Nick McKeown, a Stanford engineer involved in building a new Internet, "we're just waiting for a series of public catastrophes."
"If you're looking for a digital Pearl Harbor, we now have the Japanese ships streaming toward us on the horizon," Rick Wesson, the chief executive of Support Intelligence, a computer consulting firm, said recently.
We are going to get a new Internet, but incrementally. It will continue to be developed, which is what the Standford (and other) researchers are doing.
Re:Privacy vs. Anonymity (Score:1, Insightful)
No way in hell! (Score:5, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:as old ben would say (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, the internet is designed to avoid political intervention. So the logical next step is to further decentralise the net and promote wireless mesh networks.
And the worst argument of it all:
So lets abandon the free net because of Microsoft's security holes. Great idea.
In my opinion the French military should rather develop its own national operating system.
bring back my internets (Score:2, Insightful)
Of course no-one will use the new internet due to lack of porn and free warezes and advertisements. Part of the appeal and success of the original internet is largely due to lack of accountability, and the ability to share ones own sick fetishes with the world completely anonymously.
Not to mention the target your painting on your forehead.
I mean seriously if your going to setup a new network simply for the purpose of being secure then why not just use a vpn? assuming you manage to setup a new "secure" internet, and advertise the fact that it's secure. It's a little like posting your ip on a hacker board and saying "bEt YoU CaNt HaCk Mez"
hmm yeah good luck with that
Re:Harden up (Score:1, Insightful)
If the only way for you to have liberty is with being anonymous, then obviously you don't live in a free country. Hiding is not freedom.
Simple (Score:5, Insightful)
If we cant make the comparitively tiny step of moving from ipv4 to ipv6 I think its nigh impossible to move to "a new internet".
Re:Harden up (Score:5, Insightful)
No that is just plain wrong, don't support their lie in any way. They absolutely don't want to trade liberty for security, they want to trade 'your' liberty for 'their' control over you. Control over what you read or see, write or say, in any digital format. They have found that as a result of the internet, our voice is louder than theirs, that the majority view point now creates itself and dominates the minority view point that dominated mass media.
Want a more secure internet, simple step one no more plain modems, all modems should incorporate a hardware fire wall based upon open source software, open source so that the public can see what is going on. Step two, simply use more secure software, that tightens up on internet access and that is a simple as using a better operating system, again open source is forced as the public has a right to know what is going on in a very integral part of their digital lives, what is basically becoming an essential service, no more secrets and no more lies.
I think Ill trust Benjamin Franklin (Score:4, Insightful)
"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." -Ben Franklin 1775.
If I have a choice between the people who gave us Echelon, Gitmo, Abu Grahib, DCMA, COPA, and failed to stop 9/11 versus virsuses and spyware...Ill take the viruses and spyware. I can protect myself from viruses and spyware much easier than I can protect myself from encroachment upon my liberty.
Re:Harden up (Score:5, Insightful)
Privacy is not a freedom?
Re:No way in hell! (Score:5, Insightful)
To quote my main man on the C-Note [wikipedia.org]: "They would trade essential liberty in return for a little temporary safety deserve neither." The B-man was talking about firearms, but it goes for the Intartubes as well.
Re:Oh hey (Score:2, Insightful)
Of course we do. (Score:5, Insightful)
The new bourgeois world order demands it.
There is nothing more subversive and abhorrent to the owning/ruling classes than this peer-to-peer network, on which nobody can know you're a dog.
That the smallest pipsqueak running Apache can pass for the largest media conglomerate, oh! the humanity!
What is needs is a strict pay-as-you-go, one way network that will feed what the big media conglomerate want to the masses, in which nothing negative (to the owning classes) can travel. A virtual Disneyland(TM) where everything (appears) nice so that the masses can be fond of the status-quo.
Re:Why not? (Score:3, Insightful)
No, the reason you get those ads for fake pills is that someone with antisocial tendencies is sending them to you using hijacked systems.
Let's not blame the wrong people for what is clearly a hostile act on the part of spammers and and the pimply losers who believe they've accomplished something because they've shit on our sidewalk. I'm referring to the botnet assholes, of course.
It's been done before (AOL, Compuserve, etc.) (Score:4, Insightful)
I think the AOL system was pretty much what the op is suggesting--a gated, fee-driven system that is safe for the kids and spam-free.
The problem is that systems like AOL are inherently limited, with a corporate team that decides its content and direction from week to week.
The Internet is amazingly varied and dynamic by comparison and it's little wonder that AOLers eventually left to join the greater outside world.
Comparing a Net 2.0 to a gated community is an intriguing concept, but in reality it would probably be too self-limiting for people.
It's possible today to stay in your own backyard on the wild and woolly Net 1.0. Just don't publish your email address, or else change it whenever you start getting junk mail. A lot of unsophisticated users just use the email assigned to them by their broadband vendors anyway, xxxx@verizon.net for example, and whenever they move or switch services their addresses change, too.
Also, just stick to a few trusted web sites, don't browse promiscuously, and you'll be fine. But life will be boring.
If you want a serious answer... (Score:5, Insightful)
It has long been recognized by the courts that without the ability to "speak" (communicate) to the public anonymously, the whole concept of "freedom of speech" would be a joke.
It is necessary for proper political debate to be able to express one's views without fear of repercussion. If anonymity were outlawed or otherwise prevented, people would NOT be able to express their views without others knowing who they are... and potentially threatening them, or their wellbeing, or their employment, or their families...
It all fits together. But truly, without anonymity, freedom of speech would not last.
Keep in mind that the "Federalist Papers", and other important publications of information about the formation of our country, and the war of independence, were published anonymously or under pseudonyms. If they had not been, surely the people who wrote such things (Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, etc.) would have been harassed, arrested, or even killed.
Re:Harden up (Score:4, Insightful)
The old power base is attempting to leash and control the new power base to their own ends. The young, creative talent has moved to the Internet; and the previous powerbase is populated with a docile, unproductive herd. And not realizing any functional leash on the Internet populace will again capture only the docile followers.
Re:No way in hell! (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, in my opinion the "gated community" metaphor fits perfectly: providing the illusion of security for a substantial sum without providing any actual benefit. It's not even giving up freedoms in return for safety, it's giving up freedoms in return for the illusion of safety.
It isn't broken (Score:5, Insightful)
The Internet itself isn't broken, not by a long shot. What's broken are certain applications that run across it.
And even then whether they're broken is arguable. Take SMTP for instance. One of the big complaints seems to be that SMTP doesn't make any guarantees that the sender is who they claim to be. My response to that is "And?". The USPS doesn't make any such guarantee about physical mail either, and we get along just fine anyway. It's just acknowledged that the identity of the sender isn't determined by the return address they put on the envelope, but by the claims in the letter inside and even those claims have to be verified independently of the Post Office. And when people are naive enough to believe any important letter just because it claims to be from someone without actually contacting that someone to verify it, we laugh at them. So when people say "I got an e-mail claiming to be from Bank of America and it was fake!", why don't we laugh at them and go "Well, YES! When the e-mail said there was a problem, why didn't you call BoA directly and ask about it?".
Same for Web browsers and web sites, and dozens of other applications. People want the transport layer to substitute for their own judgement and common sense. The Internet doesn't do that, any more than UPS or the USPS do. We don't need a replacement for them, do we?
Re:Easily answered (Score:1, Insightful)
It was a joke, jackass.
Re:Why not? (Score:4, Insightful)
No, the reason you get those ads for fake pills is that someone with antisocial tendencies is sending them to you using hijacked systems.
So you were robbed because a thief stole your stuff, and not because you left the door open?
The blame goes both ways. Of course botnets wouldn't exist without malware authors, but neither would they without that many Windows and IE vulnerabilities.
Re:No way in hell! (Score:5, Insightful)
Sounds like the Americans will be all for it then.
Re:No way in hell! (Score:1, Insightful)
Reality (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Harden up (Score:1, Insightful)
By your rationale, my ballot should have my name on it when it is collected in the next election, and I should have to wear a name tag when I'm walking down a public street. If I protest, I must be "hiding".
Privacy is not about hiding. It is about disclosing only what is truly necessary to get the job done. If I can pick up a public phone and call a number anywhere in the world (as long as I have the money), then why shouldn't I be able to access the internet? I have nothing to hide, but I don't TRUST what uses my name might be put to if I were to disclose it (ID theft comes to mind), and it isn't necessary to communicate. People might regard what I say as less significant if I'm anonymous, but I have the choice.
And that is the real point: freedom is about *choice*, not about having only one or the other option (privacy or anonymity).
I predict that if this other internet does come to pass there will be a lucrative market in pseudonyms and anonymizing agents that pretend to have real identification information, but are entirely bogus.
Re:No way in hell! (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, tell me what kind of new internet we're talking about and then we can have an intelligent discussion about it. There's a lot that can be done without sacrificing anonymity and freedoms that would help make a more secure internet. One example might be to get sensitive transactions (like purchases or online banking) out of HTTP and out of your web browser, and into a more purpose-built protocol. This could eliminate important dangers like cross-site request forgery and cross-site scripting. I await what other examples people can suggest.
Re:No way in hell! (Score:5, Insightful)
Except there's no such thing as permanent safety. See, the safety is only as complete as the people in charge of making things safe are trustworthy. Creating safety requires giving people power, and power corrupts. Therefore, the people in charge of safety will be corrupt. Sure, the system may work for a while, but eventually a person that is very susceptible to corruption will be put in charge, and it will break down, probably quite spectacularly and quite quicky.
Re:Go ahead. We'll keep this one, OK? (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm guessing you're from the US. Guess what, there's other countries out there as well.
Imagine if the ISPs in *other countries* didn't give a shit about some *US* law regulation dictating that *US* ISPs stopped supporting TCP/IP *in the US*, and happily continue to use OSs that support them.
Not only that, but you would have to do far more than "just" roll out a software update. How about the ISPs infrastructure? Modems? Routers?
Never gonna happen, and if it does, it's never going to be global.
Re:as old ben would say (Score:3, Insightful)
Like what? What could be MORE vulnerable than a Microsoft operating system without a firewall?
As much as it sounds like a troll, you're correct. Most of the malware out there is for Windows.
But that's not the only factor. Stupid users are cross-platform. (Well, not so much on, say, OpenBSD or Haiku, but still.)
Re:No way in hell! (Score:5, Insightful)
It is indeed correct, which by the way putting quotes around correct is not, that rights are not valuable if they go away when it becomes difficult to maintain them.
And that there is indeed a very important qualifier that was put in, that word being "essential" meaning it's not the unimportant liberties, but the essential ones.
Of course we don't have to blindly live by it, but we are sufficiently well off that we can.
Re:No way in hell! (Score:5, Insightful)
That's not entirely true though.
We already have gated communities on the web. They're https sites.
I would say a second secure webspace in which trusted commerce can take place in addition to the existing web wouldn't be a bad thing. I would be willing to completely give up my anonymity when wanting to make a secure transaction. In fact I would be willing to give up my anonymity on the normal internet, but like that I *could* be anonymous if ever needed.
Hybridization seems like the key here.
Re:No way in hell! (Score:5, Insightful)
You are dead right. Gated community is FUD/PR Spin machine running full tilt. First, lets look at the reasons that some might argue that the current Internet is a dangerous place?
Got those in your head? Don't forget social engineering as the number one threat to Internet security, and that it CANNOT be fixed with hardware other than removing the network cable from the back of user's computers.
Now, let us look at how a gated community might fix security issues:
-social engineering dangers? Nope
-Spam? Nope
-open WiFi APs at home? Nope
-DDoS? Nope, those are not end user issues. If an end user can reach a given service, their pc can be taken by a bot and used in a DDoS.
-Viruses? Nope, gated communities will not stop all, if any, attack vectors
So, quite initially, the benefits here are nil, null, void, empty, vapor... So what is the impetus to make such gated communities? To remove your privacy. Period. there is no other reason. ever.
How can the current Internet be made better? There are lots of ways. First large ISPs need to re-organize their networks to handle the traffic required of them. Decentralization is imperative to both remove DDoS dangers and to ensure that user's across town from you are not using the bandwidth that you would otherwise be using. Content on demand can not be served efficiently from a single data source. Current network designs are designed that way for financial reasons and not network functionality. If you think the current state of Internet infrastructure is fucked, you have only your large ISP's to blame. They did not, and ARE not planning for a network topology that will support safety or expected data throughput requirements.
Those that have been fighting DDoS attacks can tell you more. Gated networks won't stop the real problems. They will ONLY take your privacy for the facade of security.
Both of you have it wrong (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:No way in hell! (Score:5, Insightful)
Right now most bandwidth is lost to spammers, crackers and scammers.
Really? How much bandwidth does it take to run a cracking script? I'd bet most bandwidth is "lost" to peer-to-peer downloads.
Re:No way in hell! (Score:5, Insightful)
"Essential Liberty" is the sacrifice of many speech rights, including anonymity and unpleasant speech (which would be banned the moment the UN got involved).
Perhaps you mean that in the hypothetical situation Markoff is proposing, the benefit would be real and permanent, and the sacrifice not necessary; but that's a flight of fancy that most of us know is unrealistic.
Re:Harden up (Score:3, Insightful)
Young creative talent? Yeah maybe in 1996 or so, but today the internet is just another avenue for established business. It might make you feel self-important that the "man" is after you but in reality there's no such thing going on. Also, please turn down your Rage Against the Machine. I can barely hear you.
Re:Just look at what happens to walled/gated commu (Score:3, Insightful)
600 people every year manage to defeat themselves and get killed by gun accidents
Yes, and over 40,000 in car accidents, 3500 in swimming pools. Where are cars and swimming pools mentioned in the constitution? It seems like it would be a lot less work and more useful to ban them first.
Re:No way in hell! (Score:3, Insightful)
thank you for a very excellent example of an anecdote.
On the flip, I've experienced an increased security in gated communities. But obviously, ymmv.
Re:No way in hell! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:No way in hell! (Score:5, Insightful)
Abso-fucking-lutely. Blind obedience and faith in anything is stupidity. That's why I abhor people who a) state something is the truth by referencing "doctrine" or b) state the laws are correct, simply because they are laws.
We should always use our own intelligence to evaluate these statements and come to our own conclusions about their value, or wisdom.
Do you not understand this particular catchphrase, or do you not understand why people use catchphrases?
This particular phrase is absolutely correct. When we have essential liberties that we have agreed amongst ourselves that we possess, and then in turn sacrifice these liberties (and the principles that created them) in order to provide greater security from threats both known and unknown, we have in fact, accomplished absolutely nothing.
That is what is meant by sacrificing "freedom" for "security" while receiving "neither". We lost freedom, and history has taught us (and will teach us again), that we never received the security we were looking for in the first place.
I agree that we should never blindly agree to statements like these, but the wisdom is in this particular catchphrase has been well debated and I would say is "tried and true".
The reason why we use this catchphrase is that is quicker to summarize our arguments by referring to it than to enter into a lengthy explanation (which I just did) of just what it means. You may not have understood the catchphrase (which was admittedly worded strangely), but it is your responsibility to determine what it meant if you really want to understand it. Otherwise it's just a language barrier.
Re:We need a balance (Score:4, Insightful)
Public key cryptography can be used to assert identity in an otherwise anonymous communication medium. Anonymity cannot, however, be layered on top of an attributed communication medium.
Re:Go ahead. We'll keep this one, OK? (Score:2, Insightful)
Heck, even if it DOES happen somewhere, you think someone won't write some kind of proxy or gateway to establish communication between the two or more "internets"?
Re:No way in hell! (Score:5, Insightful)
I for one use peer to peer networks, for (some) legal purposes
Yeah, I didn't mean to imply otherwise. I put "lost" in quotes because the bandwidth isn't really lost, it's just used. It's like claiming sections of the highway are "lost" because there are lots of cars on them. That's why we BUILT the highways. You could argue the opposite is true, they're wasted if we we AREN'T using them.
Re:No way in hell! (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:No way in hell! (Score:3, Insightful)
Are you really sure about that? Was it your perception or was it actual security?
Security is really just a defensive state. It represents safety from the outside "world". A gated community can only have an increase in security if it actually provides additional barriers to damage or loss from outside individuals or actions.
I have lived both inside and outside of gated communities. In the last couple of years I have received an equal number of reports of disturbances and robberies in both gated and non-gated communities. This is why I would tend to say that there is only a perception of increased security, and that the actual condition of security has not functionally improved.
In fact, I would go further to state that a gated community may have less security than normal. The perception of security provided by the gates and the guards is not held to be true when basically anyone can gain entry. Pizza deliveries and service providers tend to get straight through with little effort. So functionally, the condition of security has been made worse, while the expectations was that it was to be made better. The perception itself remains, so homeowners may tend to have a lower condition of security on their properties in gated communities than they would otherwise.
Re:Why not? (Score:3, Insightful)
As someone who was doing the same thing even before Winsock, I have to correct you.
It's true there were viruses in the wild before Windows. You either got one by downloading warez, or by rebooting with an infected floppy disk in the drive.
However the notion of getting a virus *simply by opening an email* was a ridiculous impossibility before MicroSoft made it reality with Outhouse. I used to get 5 or 6 inquiries about this a week - chain letters went from one clueless user to the next quite regularly - but anyone with a half a clue new at a glance it was BS.
Then came Outhouse and suddenly one of the most hilarious and baseless internet myths of all time was true.
So dont tell me MicroSoft doesnt bear a large portion of the blame for the current virus problem.
Re:No way in hell! (Score:4, Insightful)
Others have explained why gated communities don't provide additional security. I believe they're correct. But even if gated communities were effective, they'd still be both wrong and worrisome: You can tell the degree of a society's progress or regression by examining the change in the number of gated communities.
Gated communities are a sign of a diseased society with a siege mentality. In Europe, the manors that started appearing in Late Antiquity (i.e., after the Roman Empire was in irreversible decline) were that era's gated communities: by building walls and becoming economically self-contained, petty landlords became more secure against the bandits of the day. (Our word "vandal" actually comes from the name of a tribe that sacked Rome.) The empire was increasingly unable to guarantee security for all, and so fomented an insular mentality that would stop the clock of progress until the Italian Renaissance.
Likewise, every gated community we build is a symbol of our giving up on collective security a bit. There's a reason you see gated communities in countries with high wealth disparities, like Mexico, Brazil, and the Middle Eastern nations: gated communities allow those inside to view the people outside as somewhat less than they are, which of course leads the inhabitants to adopt views and policies that further these views. In a way, are both the result and cause of policies that lead to further wealth inequality and eventually, complete societal collapse.
Re:No way in hell! (Score:5, Insightful)
The UN? Please, take off the tin foil hat, step away from the keyboard, and prepare yourself for the bad news.
It's not the UN you have to fear. Far from it. It's the first local folks who don't like what you have to say.
Think smoking pot isn't a big deal? Most Americans don't. But if you boss can find out you said that... well, chilling effects are a bummer, dude.
Partner swapping? Amatuer fireworks? Liking big guns? Owning internet security tools? Taking apart the technology you "own"? Whistleblowing of any kind? Say, "my peanut-butter plant is filthy?" Yes, you had better fear the loss of anonymity. There are lots of people who don't want you to have it.
But the UN? Bitch, please.
It was overall a terrible, fear-mongering article. It reduced IPv6 to a single, rather inaccurate sentance.
OK, put your tin foil hat back on now. Live in fear of the wrong things, asshole. Fearing the UN is like waiting for the Care Bare invasion.
Re:No way in hell! (Score:2, Insightful)
Yes, I think this a PERFECT example of what would happen in Secure Internet 2.0 :)
As if we don't have enough ignorance as it is.
Secondly it's the government that does many of the bad things on the Internet, packet sniffing, censorship ect.
Re:No way in hell! (Score:3, Insightful)
"According to expert estimations the amount of spam in the global Internet traffic is much more than a half. While optimists consider it to be around 60% pessimists insist it is not less than 80%." [articles-about-spam.com]
"DDoS (i.e., brute-force flood-based attacks) have over the past 18 months consistently accounted for ~1-3% of all all inter-domain Internet traffic. ... We have seen peaks well above 5% of aggregate reported traffic, although not consistently." [arbornetworks.com]
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:No way in hell! (Score:4, Insightful)
The UN is definitely something to fear. It's not that the UN itself is some evil, calculating organization; it isn't. It's a bunch of bumbling diplomats. However, the UN is a way for people in power to try to push their power onto other, sovereign nations, and for corrupt politicians in sovereign nations to subvert the democratic process in those countries by pushing laws "required" by UN treaties, in violation of those countries' own laws and constitutions.
For instance, the UN is very big on gun control, and keeping guns out of the hands of civilians. After all, look what a great job keeping civilians disarmed is doing in Darfur. Trying to disarm the civilian population in the US, however, is a problem because of our Constitution (which is frequently misinterpreted). But by ceding some sovereignty to the UN, signing up to some global gun-ban treaty, and then saying we have to comply with it, our gun-grabbing politicians can try to get around our Constitution in their quest for power and control over us. After that, they'll get rid of the other inconvenient parts of the Bill of Rights they don't like, such as prohibitions on unreasonable search and seizure and freedom of speech.
The whole problem with the UN (besides the obsolete cold-war-era Security Council) is the idea that countries run by dictators and thugs get as much representation and respect as democratically-run first-world countries. This is how they wind up with things like the UN Human Rights Council being headed by Libya. Just the fact that that ever happened is a reason for any decent country to withdraw from the UN.