Slashdot Mirror
United States Cedes Control of the Internet
greenechidna writes "The Register is reporting that the U.S. is relinquishing control of ICANN. The story states:
'In a meeting that will go down in internet history, the United States government last night conceded that it can no longer expect to maintain its position as the ultimate authority over the internet.
Having been the internet's instigator and, since 1998, its voluntary taskmaster, the US government finally agreed to transition its control over not-for-profit internet overseeing organization ICANN, making the organization a more international body.'"
Here's what the LA Times has to say, which is quite different from the "day in history of the Internet" crap:
U.S. Unlikely to Yield Web Oversight Yet
Federal officials seem inclined to extend a deadline for privatizing control of the Internet's address system.
By Jim Puzzanghera, Times Staff Writer
July 27, 2006
WASHINGTON -- The federal government appeared unlikely to relinquish oversight of the system for assigning and managing website domain names after a Commerce Department hearing Wednesday raised broad concerns about giving an obscure Marina del Rey nonprofit unsupervised control.
read the rest
"I'd rather be a lightning rod than a seismometer." -Ken Kesey
(Imagine it was France:)
There are shills on slashdot. Apparently, I'm one of them.
We actually did something in the spirit of cooperation with other countries.
I think my head is going to explode.
Slashdot needs a "-1, Wrong" moderation option.
The Urban Hippie
Legendary thread ahead.
What will this do to the net neutrality issue? Is it up to the UN now?
Where were you when the voynix came?
For years man has divided earth into political boundaries. Many of these boundaries have sub boundaries. And even more divisions among them and more beyond them and so forth based on belonging to a gregarious portion of the human race.
Disclaimer: I am an American. One thing I find myself asking not only myself but other Americans is what is their primary citizenship. What I mean by that term is which political boundary (if any) supercedes all?
Are you a citizen of the United States first? A citizen of Texas? A citizen of Chicago? A citizen of the Bronx? A citizen of North America? A citizen of yourself? At what point do you consider yourself a member of a community that will look out for other members?
Occasionally, we catch ourselves engaging in activities that would indicate we are world citizens first and citizens of the United States second. I know it's a tough concept to comprehend but we do send aid to foreign countries, we do attempt to help other countries no matter how much we fsck it up or act in our best interest. So there's some amount of talk about the United States actually being a part of the world. This act of ceding internet control to an international organization is a step in that direction.
Is it a good step or bad step remains to be seen and can be easily debated. One thing is clear, it sends a message to the rest of the world that the United States government is conscious of the rights of other governments. And this isn't a case of we need to help their economy because if it tanks, so will ours. On the surface this actually appears to be a gift of some little amount of power. This is not a historically common occurrence for a country such as the United States. Are we becoming more aware of the world political climate? I certainly hope so.
My work here is dung.
If you RTFA, it's not clear what actually changed ... and in the text, it says "However, assistant commerce secretary John Kneuer, the US official in charge of such matters, also made clear that the US was still determined to keep control of the net's root zone file - at least in the medium-term."
ICANN't believe the USA has done this!!!
Tried and tested method: First, remove teeth from animal. Second, set it free...
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
I've often said that the only way you can solve most of the issues revolving around the internet today is to make it a sovereign nation. That way one set of laws, one set of taxes, one set of decency can apply to all thus avoiding lawsuits in a million different countries due to your content.
Hopefully though, an international body can agree to some basic tenets so that we can establish so we can limit trivial laws and lawsuits due to localized laws.
This is my sig. There are many like it but this one is mine.
MINDQUAKE!!!
i fear that internet regulation will devolve into internet bureaucracy and politicization, a la the united nations. simply having a diverse or shared governing board does not ensure that the product will remain diverse or shared. the u.s. has a significant interest in maintaining the network and its development, and i think the continued managment by the u.s. would leave the internet in safe hands.
Why don't you read the other (only 9 so far) comments and see why yours was stupid and unnecessary.
How could a meeting of ICANN be anything but among a small percentage of people who use the internet? It's not like ICANN consists of millions, or that it'd be useful if it did. Being a committee, as I understand it, the larger it gets, the stupider it gets, and the harder it gets to do anything useful.
I'm just glad to see that the obvious is being recognized.
Being quick to take offense is not a virtue.
I suppose we will be at the mercy of the Film Actors Guild now.
-- Thou hast strayed far from the path of the Avatar.
Wake me when the backbone is no longer run through the NSA.
Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiari?
give a loud fuck off to Kieren McCarthy for this little tid bit of editorializing, "That the US government recognises it has to transition its role if it wants to keep the internet in one piece (and it then has to sell that decision to a mindlessly patriotic electorate)"
It (he/she?) knows very little about American culture and hasn't seen recent polls about the dissatisfaction of the electorate with the present administration.
If the US doesnt run the internet, the UN will.
Is there anyone, other than drolling idiotlogues, that thinks that this is a *good* idea?
So does this mean we'll see a transition from .com to .co.us for US hosted domains?
In response to the old joke, "ICANN, and you can't"...
ICANN, and now you can too!
If you control your own countries network esp the edge. so that you still control the DNS.
“It's like letting the terrorists win!”
Join Tor today!
Is this 8th grade Sociology class?
Oh thank goodness, now more sensible countries like China and India will have a say about internet policies.
...to control this mess!
So what does that mean now?
It means two things, piggy:
first it means that the US government can now hold someone( ICANN in this case) responsible for what happens in the internet
and second the government can now concentrate their efforts on how to tax it!
Bombs away!!! ICANN you're next!
What is best in life? To crush your enemies, to see them driven before you and to hear the lamentations of their women.
Soon the Internet can be run with the same efficiency and integrity as the United Nations!
Syncerus
"Man is nothing without the works of man" -- Helvetius
The US doesn't have "control of the internet", so it cannot be relinquishing what it doesn't have. The ICANN being US-based doesn't give much real control over IP packets travelling on some fiber halfway around the world from DC. Even if ICANN was a government agency it wouldn't. It just allows to vaguely arbitrate over domain names and IP number disputes that have relatively faint commercial implications. And even then the US feds would have to use indirect influence on ICANN.
The names change, the story remains the same.
File your story under "fiction" because both analogies you gave are inaccurate. In fact, they're so contrived that it makes it obvious that any attempt to dissuade you from your partisan viewpoint will be futile.
Therefore, I won't try.
I'm a big tall mofo.
How would this affect the tiered internet propositions from the leading telecom companies? Yes, I am asking a serious question that I would like an answer to please.
Click Click Bloody Click PANCAKES!
I think China and Saudi Arabia will do a fine job of keeping the Internet free, and Nigeria can be counted on to keep it free from spam and fraud.
Surely you must agree with that, don't you?
So when do we get the press release from Microsoft saying there goes the "Network Neighborhood"?
RE: the gov't being the taskmaster, I sure have never really heard much from them that would cause me to say "Yes Master!", but honestly, the internet does not need the UN, or any international body in control, infact it needs nobody in control, it has been operated just fine for years with very little control, except that over addressing so we can all get along and talk to each other.
As in spine. I understand our "do it our way or die" mentality isn't very popular overseas right now but, no matter what anyone says to the contrary, this cannot be a good thing. We invented it, we've run it just fine so far,. Was it hurting anyone maintaining control of something as democratic as the internet by a the most staunchly democratic and freedom loving country in the world? We should just leave well enough alone.
Terrible karma and aiming lower, which in this environment of one-sided reason, is higher.
Or maybe it will leave it in the hands of the next stupid slobbering village idiot which the americans chose to elect as their leader. And maybe then, he won't just kill a certain TLD because he doesn't happen to like nekkid women. Maybe then he'll cut a country or two off the Internets because they're "evil".
I don't trust the ICANN, but frankly, I trust the US government even less.
...because the "international community" has such a stellar track record for taking on difficult tasks and running them effectively and fairly without corruption. Snort.
"I have never won a debate with an ignorant person." -Ali ibn Abi Talib
IMHO, all the internet gouvernance should go to a UN instance (something like "unesco" but dedicate to "internet long term handling").
.... say UN ;-)
... in the meanwhile, Lebanon and Israel citizens are dying because of stupidity of both camps stupidity (and massibe US support to Israel lebanon invasion).... Welcome in W.Bush "safe-o-world" !
Obviously having UN do the overall governance does not mean each countries (inc. USA) will be prohibited to push any laws to put stricter regulartion on the internet liberties.
But anyway, that is the choice of each country's citizens !
Be sure that if US do not release the full control they have on the internet, we (europe) are going to build our own sperate gouvernance (obviously incompatuble with US ones) and push this to an international body
Let's see how is US able to handle multilateralism
I love the idea of the Internet as Sovereign. However, I don't think it would be accepted by countries whose governments are highly dependent on limiting their citizens access to information and free expression. What would happen to the great firewall of China in this scenario? Could the average citizen in Iran download western tv shows without fear of the morals police?
If the U.S. were to cede control of ICANN, would this in any way affect any of the net-neutrality hullabaloo going on in the U.S., or would these be entirely unrelated?
Still a step up from being run with the efficiency and integrity of the US government.
To be fair it was the US that developed the Internet all those years ago so I can see why they would want to keep control of it - however so many people from so many countries have added to it in so many ways (eg Tim Berners-Lee = WWW) I think it's only fair for it to be under International control now.
Art Makers Just an excuse to show photos of naked women !!
Does that mean .XXX will be making a come back? Maybe even .p0rn?
"The terror I feel when I think about the rest of the world blinds me to the exact same flaws existing in my own country"
I already addressed this. See the Michael Moore example.
Where were you when the voynix came?
to still know how to control it via impractical and unenforeable laws...you know its a series of tubes....
President Bush will issue a signing statement and it will "okay" for the US to make unilateral and unannounced changes at will.
</joke>
Someday we'll all look back on this and plow into a parked car.
We can't have the US giving up control of the internet, because then the terrorists will get us!
Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will never want for work. - Unknown
...as the biggest mistake the US has made since not nuking Iraq back into the stone age, twice.
I swear, every day, we're a little bit closer to the future depicted in Atlas Shrugged, if we're not living it already.
Ed R.Zahurak
You know, oblivion keeps looking better every day.
"The UN is so corrupt, incompetent, and inept that it make the U. S. Govt look brilliant!"
;-)
Maybe that was the plan of the USA all along?
Seriously though, many problems of the UN stem from problems its members make (e.g. sovereign nations). It's only as strong (or inept) as those countries that make up the UN and have to decide when to act and when not. Some countries actively undermine the UN, and thus, obviously, this has its repercusions on the UN as a whole.
The USA shouldn't shout to loud in this regard, since it's often *they* that contribute in a major way to make the UN inept and incompetent, using its veto arbitrarily and destroying a united policy.
--- "To pee or not to pee, that is the question." ---
I think sometimes, we get too caught up in treating the "Internet" as a single entity filled with information and shared by the whole world. In reality, it's just a "grid" that allows everyone's computer equipment to interconnect (or not, as they so desire).
So true. Meatspace is still important, no matter how intoxicating the virtual world has become. No physical cable, routers, servers, big buildings full of equipment = no Internet. The Internet does not exist on its own - it is wholly dependent on the physical world, where political boundaries still prevail.
Imagine policing the Net for infractions of the Laws of Cyberspace. Nations have already proven that they will go to extraordinary lengths to enforce their own laws in cyberspace. If anything, the trend is moving in the direction of a filtered Internet.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
Has anyone thought of turning the internet into something similar to an Open Source project? The Open Source communitiy is amazing and has resulted in the best software out there. What if the internet was maintained using a similar structure? That way the internet community would become just that: a community, rather than a resource that is controlled by people in suits.
So basically, the two events have very little influence over each other. The worse ICANN can do is ban names ending in
On the other hand the telco's intend to throtle the Internet trafic of their competitors and charge a premium for VOIP, video and other services. This would mainly suck for people inside the US and people communicating with the US. while companies such as google could setup more of thier servers outside of the US to better service other countries unaffected. In my country (France), Internet access is already so fast and partialy free from the (France Telecom) monopoly by law, so I think they would have a difficult time pushing "tiered service" here unlike other laws that cross the ocean (DMCA like laws etc.).
It posts all sorts of vague and misleading titles of stories. Try reading the articles and you'll see what I mean.
/. anyway.
Oh, yeah, if you actually read the articles, then you find out what the story is actually about! Craziness. I'm used to just reading the headlines and then convincing myself I fully understand the situation and pontificating about it and why the author of the story I didn't read is wrong! That's what I learned here on
Seriously, this is called "style" and the Register has one where they make the title sensational, humorous, or both, under the apparently unreasonable assumption that you'd actually bother to read the article within if you wanted to know what the story was. If you really want to be able to just scan the front page of their website and feel like you've gotten a good summary of the day's IT news, then you are at the wrong website.
As far as the content of their stories, these vary quite a bit in quality, but when they're on, they're on. One of the other things that bothers a lot of Register and Inquirer detractors is that they publish rumors based on non-official non-PR-Newswire conversations they have with industry contacts. They do a good job of explaining where they got their information and how realible it may be, but again this requires reading the article. Also this means they can be wrong, but when they're right they get information out that doesn't show up on other sites that only consume official corporate press releases for months.
If these things bother you, then these are probably not the IT news sources for you. That's fine if you don't like them, but don't go around calling them the IT equivalent of the Enquirer. As news organizations that actually attempt to investigate things that you can't learn just by reading press releases, they're a step above most other IT rags, which I guess makes all of them the Weekly World News.
The enemies of Democracy are
And of course, the US government would never censor anything, and would not let personal values influence decisions concerned with the Internet.
I can see how Iranian control can be considered worse than US control. Indian? Not so much.
You know who wrote that? Vint Cerf and Robert Kahn. If anybody's qualified to talk about Gore's contribution to the early days of the 'Net, it's those two.
Original Document
Look, in the early '90s, 6 years before Slashdot, when there were less than a 1/4 million hosts on the 'Net, Gore introduced the Act that would ultimately fund the development of Mosaic. In the '70s, Gore was pushing support for networks, when nobody was talking network. Through the '80s, he pushed for consolidation of disparate government networks.
In the '90s, he drove the Clinton administration's focus on the 'Net. Was that administration perfect on technical issues? Far from it. But Gore was generally a positive force. He pushed against the CDA (which was getting rammed down the admin's throat riding on the Telecommunications Act). He was wrong on key escrow, but he pushed back on Clipper.
The Internet was not built exclusively on protocols and software. It required funding and political support. Gore has been a net positive force for us. Nobody is going to take us seriously and stand up for the issues that are important to us if we eventually go after everybody who does just that.
I've often said that the only way you can solve most of the issues revolving around the internet today is to make it a sovereign nation. That way one set of laws, one set of taxes, one set of decency can apply to all thus avoiding lawsuits in a million different countries due to your content.
;-)
:-)
Hopefully though, an international body can agree to some basic tenets so that we can establish so we can limit trivial laws and lawsuits due to localized laws.
Yeah, well, I've often said that the only way you can solve most of the issues revolving around the Post Office today is to make it a sovereign nation. That way one set of laws, one set of taxes, one set of decency can apply to all thus avoiding lawsuits in a million different countries due to your content.
Seriously, the "Internet" is nothing like a nation; it's just a communications network, like the telephone network, or the Post Office, or the TV networks, or the radio networks. It just operates faster and/or has different content regulations than the other communications networks. Don't buy into the hype about "cyberspace"; at least, not unless you believe in "postalmailspace", or "carrierpigeonspace", or "sneakernnetspace".
, inter-arab quarrels, radicals self-righteous semi-gay, imposing bureucrats.
Goodbye internet.
Read radical news here
For all intents and purposes, a republic and a democracy are the same thing.
Wikipedia says: In a broad definition, a republic is a state or country that is led by people who do not base their political power on any principle beyond the control by the people of that state or country.
That's pretty much a democracy without direct influence by the people. Some US states do, however, have direct influence by citiciens, while most states which call themselves democracies don't.
It's possible that I'm missing something. What exactly is the difference?
Well, then you should explain what exactly it is that makes India worse than the US.
Yeah, that's interesting, isn't it? I was about to remove that part but somehow had already clicked on "Submit" when I decided to remove it. Subsequently, I actually did expect to get modded as Flamebait, even though my remark is not factually wrong.
Considering that the vast majority of visitors on /. are US americans, I find the fact that I got modded up (at least until now) heartening. Americans have often been incapable of criticising themselves, labelling people with dissenting opinions as traitors. I'm glad this is changing.
The United Kingdom has been doing an overall good job of running things in Hong Kong. I do not mind the UK being in control and I do not see major advantages to handing over control to China. I also disagree with some of the things that the British Governor has proposed in the past.
Just sayin'
just a correction, the internet wasn't invented in the US. it was developed by Tim Berners-Lee
You're confusing the internet with the (world-wide) web. The internet grew out of Arpanet, which was funded by the US, in (IIRC) about 1970. It quickly grew beyond the borders of the US, and people from several countries contributed to its development, but in the early days, most contributors were American.
The Web is what Berners-Lee developed at CERN, much later. It's just one application of the internet, others being ftp, telnet, and email.
I for one welcome our new ICANN overlords with their self-sufficient can-do attitude.
What part of "...I took the initiative in creating the Internet" can't you parse?
Whether Gore was intentionally claiming a historic role in the "invention" of the net, or just mispoke while trying to cement his "legacy"--the sentence still reads as something said by a politician puffed up with his own importance giving himself sole credit for something he participated in.
The implied message is "I personally took the initiative, all by myself, to create the Internet.
Gore was and is a goof. He may have been right on some issues, but like any politician his main goal was getting re-elected and playing to the folks back home.
In my opinion, this claim of the historic importance of Albert Gore III in the creation of the WWW is fair game and deserves regular mocking.
Interested in a Flash-based MAME front end? Visit mame.danzbb.com
Do you not think it's a little silly to declare you allegance to a collection of inert minerals? The Earth cares not at all for what we do, it will keep orbiting regardless.
Or perhaps you are for the "People of Earth". How touching! Except how can you declare an allegance with every single person on earth, some of which may not want you to exist.
Perhaps you are just for "Life on Earth". If so, would not your best chance to help out all life include dedicating yourself to the role of fertilizer? Otherwise, even if you are a vegetarian, you life on the death of many other organisms.
Such global statements of purpose simply seem to indicate you have put no real thought into what you mean to accoplish by your declaration.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
There's a difference between a headline saying something like, for example, "So And So Under Attack!" when could mean so and so is under media attack or was the victim of an attempted assination, but if you make the title "So And So Completely Not Shot!" when the article says he was is sort of different.
ADVENTURERS! - ANTIHERO FOR HIRE - CARDMASTER CONFLICT
Such as .grd (Grinding wheel suppliers) .fff (Foo Fighters Fans) .lut (Lute makers) .cwb (Cowboy Neal Impersonaters)
If you post it, they will read.
Wake up and check this out...
when somenoe on slashdot doesn't know the difference between the internet, and WWW.
The internet was created in the US, once called ARPANET.
When a government committee, headed by Al Gore, decided to let the public access ARPANET they renamed it 'Internet'.
Hence the reference to the often misquoted Al Gore quote.
Tim berners-Lee created the WWW.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
While I'm hardly a fan of the UN (outside of WHO, who are tremendous), let's not start blaming everyone for the sins of a few. It might not work out well for your arguments in the long run.
(And before the arguments over "librahal traitor" start, I'm ex-military.)
"Seven Deadly Sins? I thought it was a to-do list!"
The Inquirer: A news site started by a group of people who left the Register several years ago including the founder. They are sometimes wrong but not by much e.g. last friday they had news from a reliable source on the AMD - ATI story and that the official annoucement would be on monday. They did however get some of the financials wrong.
The Enquirer: The best way to keep track of Elvis's current location.
Fsck ICANN!
Join the NON!
http://nonnic.org/
Excellent points.
But just the tip of the iceberg. Much of political thought and ideologies depends on the exact relationship between the individuals (or groups) and the various groups that the individual is a part of, and the obligations and responsibilities owed (Another factor, of course, is who gets to make the claim that "individual x" is a part of "group x"). Most countries claim that the bond between the individual and the country is the most important linkage - but few countries seem to agree on just what kinds of rights and responsibilities the individual owes to the country and what the country owes to the individual. City (and region/state) loyalties are far less strong. What about global responsibilities? Currently individuals can choose to adopt a kind of global outlook in their decisions and some of their actions, but there is no real "global community" on the other side and hence no responsibilities flowing in the other direction.
For example, libertarianism in its purest form seems to claim that the individual and the country/state/city owe little responsibility for each other, and further that individuals have few required responsibilities to other individuals. Communism (as implemented, less in theory) has very strong bonds in both directions. In theory (less in practice) the US seems to require few bonds between individuals and any kind of state religion (in practice, as the recent Washington State decision on Gay Marriage shows, these bonds, however unofficial are very strong). The kind of Islamic government that some radicals are pushing for conflates religion and the government and thereby enforces another specific bond between the individual and both church and state. The individual has no choice in this and therefore both religion and government are given very strong powers.
Republicans currently seem to be very much on the side of high government control of citizens (wiretaps, air travel restrictions, prayer in school) and thus in favor of reducing individuals personal liberty in favor of government control - and this without the individual being allowed to grant consent. Similarly the relationships between an individual and an employer are frequently contstrained in favor of the employer. That corporations are seen legally as "persons", has been used to create an odd kind of discrimination in which "some persons are more equal than others" based primarily on their economic power.
Democrats often follow a more "Liberal" philosophy. In this, the government has many more responsibilities toward the individual and the philosophical intent is to empower individuals. However this liberalism is often counteracted by a perceived need for the government to intervene in other areas. Laws such as "Hate Crimes" while intended to empower those on the receiving end of the hate, often overly constrain all.
I am sometimes convinced that if we could arrive at a decent philosophy of obligations/responsibilities and implement it with reasonable guidelines, that many of the legal nonsenses that plague us all. At other times I'm convinced that I am over-thinking it and arrive only at nonsensical conclusions.
True. You can't get a decent cup of coffee on the east coast.
Jokes aside, the problem is with enforcing your own views on others. Laws should reflect the need of the people, not the will of the people. If American voters decide that they dislike references to non-wasp or non-capitalist values, they should not be at liberty to enforce those values on anyone but themselves.
And privatisation? It's not as rosy red as you might think. Privatisation and consumerism where there's no competition invariably causes a drift towards mediocrity, where "good enough most of the time" is what's most profitable. That's why we have cascading power outages, a public transportation system that is an international joke, and internet connections that cost several times as much for a fraction of the speed of what regulated countries have. Privatisation only works when there's laws and physical circumstances preventing monopolies and oligopolies from forming, and even then, quality tends to go down and safeguards tend to be omitted, as they're not profitable, while price increases until it's reached the sustainable pain threshold. Only shareholders can possibly see this as a good thing.
Regards,
--
*Art
You obviously don't have a MySpace account...
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
The fact the "international community" wants control or the net reminds me of a person who comes to crash in your apt becasue he doesnt have a place and then decides he wants to stay and not only that, wants say in how things are run in your place.
To the "international community" go start your own network, leave ours alone.
The war with islam is a war on the beast
The war on terror is a war for peace
Ars Technica put an article out circa 17:11 GMT today claiming that The Register is misleading. http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060727-7366 .html
What country are you from anyways? Obviously you're not English.
To expand on the above a bit, the point is that the Reg has little ability or interest in the area of gathering news. It makes up for this by publishing vague rumors and sticking arresting headlines on what turn out to be bland articles. This is why NOBODY IN THEIR RIGHT MIND READS IT -- except people who like reading generic bland studenty stuff while idly waiting for their beans on toast to cool, which is quite a large demographic.
The perceived cultural insensitivity of Americans is not a factor
Whence? Hence. Whither? Thither.
There are people who still defend the the invasion of Iraq from the position that Iraq was involved in the attacks on NY and DC, had WMD's and was an immiediat threat to world peace. So it is very importaint to disband those false lines of reasoning, force people to re-examine their ability to think criticaly and basically expose the lies so that people can not use them as a basis for decision making at some point in the future.
Simply saying that world sprang out of the eather yesterday and we can only focus on today is not helpful. We need to examine and come to terms with the decisions that led us to where we are. As there is a vocal group of liers in the USA who insist on fabricating the past, we must keep the debate alive until the record contains only the facts.
Kind Regards
"A few great minds are enough to endow humanity with monstrous power, but a few great hearts are not enough to make us w
Nothing like old-fashioned trolling, eh big man? Might as well tell the kids to "git off mah lawn!" and spray 'em with a hose.
Just in case a non-American reads the parent, remember that most of us aren't like that. The ones that are just like to shout everyone else down before heading home to fornicate with their daughters while watching Fox News.
If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
Look at what the international community did to the UN. I really don't want the internet in the hands of those morons.
Oh, goody, lots of internets! Can someone send me one? I already have my own tube.
What was once true, is no longer so
I know people who had relatives in Srebrenica, and I also know at least one person who was helping the Serbs rape/kill there. Wanna tell them again who's the idiot?
All that need happen is the U.S. to generate some excuse to clamp down with martial law and have all those executive orders passed into law by a compliant congress, the U.S. corporations become arms of the U.S. government and all the ambassadors and foreign representatives will cower in their hotel rooms.
This move to give power to the ICANN is nothing but superficial public perception sculpting.
-FL
Seriously, this is called "style" and the Register has one where they make the title sensational, humorous, or both, under the apparently unreasonable assumption that you'd actually bother to read the article within if you wanted to know what the story was.
This used to be true, but not any more.
About a year ago, they published an increasingly schizophrenic series of articles attacking some dot-com CEO type of guy. They made truly bizarre, nasty claims about him that were completely fabricated.
Ever since then, I haven't bothered reading anything they publish.
"...always new atoms but always doing the same dance, remembering what the dance was yesterday." -Richard Feynman
I think it would be much better if ICANN was run by plumbers, they can handle all the tubes much better.
That there be some mighty clear thinkin', I sez.
Heh, no. That was just my sad attempt to mimic a Reg headline. I'm just an American who finds their style refreshing rather than off-puting. Of course I was a little thrown off at first, being used to the style of journalism that assumes that most likely you'll read nothing but the headline, and at most the first paragraph.
The enemies of Democracy are
which country will they bomb ??
I mostly read the Inquirer these days, since Mike Magee was one of my favorite authors in the Register. Now they have the same style, but different problems, mostly I think suffering from a few bad authors and also being a bit too high on their success at being the corporate leak venue of choice.
The enemies of Democracy are
That should be the motto of all patriotic people. So simply stated yet so true. I have yet to read a convincing account of what problems exist solely because of US control over some aspects of the Internet.
What's wrong with it is that a bunch of different nations want to censor the internet but the US won't.
FalocnShould there be a Law?
...a medium to spread porn, spam, and worms.
I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
Censorship is a big reason I'm concerned about who governs the internet. If it is governed internationally then many countries will do as much as they can to censor the net. Do you think the Great Firewall of China is a problem? Wait until Castro, Mugabe, and others can decide what gets censored. Look what's been happening in India lately, the government mandated isps block some blogs. At least if ICANN remains in US control the whole internet won't be censored. Even the French got into it, several years ago France forced Yahoo! Auctions to censor NAZI paraphernalia from auctions in France. And cases IN the UK have come up too, British sites have been forced to remove pages or move them to hosts outside of the UK be because they said something about someone with some power, unlike in the US where a person has to prove someone intentionally issued staements that were false to be guilty of liable if someone's reputation in the UK is damaged they can force even true statements removed or changed. A few years ago there was such a case in the news, some politican didn't like what a webpage said so it was moved to a server in Canada then he tried to have it removed from that host as well. Darn, I wish I recalled more details like the names of the people involved.
FalconShould there be a Law?
Some things are matters of principle. Because the Internet is a major international information conduit, its neutrality and transparency need to be preserved at all costs. I am spooked just by the very demand of the US to maintain the upper hand "just in case"... what if someone pisses off the yanks in the future, and they choose to cause trouble? It's the same as in their military doctrine: we insist we have the right and means to kill you if we please, and you have no right for a deterrent.
A credible scenario might be, for example, the US hurting Latin America's Internet access until they elect right-wing governments. The rest of the world would be pretty powerless as they would fear reprisals from the US if they tried to interfere in any way with "America's Internet". At least if the net was governed by an international body, it would be more difficult to outright bully...
You're right it is a matter of principle, even though the Bush admin doesn't like some of those in power in Latin America, or Cuba and Iran for that matter, they aren't doing anything to block their websites or access. China certainly is censoring the internet in China though, as is India, and some want even more censorship like Castro. If all these countries can say what's censored then the internet will become a wasteland.
FalconShould there be a Law?
January 2006 charges
URL fee: $ 8.95
UN world tax (US): $52.95
Total: $61.90
*Note: world tax varies from country to country
we absolutely do NOT want leaders deciding if to cut off their populations from worldwide communications. hear of china? you have your head so far up your ass it seems like you are a sock puppet. and no countries will not eventually come around, the reson they would make the decision to cut of their population is self serving, and why would that change? if people dont want to see it, dont log on to the site, others might, and those that do not have no business telling them they cant, regardless of majority.
let the leaders decide whether i can communicate indeed. thats got to be the dumbest idea i have seen this year. political leaders are there to clean up the country, make sure trains run on time, create police, take away my garbage, etc. they are never to decide how i think, or what i can see. you missed the best thing about the 'net. it is a tool that allows anyone in the world to communicate with anyone else. this will do more to create dailogue and ease tensions around the world, than any tool we have seen so far. but some of your "leaders" dont always want tensions eased.
Oh, that's the Hyperbole Police coming to take you away, and lock you up in Exaggeration-traz.
I think I made my point.
Eloquent.
First of all, wow, what the hell is wrong with you? What did I do to make you insult me like that?
Second, you're wrong. Does that mean that your insults actually apply to you now?
"did it just get cold in here?"
Not many countries have the United States' commitment to freedom of speech. Most other countries would have censored the internet to some extent.
Why does it occur to me that spy agencies such as the NSA/FBI/CIA are happy about this because they can claim that the Internet is the network of a foreign body and so are not bound by wiretapping laws?
I am assuming you know this, but in case you don't, I'll point it out. The US is simply a group of independent sovereign states. In other words, you are first and foremost a citizen of the state of Texas, or Indiana, or Calif etc... Secondly, you are a citizen of the US because all 50 states have decided to become a member-state of the Union and allow the Constitution to become the supreme law of its land. Contrary to what was the result of the 'War of Northern Aggression', state involvement IS voluntary as states themselves are sovereign (ie they have their own Constitutions).
This is of course the legal perspective.
Libertas in infinitum
Read this if you haven't already:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State
Libertas in infinitum
I would think a good analogy would be something like comparing the Net to a postal service? Most nations have them in one form or another.
Libertas in infinitum
Maybe this de-americanization will make the internet 'tubes' less fat. Curse the agonizingly slow torrent downloads, my b/w sucks now.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
"Granted, there are areas that have horrible unemployment and very little economic opportunity"
The highest unemployment rate in the US is in the state of Mississippi, with 7.1 percent. This compares to an unemployment rate in actual third-world countries that ranges from 40 to 70 percent, or even higher. Describing the US situation as "Better than third world" sounds like an accurate summary.
In comparison, we can look at other first-world countries. France has a rate of 9 percent unemployment: worse than the worst US state.
Where were you when the voynix came?
The instant the U.S. Government "blessed" the private sector with HTTP, the internet became a foreign body. A foreign body relative to the U.S. Government is any body besides itself. So, stop trying to make the U.S. Government responsible for all the email scams, spams and bad-will in the whole wide world and that will make a spy agency such as NSA/FBI/CIA very happy.
I went back and looked at his message. I really could not tell what he was trying to say. Do you have anything as large as a clue grapefruit to toss?
Where were you when the voynix came?
Yes, the UN was involved there. UN troops presided over the famous massacre at Srbenica. Also, UN troops funneled their UN wages into the coffers of Serbs who ran some of the rape camps as brothels to service these troops.
Where were you when the voynix came?