Slashdot Mirror
Rebuilding Iraq's Internet
Anselm writes "According to this article at Wired.com, "The war has left Iraq's Internet infrastructure in shambles. Now, a British ISP hopes to fund the reconstruction through sales of domain names ending in .iq." While I have no use for an IQ domain, the article does make me wonder: Should geeks around the world take the lead in getting Iraq back online?"
Geeks should definitely get involved and they should do it through GeekCorps since that works through the PeaceCorps and international organizations.
Suicide Booth: You are now dead! Thank you for using Stop and Drop, America's favorite since 2008.
They don't need our money to build an isp or some such thing. There really are, you know, more important things than the internet. They need food, medicine, and a little help rebuilding a government. Once that's done, they need to be left alone, and they need us as far away from them as possible. And I say that, having been in support of our actions from even before we started ;)
Why can't we set up kind of a geeky Red Cross to deliver free or heavily subsidised computer equipment and internet connections to war torn countries?
Surely it would go a long way to helping such countries as Iraq get back on their feet.
Yeah, look how well .tv did.
Wer mit Ungeheuern kämpft, mag zusehn, dass er nicht dabei zum Ungeheuer wird. --Nietzsche
I think before CITRI plants their flag in Baghdad, they might want to consider the fact that somebody already owns the .iq root server.
From linked page:
Sponsoring Organization:
Alani Corp.
c/o InfoCom
630 International Parkway
Richardson, Texas 75081
United States
I'll pass up expected comment about Texans owning a chunk of Iraq... </troll>
"[T]he single essential element on which all discoveries will be dependent is human freedom." -- Barry Goldwater
That has been the case since the fall of the Soviet Union and will be true for at least another decade, when China gets its legs.
The point being, now everyone knows it. The gloves are off and the neo-cons will strike while the iron is hot. On the one hand, the U.S. denies that it intends to hit Syria and Iran next and on the other hand they're already setting up to do exactly that.
Fascism should more properly be called corporatism, since it is the merger of state and corporate power.
...but they are used to a way of life none of us can relate to, and will provbably start to move in "the wrong direction" unless we can quickly influence them.
Indeed, some of the open questions are: If the Iraqi people do get a true democracy, will it be pro-US? If not, will America stand for it, or will we declare it illigitimate?
That article on the post beneth or above meine from arabnews.com about America controoling the world is bs.
I agree that it's lame, but what does that arab world think about it? An important factor in this action was the middle east's reaction to a new Iraqi state. Will they see it as an opportunity, or as a slight? Right now, much of the arab press seems to see it as an insult and a humiliating defeat for arabs. Will this view win out, or will we be exhonorated in time?
It's too early to tell from where I'm sitting. But rumour has it that recruits to terrorist camps is up.
"One man can change the world with a bullet in the right place."
- Mick Travis, "If..."
This embarrassing project is doomed to fail for two very obvious reasons:
1) Very few (non-Iraqi) people or organizations will want a domain name visibly associated with an ignoble war, death and destruction, and a long-term dictatorship.
2) Very few people (and I include the members of Mensa which are mentioned as an example in CITRI's web page) will want a domain name that broadcasts how proud they are of their ability to pass standard intelligence tests. You see it's just not cool to be clever. Not that way, anyway.
I suspect the only takers - at a knock-down price - will be the tasteless owners of shoddy porn, gambling and con-merchant websites. And spammers great and small.
Iraq's people have just emerged from a 25+ year unjust prison sentence.
actually many people where released from years of unjust prison sentences back in October of 2002. Saddam granted amnesty to all Iraqi prisoners including political prisoners. Read the full story.
Iraq amnesty scorned by US
Is this some company owned and operated by some of Blair's "close" friends?
This just goes to show that the politicians just wanted to profit in as many ways as possible from this supposed war of liberation.
I would say freedom of information coincides quite nicely with the coalitions effort to build Iraq into a land free people.
I would remind everyone that freedom of information existed long before the Internet.
How does having an internet infrastructure improve the odds of freedom of information?
Well with truly unhindered access to the Internet one can see many points of view outside of one argument. For instance, an Iraqi citizen can read foreign newspapers and Al Jazeera and decide for themself what is "true" about the US occupation and decide for themself where they stand.
The Gutenberg press had the same affect by allowing anyone to print media for a low cost, helping the spread of information. Gutenberg's process, which permitted the inexpensive dissemination of ideas and knowledge, paved the way for dramatic cultural and social change in Europe, including the Protestant Reformation.
Although information one gathers might be _garbage_ I don't think one could argue that MORE information on a particular subject is a bad thing and I would argue that it does help citizens become more informed on what is going on in the world around them.
Also, the US had freedom of information (to one degree or other) before computers, although they didn't have as much knowledge.
And the US is considered a free country. What is your point? Wouldn't you agree that the Internet has helped US citizens stay aware of it's government's actions and also aware of the world around them? People can spread their words over the Internet with very little cost. Anyone in the US can walk into an Internet cafe and post a free web page spouting "truth" until they can no longer type. And that has changed the world. US citizens are more aware of it's government and the world at large because of the Internet. They are no longer restricted to the traditional media as a source of information.
When information is truly free governments and others in power will no longer be able to hide behind lies and deceit. Why do you think those in power try so hard to stop the free flow of information? Because again, knowledge is power.
Well, if Iraq is anything like the Democratic Republic of Congo, then we'll have their democraticaly elected leader assasinated and we will put someone we like in charge by rigging the next election. Then he'll screw things up worse than Sadam ever could. He'll sell all of Iraq's oil to pay for his personal army of mercenaries. He will use all of the foreign aid money we give him to fund that same army. Eventually, his own people will rise up in revolt and kill him.
Which is why I said it wasn't so simple... neither was our support of Hussein (who was already in power btw, we didn't put him there), or pretty much anything in the Real World.
And frankly, I do consider the toppling of him to be fixing a problem we helped cause. But if we hadn't supported him in the late 70s and 80s then it's entirely possible that Iran would've taken over Iraq... which would've been disasterous for the entire Middle East (and thus the world).
So how does turning over their national domain to a British IT consulting firm contribute to the rebuilding of Iraq?
No one seems to consider the possibility that entire population of human beings could be into a form of national BDSM or D/s where they enjoy the brutal, criminal oppression from a power hungry tyrant...
Sarcasm aside, there supposedly is a rather significant portion of the Shia population (either in Iraq or Saudi or both) that wants a Caliphant and not a democracy. So, yes, some people don't want a democracy as we have it.
I think a more valid, but difficult, question is do we believe in the UN charter that says people have a right to self governance implies only democracy in the world or does it suggest that a population can choose to support a different kind of government?
This is an actual question. We in the US have been brought up to be part of a democratic republic. It was certainly better than what we had before, and it's certainly better than most of the post colonial governments on earth. I certain don't want another. But is it the only valid form of government?
"One man can change the world with a bullet in the right place."
- Mick Travis, "If..."