Slashdot Mirror
How The U.S. Government Undermined the Internet
sakshale writes "The Register has an article about U.S. Government backed policy changes that have led ICANN to redelegate top level domains in such a way as to provide 'greater state-controlled censorship on the internet, reduce people's ability to use the internet to communicate freely, and leave expansion of the internet in the hands of the people least capable of doing the job'" More from the article: "At that meeting, consciously and for the first time, ICANN used a US government-provided reason to turn over Kazakhstan's internet ownership to a government owned and run association without requiring consent from the existing owners. The previous owners, KazNIC, had been created from the country's Internet community. ICANN then immediately used that 'precedent' to hand ownership of Iraq's internet over to another government-run body, without accounting for any objections that the existing owners might have."
2005 will be forever seen as the year in which the US government managed to keep unilateral control of the internet...
Yea, never mind things like the Tsunami or Katrina or in the U.S. all of the controversies in government... I'm sure when I'm 85 years old this is exactly what I'll remember about 2005.
So the ICANN handed over control of a couple NICs to the government of those countries. Did I miss something else in the article?
Shouldn't the own governments handle the NICs in their own countries? I have to be missing something - otherwise all I can think is this is what the UN would probably have done anyway.
If ICANN can "turn over" ownership TO a government body, then what is to keep it from being able to turn over ownership AWAY from that government later? Assuming enough outrage arises over the first turnover, of course!
I've said from the beginning that DNS is a government mechanism for censorship -- it was, it is and it will continue to be. The typical authoritarian response (from slashdotters no less) is that other countries can run their own DNS TLD's, but this will just lead to multiple censors, not real freedom.
Regulation does not help the needy or the poor. It does not help those who can not do something for themselves. Regulation does not make a safer or better product, and it does not create a cheaper marketplace.
Regulation gives those in power the ability to put friends, family and cronies into high paying monopolistic jobs, determine which companies can enter a market and prevent everyone else from competing or making a better product.
Those who know me (even if you don't like me) know I am anti-DNS. I don't have a free market solution YET, but I think about it every day. DNS will be the fall of the Internet, until there is a decentralized version, and I believe that Google or another major search company will find a way to replace the central authority version.
I know we need DNS today -- links, bookmarks, advertising, all that. I also know we needed coal burning stoves just 40 years ago in some parts of the U.S. Without government, society tries to find ways to become more free by competing with others. Everyone wants a profit, but we believe we'll earn more by underpricing our competition and offering a better product. With government, society tries to find ways around the bureaucracy, red tape and restrictions. We have markets that have an excessively high cost of entry, but it is not always because of the equipment needed -- many markets are expensive because of government regulations and restrictions.
In the end, our freedoms are destroyed, our hard work is overtaxed and our children are left with the burden of paying off our mistakes.
before people get so annoyed with a country exerting excess control that they set up an alternate DNS root. Maybe one that mirrors the original by and large - but has some differences of opinion. You get to choose which one to use in case of a dispute, or just take one or other as it comes. Could it happen? Will it happen?
This is simply how it's supposed to be. I know we all love to think we live in "cyberspace" etc etc but behind the bits are physical networks and governments. ccTLD's are supposed to be soverign to the country that they stand for. What is so horrible about that? If governments use their ccTLD to be more repressive, take it up with the government not with ICANN.
Amazing how some people scream censorship at the drop of a hat but can't see where they censor each other.
Isn't calling it censorship a bit of a stretch. What we are talking about is who controls the domain rights within a country. Now in the example they give for Kazakhstan, they point to their removal of Sacha Baron Cohen's website borat.kz. Their excuse is actually laughable, but who is to deny anyone, government controlled, influenced or not the right to protect their perceived "integrity".
.kz all together and people will still be able to see it.
Now, is this right? This is debatable and surely will be debated over and over here. Is this censorship? Hardly. We are not talking about some Great Firewall preventing the people from visiting any site of Cohen's. This is the WWW afterall and he can easily have the site with a different domain avoiding the
To say this is the beginning of state sponsored censorship is ridiculous, of course we are trusting on an article from The Register, so inflammatory language is a requirement, as is misinformation. Trust me, if a country was really wanting to censor anything they would do it one way or the other even if it meant "cutting the line". So let us all calm down and put the little tin foil hats away.
"Some days you just can't get rid of a bomb."
WTF, if the internet is in another country, the government of that country can do whatever they hell they want with it. That's how international law works. It's called respect for sovereignty.
Don't be silly. Slashdotters aren't very "consistent" in their desire for the US to respect other countries. It's only acceptable when it suits their own personal politics.. It doesn't matter which side the US came down on, the karma-whores and left-wingers on this site would have blamed the US.
The US was either going to be at fault for "ignoring the wishes of the Soverign nations for the sake of 'corporations'" or for "screwing legit owners and helping to censor the internet". This entire topic is going to be based in ignorance, politics, and fear-mongering... and if you are ever dilligent and intelligent, you will ignore 99.9% of it to find the tiny bit of truth scattered about.
If we were talking about .com and .net TLD's, then I would be pretty pissed.
However, it's hard to justify not giving control of a COUNTRY'S TLD to said country's government.
Another poster posted ICANN's guidelines for the country code TLD's and they clearly state that the government's wishes with regards to it's TLD management are of paramount importance.
That's just how it should be.
Yup. True.
However, since when did US start contributing anything to the internet after 1995?
Maybe traffic to US domains should start dropping.
Finland has the highest inernet penetration (pun intended).
USA has rural parts where even telcos won't provide telecom lines let alone broadband.
And, no, DRM enabled iTunes traffic is not counted as traffic.
"Doing what i can, with what i have." ~ Burt Gummer
Al Qaeda.
What is it with people who think that ANY kind of government control of ANYTHING, ANYWHERE is unacceptable? Newflash people, "ownership" is a concept that _only_ exists within the context of a governmental legal system. Remove that and ownership becomes little more than possession.
That someone would complain about giving the Afghani or Iraqi government control of something that is by definition associated with the national state--immediately after the previous government has been removed from power--is simply astounding. Perhaps we should just hand it over to warlords and drug runners and let it descend into a bloody mess.
This anarcho-capitalist "ICANN is evil" saw has reached its nadir. If you want to live outside of government control, I invite you to move to Western Sahara and send us all a postcard telling us all about your newfound utopia.
WTF, if the internet is in another country, the government of that country can do whatever they hell they want with it. That's how international law works. It's called respect for sovereignty.
Don't be fooled. The internet is going in the direction of uniting the world to one standard. China might not want information about topic X, Y, or Z in their nation, but it is there. Maybe the people of China can't go to www.cnn.com for their news, but I am sure there is a password protected cantguessmyurl somewhere. Somewhere, someone in China is using the computer of a loyal communist as a proxy to pro-democoracy websites.
The internet is like the 1920 speakeasies. First, you don't know where the speakeasy is; you need to know someone who tells you where to look. Second, when you knock on an door in an alley, a small little peephole opens and you have to tell them a password. But unlike a physical location, these websites can move around very easily.
The internet is it's own beast. In one sense, it takes control away from government. China can't withold news from their own people, like the USSR did in the 1960's and 1970's. On the other hand, nations like the USA will have to deal with nations like India that want to do buisness at a much lower price. Need a programmer? Don't want to pay $35 an hour? India has someone willing to work for $2 an hour.
From the article:
That is a loaded statement, and designed for a flamewar.
The USA is giving other nations control to do whatever they want. The USA is not setting policy for the other nation. I am sure Pakistan will use that control one way, and Canada another. Is it censorship, for example, if Canada passes a law saying any website with a .ca domain must have a French language version?
I learned my ABC's watching television! I learned science watching Voltron.
For all the little kiddies out there who were still in diapers when the US Gov't did the research, defined the protocols, and funded the construction that BUILT the original internet, here's a clue. The US magnanimously shared its incredible invention witht the rest of the world for the good of mankind. /etc/hosts files got too big to manage, the domain system was created. At that point, every country recognized by the UN was generously given a two-letter country code TLD. Some of those countries were too disorganized to manage their TLD, and allowed commercial companies to do it. Now the ICANN is givng those TLDs BACK to their RIGHTFULL OWNERS. Complaining about this is analagous to college students who have rented apartments in a house, now graduating and refusing to move out, claiming that they rightfully own the house where they were renting rooms. Quick, call the waaahhhmbulance! /etc/hosts file to resolve the IP address for j&rk0ff.k!dd!ep0rn.kz - no one can stop you.
When the internet grew, and the
If you don't like it, go back to using your
But, if I were you, I would save your silver bullets. I kinda suspect that you're gonna be really pissed when IPv6 comes along, and the DHS starts requiring you to register a permanent IP address with your name and SSN, and keeps track of all the sites you visit to see if you are a "terrorist".
"Sic Semper Path of Least Resistance"
It's not that I want the information for karma-whoring, I just want somebody to tell me how to think. (You know, 'cause thinking's hard.)
Language students: Don't try to learn English here. This ain't it.
And on the flipside of that, if you even think of ever criticizing capitalism (even when Enron is dancing around naked in front of you), well then; YOU'RE A SOCIALIST!
How trite, condescending, and intellectually dishonest. Do you have anymore useless mudslinging rhetoric to spew?
You're exactly what's wrong with the world. Dismissive, close minded, and all-to-willing to disparage anyone who criticizes your source of pride.
Really, I could be wrong. If so, enlighten me, please. That is, if you have anything intelligent to say.
When Internic was the monopoly over the registration of internet names, a group decided that they would want to set up their own Domain naming system. They urged people to change their computer's internet connection setting to use their nameservers. They also urged small ISP's to use their name service as well. Threats of people setting up their own domain naming systems is partly responsible for opening up domain registration to competition. May be this is what is needed again today. I also try to encourage people to experiment with off the shelf wireless equipment in order to create local networks such as FreeWans, Muninets, and so on. If the networks such as the Internet are to remain free, then we the people must take physical ownership of its infrastructure.
Freedom of speech is important. I'm from New Orleans and still live in Louisiana. That ICANN is handing portions of the Internet over to government censors bothers me, and I consider it a large problem. Is my perspective warped? No. Without free speech, everyday can be like Katrina because your government can do whatever it wants to you. Just ask people from the former Soviet states what government housing and shopping are like.
Other disturbing US trends include re-centralization of telco into less than friendly hands. The destruction of smaller ISP continues. Blatant anti-competitive behavior by the remainder is tollerated and even encouraged. 2005 was another bad year for the world of ends.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
I'm just curious as to the method that you've used to test Slashdotters for their IQ?
Observation: Agrees with me. Conclusion: IQ over 120.
Observation: Disagrees with me. Conclusion: IQ below 120.
"In the real world, real honest people don't have anything to hide" -- Anonymous Coward on Friday December 30, @10:00AM
Damned if you do, damned if you don't I guess.
.iq and several other domains from their owners and giving them to government organizations (which in both the Afghanistan and Iraq cases meant "the United States" as they were the acting government at the time) because the US government told them to (or in the Afghanistan case, forged a dead man's signature to make it look like a dead man told them to).
.kz, as long as it's not whoever the United States government told ICANN to run it.
So you can't figure it out, eh?
The europeans get all pissy because ICANN is the US government's lapdog and does whatever the the government tells them to do. The US government insists that it is in fact a freedom loving, property rights respecting government and would never order ICANN to do anything untoward.
Then ICANN proves it by stripping
And you just can't figure out why people are upset? Here's a hint: the only government involvement they're pissed about is the United States. They couldn't care less who runs
I've always found slashdot and anyone with an IQ over 120 to be usually liberal-leaning and usually left-wing.
This one of my all-time favorite lines. Do you do IQ tests to your friends? Or do you infer IQ on slashdot? What exactly is your need to justify your politics based on 'intelligence'? Does it make you feel better to think you are smarter then people you disagree with? Do you realize that no matter how much things work out, on average, there are right-wingers in this world smarter then you and all your friends....? From whose ass did you pull the 120 number? Did you know that probabilisitically speaking, there exists a person in this world whom is far right-wing and has a higher IQ then every single one of you and your friends? Do you realize the fallacy of attempting to prove a statement with anecdotes?
To me, one of the dumbest all time political rationales is, "I've found that smarter people lean to the left". I lean to the right, and I'd be happy to put my 3 college degrees, SAT, and IQ score up against any of the dimwits who consider that a reasonable line of logic.
TLDs are not property.
Show me on the doll where his noodly appendage touched you.
It's not that one organization is better or worse than the other, it is that the US administration appears to be manipulating a supposedly independent organization into a vehicle for US policy. This after using the "Internet must remain free from coercive governments" argument a few months ago to reassert it's own control of the DNS system.
n ing_documen.html
This whole story oozes UK politics. El Reg is a UK paper and the UK 'net is up in arms about one of their Sr. ministers claiming that they have no knowledge of use of torture/ use of torture testimony / extreme rendition / support of vile Uzbek regime and being subsequently proven wrong. The proof came through the UK's former Uzbekistan ambassador. He published memos (defying a publication ban) how they did know and did approve. Doing the ethical thing is taken much more seriously in the UK than the US. Uzbekistan is a dictatorial state that likes to boil people alive, imprison or kill political prisoners, and also an ally in the "War on Terra."
So that is the underlying story: The UK is experiencing Syriana-ish angst because it is sucked into doing loathsome things due to allies, agreements and policy.
Git your banned documents here!
http://www.craigmurray.co.uk/archives/2005/12/dam
-b
If the United States government had taken similar steps five years ago, it would likely have been perceived quite differently. Whatever your politics, you have to admit that the world's perception of the United States and it's government hasn't changed this drastically since World War II. Even our strongest allies no longer trust our good intentions.
How do you think World War II and the post-war period would have played out if Curtis LeMay and Douglas MacArthur had been in charge instead of FDR, Marshall and Eisenhower? Most historians agree that the Cuban Missile Crisis would have resulted in the Global Thermonuclear War if Kennedy has listened to LeMay and invaded Cuba. Damn Massachusetts liberals.
Of course, if Truman had listened to MacArthur during the Korean War, we wouldn't have made it to 1962.
I'm looking around, and I don't see a new FDR, JFK, or Eisenhower waiting in the wings. Or maybe they are there, and the polarization of American politics is silencing the moderate voices of reason.
We've now been fighting the War on Terrorism longer than we fought WWII, how do you think the results stack up? If George Bush had been president during the Cuban Missile Crisis, do you think he would have listened to LeMay and invaded Cuba?
I am likely confused, as the article is light on details, but as I see it this seems perfectly legitmate, as much as I might disagree...
.kz domain was set aside for a particular country, so It seems to me that they somewhat 'own' that, since it is labeled with their name. Hence, if that government decides that there is something utilizing their .kz domain which they do not approve of, then it seems reasonable that they would be able to remove it, right? Don't get me wrong, I completely disagree with it, but that is beside the point.
The
They aren't 'censoring' the site per-se, they are just saying they don't want it to use their name, the site can be posted under plenty of other domains, and is of course still accessible via it's IP address.
If I let someone use my domain for their site, and then they put up a webpage bashing me, I would likely remove the DNS entry, making their site inaccessible via my domain.... I think that would be reasonable on my part, given that my domain reflects directly on me.
I will be eager to hear feedback, I expect that perhaps the issue here is not the particular events that have occured, but rather the broad reaching effects that may infringe on other aspects of internet usage, so please do advise.
On a side note, does it not seem reasonable that if you want to put up a site that is somewhat 'extreme' or that you fear would be censored by various governments, that you try to keep it independent of any government control? Are there ways to do this? I can use different domains, or are all of these controlled by some government? Must I simply have my site accessible by IP address and without DNS to avoid outside control? Is there someway that someone could/would still shutdown access to my site even if I do not use DNS?
Big ones, small ones, some as big as yer 'ead!
Give 'em a twist, a flick o' the wrist...
On what information do you come to that conclusion? Surely the point of UN control is that it wouldn't hand over control of anything to any individual country/government. Isn't that the whole point?
I reserve the right to be wrong.
"I've said from the beginning that DNS is a government mechanism for censorship -- it was, it is and it will continue to be. The typical authoritarian response (from slashdotters no less) is that other countries can run their own DNS TLD's, but this will just lead to multiple censors, not real freedom."
There are probably a half a dozen ways in which DNS isn't anywhere near the weak point you suggest. For one thing, DNS only gives an authoritarian thug marginal censorship abilities beyond what you'd otherwise have. Either a site is hosted in an AT's jurisdiction or it's not. If it is, well, the AT can take it down by leaning on the ISP, DNS or no. If it's not... the AT *could* always exercise their authority to remove the DNS entry, but you know, that's only if the site in question happens to have a tld under the AT's authority. With dozens of others to choose from, it's really not a big issue. Now, a smart AT could force their ISPs to block specific IPs, but that's not really a problem with DNS, now, is it?
And to some extent, the search engines already have introduced a solution to DNS: search itself. You don't have to remember a URL, just a sequence of appropriate keywords. It doesn't work for every situation, but if you've got something important enough, having it up at http://66.35.250.150/ with a couple of people linking to you will make it accesible.
I suppose a really oppresive AT would probably do something like block whole TLDs, and cooperate with Google or Yahoo to filter out undesirables, and filter out blocks of IP addresses, but again, by this point, we're well beyond problems with DNS having much to do with the issue. IP addresses and willingness of private entities to collude with state entities (regulation statutes or not) are the bigger fish to fry.
"Regulation does not help the needy or the poor. It does not help those who can not do something for themselves. Regulation does not make a safer or better product, and it does not create a cheaper marketplace."
Why is it that market fundamentalists are so quick to see the (true) positive effects of profit incentives, and so impossibly blind to the negative effects? What exactly is going to increase, say, the makers of Vioxx, to be more forthcoming about information about their product if the FDA goes away?
If you really want liberty, you have power checking power. That *includes* checks on private power, as well as checks within a public system.
Tweet, tweet.
> Now we have an article thats mad at the US for giving up control of the internet to other nations?! WTF?
If Bill Clinton or John Kerry were President this would be hailed as a new age of International control of the Internet. This 'story' is just today's open thread for the daily Hate Bush rally. Once you realize that it all makes perfect sense.
Democrat delenda est
You seem to be painting this as if someone in the US was limiting internet access for Finland and they were somehow convinced by Linux to let Finland "join the club". I think it is more likely that changes in Finland's telecommunication regulations and deployment of ATM between Finnish Universities had more to do wtih it.
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
Let me see if I can get the play book right here. There are 4 things that seem to be at issue:
1. Ownership of general domain names (x.com, x.net, x.biz)
2. Ownership of country-specific domain names (x.eng, x.usa, x.fr, etc.)
3. The mapping of general domain names to to IP addressess
4. The mapping of country-specific domain names to IP addresses
3 and 4 are kind of related since they may conflict if not coordinated and thus perhaps should be considered as one. Or else we can add another one:
5. Assign suffixes and IP ranges to countries.
#2 obviously seems to best be left to specific countries. If the IP addresses are blocked off such that groups/ranges are assigned to countries, then #4 could be left to individual countries also. However, #1 and #3 and #5 seem to require a central or cordinated body to manage.
I believe the US wants to keep control over #1 and #3 and some of #5 because they don't trust a UN-like governing body, partly for allegedly being slow and wasteful.
If other countries don't like the US control over #1 and #3, then they can simply use or demand country-specific domains and IP's be used by their consituents, skipping domains such as x.com. Maybe groups of countries can be given "group" blocks, such as x.euro or x.asia or x.groupfoo or x.alqueda (just kidding) domains and related IP ranges.
Table-ized A.I.
The Internet still seems to be running, so I guess that shutting down the Internet didn't pan out for the EU.
Anyway, I understand that people want to take a whack at the US for their role in that debacle, but, would the UN have done differently? I don't know that they would have.
I don't necessarily think that the US should have done what they did, but bouncing out to say that somehow international control would have resulted in a different outcome seems a bit incorrect. Am I wrong?
Somebody around here has a perfect sig for this moment:
Four boxes to be used in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order.
(Incidentally, I understand why the administration was so adamant on the point of WMD's in Iraq - we friggin' delivered them ourselves, for use by the anti-soviet forces in Iraq. Now we're finding mass graves. Hmmm . . . I think we may be able to guess where all the WMD's went, eh?)
So, my question to you is "Who should control the country code top level domain for a country?"
Barring incompetent duty performance, the ccTLD manager who originally qualified for the delegation under Postel, IETF RFC 1591, and IANA PC-1.
In cases of incompetence, the redelegation should direct control to a stable, competent custodial entity, unladen by periodically shifting political agendas.
Since governments--local, regional & national--are highly likely to act in their self-interest with regard to politics and power, and since those interests often change drastically in time, they are--definitionally--very poor choices, IMHO.