Slashdot Mirror
UN Takeover of Internet Must Be Stopped, US Warns
benfrog writes "In a rare show of bipartisan agreement, lawmakers from both sides of the aisle warned this morning that a United Nations summit in December will lead to a virtual takeover of the Internet if proposals from China, Russia, Iran, and Saudi Arabia are adopted. Called the World Conference on International Telecommunications, the summit would consider proposals including '[using] international mandates to charge certain Web destinations on a "per-click" basis to fund the build-out of broadband infrastructure across the globe' and allowing 'governments to monitor and restrict content or impose economic costs upon international data flows.' Concerns regarding the possible proposals were both aired at a congressional hearing this morning and drafted in a congressional resolution (PDF)."
The only thing they are worried about is that the US would not control it.
I am not a robot. I am a unicorn.
They're proposing a Google tax?
If America cannot own the Internet NOBODY CAN. The UN Summit is most likely to stop the fractioning of the Internet and provide stability and equal sharing. Sorry America- you had your chance to be "for the people... [of the world]" You can complain all you want about "takeovers must be stopped" but when you try it its ok because you are America.
You all kept saying that nobody could mishandle the Internet worse than the US, and the UN took it as a challenge!
What a bunch of bullshit. This is a virtual false-flag, and will give a pretext to kill the Internet the way the Patriot Act, etc... killed the soul of the USA.
The US is not great. The US does things like seizing domain names based on minimal cause and then spending years before they give them back. A lot of those seized have been over copyright issues and in some cases they haven't even been clearly infringing. This is similar to how many states in the US have assert forfeiture laws which allow police to confiscate large sums of money or cars under minimal suspicion of involvement with illegal drug dealing, and getting them back is difficult.
But the UN would be worse. The UN contains many countries with little conception of free speech. Even allies of the US like Canada and Britain have substantially less free speech than the US does. In the case of Britain libel although being reformed is still very much a danger. In Canada, speech which specifically targets minorities or criticizes religions can be labeled as hate speech with fines given. And most of the world, is much much worse. Consistently a large fraction of the Islamic countries have tried to push through anti-blasphemy regulations in the UN. So far they've failed. But it is easy to imagine what would happen if they could actually block pictures of Muhammad. Similarly. China would slaver at the thought of not having to do its own censorship but simply have no websites discussing Tiananmen Square at all. Letting even weak internet control get in the hands of the UN is a recipe for disaster. Maybe in 20 or 30 years when the free speech situation has improved. But not right now.
In a rare show of bipartisan agreement, countries not named United States of America warned this morning that a United States pizza binge summit in December will lead to continued U.S. virtual dominance of the Internet.
UN retaliates by saying the same of the US.
Sigger than your average
I think the question lies in what you consider worse. Do you fear unlimited, unaccountable, and unbridled surveillance, like the kind that's being proposed in the US, that effectively covers the entire world... or are you more worried about censorship, virtual toll roads that make the doing business more expensive, and totally unrepresented taxation? Not to mention regional fragmentation, which you'll see in some of the proposals. Neither agenda is good, but which is worse? Personally, I don't think either side of this debate understands the internet at all. If the internet is going to be controlled by anyone, it should be the people who work and live in it. It's mine, damn it.
This signature intentionally left blank.
Turns out the black helicopters are actually black wireless routers.
The US did not make the Internet. Quoting from this history, "The earliest pioneers included a Frenchman, Louis Pouzin, who introduced the idea of data grams and an Englishman, Donald W. Davies, who was one of the inventors of packet-switching. Another of the great pioneers in Britain was Peter T. Kirstein, who went to America at the beginning of the Arpanet in 1969 when it was decided that Davies could not go for reasons of national security." And of course as we all know Tim Berners-Lee, another Englishman, invented the web.
lol butthurt
Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
The internet was designed to be open and free. Leave it be.
The internet was designed to be unregulated. Leave it be.
The internet was designed with open access for everyone in mind. Leave it be.
The internet was designed to be unhindered, unfettered, unfiltered, uncapped. Leave it be.
For those bastards who think they have the right and the need to control it, regulate it, tax it, reroute it, filter it, cap it, limit it, contain it - leave it be.
Information wants to be free, it will find a way. The internet, like nature will evolve until it does so.
Is a bitch
It's pretty common to believe that no central source can control the internet - and it's true for the most part - with one major exception: IANA ultimately answers to the US Department of Commerce.
In order for the internet to function, there has to be a central authority who determines who gets what IP addresses and domain names. That authority is under the control of the US. Sure you could create your own internets (yes, plural) with your own name and number rules, however if you can't all agree upon who gets what IP address blocks and domain names, you aren't going to have a very cohesive and universal network like the one we have today.
Honestly, I am perfectly fine with the US having control over that, and in fact would much rather they hold the keys rather than the UN. If the UN had their way, that would mean countries who have heavy influence of the UN (e.g. China) would have their way.
So far, the US has done a great job. Sure, we've had talks about filtering the internet (e.g. SOPA) many times, but unlike 90% of the other countries out there (Australia, UK, Germany, China, Iran, just to name a few,) we haven't acted upon any of them. Granted, we have taken extraordinary and unnecessary if not unethical measures, such as taking down megaupload, we didn't do so by ordering IANA to break the infrastructure.
The best thing about the US having control, is that we've never done anything to dismantle the infrastructure in the name of politics. The UN wants control because they plan on doing exactly that.
Careful with names containing L slashdot.org/~AiphaWolf_HK slashdot.org/~AlphaWoif_HK slashdot.org/~AiphaWoif_HK
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_protocol_suite
The Internet protocol suite resulted from research and development conducted by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) in the early 1970s. After initiating the pioneering ARPANET in 1969, DARPA started work on a number of other data transmission technologies. In 1972, Robert E. Kahn joined the DARPA Information Processing Technology Office, where he worked on both satellite packet networks and ground-based radio packet networks, and recognized the value of being able to communicate across both. In the spring of 1973, Vinton Cerf, the developer of the existing ARPANET Network Control Program (NCP) protocol, joined Kahn to work on open-architecture interconnection models with the goal of designing the next protocol generation for the ARPANET.
By the summer of 1973, Kahn and Cerf had worked out a fundamental reformulation, where the differences between network protocols were hidden by using a common internetwork protocol, and, instead of the network being responsible for reliability, as in the ARPANET, the hosts became responsible. Cerf credits Hubert Zimmerman and Louis Pouzin, designer of the CYCLADES network, with important influences on this design.
The network's design included the recognition it should provide only the functions of efficiently transmitting and routing traffic between end nodes and that all other intelligence should be located at the edge of the network, in the end nodes. Using a simple design, it became possible to connect almost any network to the ARPANET, irrespective of their local characteristics, thereby solving Kahn's initial problem. One popular expression is that TCP/IP, the eventual product of Cerf and Kahn's work, will run over "two tin cans and a string."
A computer, called a router, is provided with an interface to each network. It forwards packets back and forth between them.[3] Originally a router was called gateway, but the term was changed to avoid confusion with other types of gateways.
Yes the United States did make the internet. You're welcome.
This is all a bit rich, reading the resolution, considering that is is coming from the country which unilaterally seizes domains at will.
Don't forget as well that this is coming from the same government that proposed a kill switch for the Internet. Sounds more like "nobody should control the Internet, unless it is us" (well, this arguably applies to the US part of the Internet).
The resolution also says: "Whereas the world deserves the access to knowledge, ... and the informed discussion that is the bedrock of democratic self-government that the Internet provides;"
I thought that WikiLeaks and cablegate were exactly the kind of things which promote a healthy discussion in a democracy, but I doubt that that's what they had in mind when they drafted this resolution, free access to knowledge and all.
This all seems more like a bit of patriotic posturing. Blah blah land of the free blah blah cannot trust anybody else to be as free as we are blah blah. Seriously, it does not matter one bit what will be proposed at this conference; how exactly are you going to *force* the US to relinquish control? Not going to happen.
As any expert will tell you, none of these pie-in-the-sky proposals about the ITU taxing the Internet or the like have any chance of being pushed through. Even the US government itself doesn't take the risk seriously, except for political purposes like this. This is all just the latest step in a huge beat-up about something that could never happen. The motivation is just to distract from the real Internet governance changes that do need to happen, and that are being discussed much more sensibly in other fora (such as at the WSIS Forum last month in Geneva). That doesn't mean that we need to keep an eye the ITU, because it is true that it's a very secretive and closed organisation, but at least let's be honest about the risks.
Who cares if anyone can surveil was is sent across the internet. That is rather the point of a public network, and if you don't want others to snoop then you encrypt.
ANY of the other stuff inherently breaks the internet or at least seals it off to a huge portion of the planet.
It's not even close which is why even in the middle of an election season two diametrically opposed parties are dead set against it, in unison.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
I don't think he was saying that that the US made the internet. He's more implying that a lot of the internet is based upon the US's network.
Ummm... the internet was mostly a European effort, although the US contributed. The entirety of the web protocol cam efrom Europe, as well as most of the original research on packet networks. What people think of as "the internet" came from Europe.
Learn some history.
]
You mentioned the U.S. seized a few domains. I also think that was wrong.
But the U.N. would block whole CATEGORIES of domains from even existing.
You are worried about a theoretical Kill Switch on the internet. The U.N. wants a Kill Switch on every website...
to be pressed by the Chinese or Russians as they see fit.
And you are seriously arguing against the U.S. on this one? Yes they could improve but you don't seem to be grasping how much worse things could get, very quickly.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Better the devil you know than the angel you don't.
Needs to be modded down - the US did not "make it", and Europe contributed far than the US more include the freakin World Wide Web which is the same as "the internet" to most ppl.
Ok so DARPA through in some funding, but the Internet was invented at a bunch of Universities, by, you know engineers and boffins.
I humbly suggest that we let a collegial group of senior engineers and boffins (from around the world) govern the Internet, nominated by a vote of an association of qualified computer professionals.
Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
Crap. That should be "threw in some funding". Never post after 15 hours of work.
Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
than the US controlling anything, that place is run by paranoid idiots! (unlike the UN)
And they're just letting everyone else use it....
That's funny.
The US might have created a ubiquitous communications network but they don't "make" the internet today. What "makes" the 'net is numbers. The net, community, social website, etc. that survives has the numbers. If everybody else but the US quit the internet and created a new one, the US would be on the outside looking in. Kinda weird, but the true I believe.
Just learned some history. You're wrong: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARPANET
Which is why I suggested they go form their own with their new rules. Other countries would be welcome to join which ever network fit them best. Mostly free countries would end up on the mostly free internet, and mostly censored counties would end up on the mostly censored internet.
Really
The history of the Internet began with the development of computers in the 1950s. This began with point-to-point communication between mainframe computers and terminals, expanded to point-to-point connections between computers and then early research into packet switching. Packet switched networks such as ARPANET, Mark I at NPL in the UK, CYCLADES, Merit Network, Tymnet, and Telenet, were developed in the late 1960s and early 1970s using a variety of protocols. The ARPANET in particular led to the development of protocols for internetworking, where multiple separate networks could be joined together into a network of networks.
But like all things America leads Europe tries to take all the credit.
The US did not make the Internet. Quoting from this history [nethistory.info],
Exactly - glad to see some actual data.
The original research that led to the internet was almost all done in Europe. Saying the "US made the internet" is like saying "the us invented the automobile". It's only seen as true to Americans raised to think the US did everything.
Captcha; elephant
Your quotes don't support your claim. Some Europeans invented a few of the underlying technologies. So what? The first car was made by Karl Benz (yes, as in Mercedes-Benz) in Germany. Would you claim that Germany didn't invent the car because the internal combustion engine was invented elsewhere?
The world wide web was invented at CERN. The research that led to the early stages of the internet also came from EU nations. The US came along later and claimed it "invented it" just as it did with the automobile and various other things, but it was largely an effort that came from CERN.
Europe did jack squat towards forming the internet.
You've heard of a little thing called the world wide web, yes?
The thing you're using to post this?
Guess what - it came from CERN.... in case you don't know, that's in the EU.
I can just see them, nodding with a look in their eyes that conveys a combination of "I told you so" and "censor this!".
About the only consensual requirement for The Internet is agreement on IP address allocation... and even that doesn't need to be globally unique - just look at all that RFC1918 overlap. It all comes down to routing.
Seriously, there's no reason why we can't have 203.2.192.124 in Australia, India, China, AND the USA. Your network provider (y'know, the one that shares routes with its peers) would work out which ones matter, and route accordingly. It just becomes extra admin overhead.
So then you've got DNS issues. Since anyone can run their own DNS server (and lots of people do on a micro scale), there's nothing stopping some commercial entity known for brutal efficiency (perhaps with a share price to defend) from running up a DNS service, making money by selling domains. Bureaucracy confronts market forces...
So if the UN want to run an Internet according to their rules - that's great. I wonder how long it would take before Enlightened Persons just start routing around the inevitable problems.
And then we're back here again :)
With each breath in, a flower somewhere opens; with each breath out, a flower withers away. In between lies beauty.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARPANET
The Advanced Research Projects Agency Network (ARPANET), was the world's first operational packet switching network and the core network of a set that came to compose the global Internet.
I don't think he was saying that that the US made the internet.
"The US made it".
He even put it in the fucking subject line.
And so what ? It has no bearing on what happens with diesel nitir/internet now. Furthermore I cotnend that the talk about china/russia or whoever would "take control and kill our freedom" smack of total idiocy. Those 4 country are but 4 out of 193 in the conference, which the US , and other "allies" are welcome to take part and give their feedback and coutnerpoint. It is not as if anything those *4* country would give as proposal would pass. In fact, even if it passes as proposal, any country could simply ignore it. If Russia and China gave a proposal of "stomp freedom" and it passed, all western country could simply ignore it. And that it *if* it passed. 193 country, chance are that they won't be able to come to conclusion on anything before a comitee is formed and thought about it for years. As for the US, between SOPA, CISPA, and whatever else alphabet soup censorship, take down of domain, and the general facist (collusion governement/corporate) turn it is taking, I am not sure I want it longer as *sole* decider of anything whatsoever for the internet or the web. There should at least be a counterbalance.
How about US censorship of porn and gambling? Or do you think the .xxx domain will not be used by republicans to make a push in the future to force all porn on to that new domain and then block it everywhere?
How about the DMCA which has been used to censor material considered undesirable by both parties funders?
Censorship comes in many forms. Frankly it is no issue to me if Iranians can't see some stuff, but the DMCA hits everyone in the whole world. The US dictating its laws world wide is far worse then a country dictating its laws to its own people. Let the Iranians get rid of their government if they want an uncensored net. It can be done. But the Iranians can never be rid of the US government and its corporate masters.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
Those proposals seem like terrible ideas, but it is no surprise given the countries that proposed them. It is just sad to see what it finally takes for the republicans and democrats to agree on something. Maybe if we tell them that the UN is going to forbid countries from implementing a single-payer health system, then congress will decide to implement it out of spite.
While a UN Internet Tax / UN support for nation-wide censoring is bad, does the US not realize how horrible they have been to the freedom of the internet?
It's bad when you hear better things from Romania Internet-wise.
It means you have autism.
Why can't they just leave us alone?
I mean, why do the governments want to interfere with the Net, a medium whereby people from all corners of the world can share information, and discuss, and plan, and scheme?
Oh, wai ...
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
Research is great.
Actually BUILDING something is even greater - and a different topic.
It's also the difference between SCIENCE and ENGINEERING.
It's worse than that. It like claiming that Germany invented GPS because they created the V2 rocket.
The UN is always looking for a handout or an independent tax base. Of course when the UN is an independent power, US citizens will want consider declaring war on an incipent enemy of the US rights.
Needs to be modded down - the US did not "make it", and Europe contributed far than the US more include the freakin World Wide Web which is the same as "the internet" to most ppl.
Most people are morons.
The Internet existed long before WWW did. WWW is just a service that runs on the underlying infrastructure.
I read the law, there's no kill switch provision in there at all. Nobody has ever been able to point it out to me.
What I miss in both the summary and the linked articles are two things:
Frankly, all I see right now is the usual anti-UN hit piece written by a lazy American journalist, and a Slashdot audience of complete chumps who fall for it.
"I know I will be modded down for this": where's the option '-1, Asking for it'?
yeah well, TCP/IP is kinda useless without Maths. so i guess the greeks invented the internet.
i spent five minutes thinking and all i got was this crappy sig
UN Takeover of Internet Must Be Stopped, US Warns, because we don't want the competition!
...the Internet will sense UN control as damage and route around it. Besides, try as they may, it's not as if China, Russia, Iran, and Saudi Arabia can completely control access to the Internet now. Seriously, even "The World" can't seem to keep people from getting to The Pirate Bay.
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
My fellow slashdotters, I have bad news to report. I farted and got more than I bargained for. On the plus side, it was tasty.
Why does one have to be greater than the other for you? They are both great, period.
But note that science has to figure things out come before engineering can implement them.
The part the UN is talking about taking over is not the HTML standard. Nor the HTTP protocol. They are talking about controlling the domain and address layer, ie, the internet.
The post mentions "proposals from China, Russia, Iran, and Saudi Arabia". No sane person should want those governments involved in management of the net. China, Saudi Arabia and Iran all have heavy censorship in place and they all lock people up, or worse, for violating it. I don't know mch about Russia, but I'm not much inclined to trust their government either, especially on issues around free speech. As for the UN and associated agencies, they have an awful record in regard to the net. The International Standards Organisation tried to set standards for "Open Systems Interconnection" back in the 80s. That was an unmitigated disaster. See RFC 874 for one aspect. Later, the World Intellectual Property Office got deeply involved in ICANN, allegedly "representing" their "stakeholders". That did not work out very well either.
Math is useless without humanity so Africa invented everything.
The government can certainly try to control the internet. They can block a few websites, or even firewall off must parts of it, but people will always find a way to get around it, just like they have gotten around other forms of government control. The internet is more than the hardware, it's also an idea. And that's not so easy to take down.
I really love club dresses ,
I fundamentally disagree. Not that information "wants" to be free, it does and should be. But that it necessarily will? No. God helps those that help themselves.
I mean, why do the governments want to interfere with the Net, a medium whereby people from all corners of the world can share information, and discuss, and plan, and scheme?
I really love club dresses ,
Which is better/worse: The known evil of the US abusing their control power to steal domains and disrupt business for those they do not like (as the result of bribes, misguided politics or plain stupidity), or the possible evil of groups in the UN imposing national politics on the greater Internet?
I personally prefer to deal with the known, and the known is that the US has been grossly abusing their current power on the Internet - and that needs to be stopped.
"For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong." -- H.L. Mencken (1880-1956) --
CERN.... in case you don't know, that's in the EU.
Eh, not exactly. You would have been right if you had said "it's in Europe", but CERN is an international organization located on the French-Swiss border, and it is officially not under the jurisdiction of either France or Switzerland. And Switzerland is not part of the EU, so no, CERN is not in the EU for a meaningful definition of "in the EU".
The internet is meant to be free...as in beer. Period. What really irks me is that probably a good majority of the internet is largely based in the US in the first place. SO....in other words its on our territory, just like the UN building is. If you don't like it...consolidate your DNS, and cut your connections with the West, that simple. Its just another poly by the RIAA and MPAA. I'll bet you any money.
I shouldn't be charged a tax to go where ever the hell I want to go on the Internet. Yes I maybe crossing international borders, but get over it. Solve real problems first, then come talk to us about running the Internet.
Just for posterity shake, why don't all of the geeks on /. start actually "you know" taking some action. There has got to be enough power, money, and used equipment for an underground internet, especially amongst those of us here in the audience.
Things, which concern all states and all people on earth, and cannot be handled locally, like marine law, environmental agreements, world court etc. have to be handled on an international level. The institution to do so is the UN. Yes that means less control for the US. But honestly why should the US control it for everyone? US control means less influence for all humans (beside the 300 Mio US-citizens). And if the UN needs modernization, and surely it does, why is the US blocking it?
The US often act like a control freak and we, who live in other countries (the other 6.5 billion), have to follow. As a US citizen you might understand that any other citizen find that not so much appealing.
And? This is a strange argument. Because those who wrote down that protocol were paid by the US, the US shall control the Internet? So we all have to ask the French for the use of enlightenment or ask the Germans when building cars.
At least partially. The rest is in Switzerland, but it is funded by all EU states (and some other European states).
DARPA made the "final" version. From what I remember, proprietary solutions predate that.
Luckily, no matter whether they act on behalf of the US or the UN, many if not all politicians are technically inept and primarily think about the domain name system when they think about "controlling" the Internet. They already have the ability to wiretap, seize equipment, etc. and now they are simply exploring more convenient ways to implement cencorship. As others have pointed out, this is primarily a debate about who should have the power to censor the Net by "seizing" domain names.
Hopefully someone comes up with a distributed domain name system that has acceptable performance and can be integrated into browsers easily, e.g. via a plugin that could become a default later. It's a technical solution to a social/political problem, but since corrupt politicians and IP instituitions who use methods similar to those of organized crime will not go away overnight, it might still be the best way to solve the problem.
We've been saying for years the feds need to be very careful about increasing power over the internet because it gives legitimacy to all these international groups that want to do the same thing.
The only way to keep the internet free is for the US to focus it's efforts to keep other powers from taking control.
By listening to the copyright trolls they've jeopardized the whole stability of the internet.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
Woah there, we all know that the internet is a bunch of 1's and 0's. I believe credit should be given, where it's owed, clearly the Babylonians invented the internet. Without their underlining contribution and technology none of what we call the internet would be around.
Learn to read.
If the UN gets control of the Internet, there is a real risk that you won't get to see what Muslim clerics and conservative Christians deem offensive, because together, they control a large number of powerful governments.
Porn and gambling are highly restricted in most places around the world, including parts of Europe. When you compare free speech rights around the world, the US is still better than almost all other places.
Bad as the DMCA is, it is still better than the legal situation that exists in many European countries. Look at France's HADOPI or the ability of Germany's GEMA to restrict music distribution in Germany.
Like, for example, talking about the Great Firewall of China *as a good thing to do*.
Plus China, Russia, et al are NOT running the UN ferchrissakes.
Learn to read, you fucking care-bear.
I am all for the US keeping "control". Yeah I live there, but that list of other countries who want to either control or influence it really doesn't give me a warm and fuzzy...
Honestly, while there are many issues with my country some of the other choices are truly worse. The UN has clearly shown it is beyond redemption by the make up of the Human Rights Council, it is almost as if the UN is in permanent parody mode.
As for Congress, they are way too big to flush and while I trust them as much as I would trust the UN at least we have a chance of affecting the make up of Congress more than the UN
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
Nice job trying to excuse the US's actions. I don't think any country can handle the internet, but the fact that you think the US might have made it doesn't justify a single one of their actions. Millions and millions of people use the internet, and there is nothing that can justify the US's censorship (or any other country's). It's not "go make your own internet," it's, "fucking stop censoring the internet, US."
...to "Businessnet"? Beyond the fact that it is now almost impossible to escape one or another commercial entity's advertisements and/or personal data leeching, there isn't much you dare post on the 'net now that you would be reluctant to say in a business environment. Even if your employer doesn't persecute you for your political views, depending upon the political ideology of the moment your views may garner you a fat data file on a server somewhere in the bowels of government...or worse.
I think I liked the 'net way better right when we were transitioning away from the BBS systems and onto the 'net...that was fear-free exchange of information.
Orwell: "In a Time of Universal Deceit, telling the Truth is a Revolutionary Act"
Not really. Brewing (which is a primitive from of Biochemical Engineering) was around before people even knew what microbes were. Blacksmithing long predates metallurgy.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
China, Russia, Iran, and Saudi Arabia
You got to be kidding. For all its faults and imperfections, no one remotely sane would ever consider handing over DNS from the US to the crapholes of the world.
I mean, seriously. HOW will things improve if these guys gain more influence ?
"In my lifetime all our problems have come from mainland Europe and all the solutions have come from the English-speaking nations across the world."
- Margret Thatcher
yes ! they can give it to such bastions of freedom like china, iran and syria just like they give appointments to the human rights commission to countries who abuse their citizens
I don't know who to hate now....oh wait I remember....I hate all of you.
Oh give it a rest. Go eat a cane toad or something. Sorry you can't be proud of your country and lash out at others.
Great ! Can't connect ? Israels fault ! spam ? a Zionist conspiracy ! no broadband in your area ? blame the occupation ! oh and label all tcp packets coming the west bank.
I propose a new status code - 1967 - occupied !
Who cares about the web. The web is not the internet in an architecture discussion, which is what the UN wants to be in charge of. Hard to respect anyone when they use the abbreviation 'ppl' away from a numeric cell phone.
Let's throw the UN a bone: here's the .int gTLD. Take it, and control it as much as you like, but please leave the Net infrastructure alone (and this applies to US' and other governments as well).
cpghost at Cordula's Web.
Guess what - it came from CERN.... in case you don't know, that's in the EU.
Switzerland's in the EU?
Imagine a world run by librarians...all information is free and uncensored but we all have to speak in whisper voices and women have to wear their hair in buns and sensible shoes and tearing pages out of library books would punishable by a year in jail.
The bulk of the commercial internet was built 1 dial-up account at a time and there was a time when my on-line charges were ~$400 each month, w/ long-distance fees in addition to that (I was working a second job to support my on-line habit) --- I see no reason for my flat rate billing to change to accommodate providing access to people who aren't willing to work as hard for their access fees.
Wrong - the US may started it, but the whole world made it to what it is now...
Next the US is trying to break down the bits they don't like, and the rest of the world said: keep your hands to yourself..
The US did not listen, and the rest of the world reacts by trying to take away the powertoy's and put them in the hand of the whole world.
And now the US is showing it's real face by wanting to keep it soley for itself and deny the rest of the world any control...
Great huh?
> The world wide web is useless without TCP/IP [wikipedia.org].
You really want to go that way? The USA wouldn't even exist if it weren't for the invention of ships that allowed the first settlers to move there and slay most of the Indians.
Obviously whoever invented ships is responsible for the internet.
The pilgrims have an important part in US history, would the US as it is today have been possible without their prosecution in England? Obviously the Church of England is responsible for the internet.
But what caused this religious turmoil in England? I think we can find King Hengy VIII of England as the main cause, who separated the Church of England from the Roman Catholic Church. The main cause of this separation was probably his wife's inability to give him a son.
There, it's settled, the internet was invented by Queen Catherine of Aragon in the 15th century.
Either that or it was our lord and savior Jesus Christ himself, who made all the religious turmoil possible.
The US vs the UN - No matter who wins.... We lose!
The US did not make the Internet. Quoting from this history [nethistory.info], "The earliest pioneers included a Frenchman, Louis Pouzin, who introduced the idea of data grams and an Englishman, Donald W. Davies, who was one of the inventors of packet-switching.
I realise you're quoting, but just in case there's any confusion, Donald W Davies was a Welshman, not an Englishman
Like it or not, the internet is an American invention that we have shared with the world. We have managed it according to our views of freedom and (regrettably) corporate greed. I cannot see our government and cooporations allowing control of the internet to pass on to governments that would not manage it according to our needs, or try to strong arm tribute from us to line their pockets for the "purpose" of running it. It would literally be viewed here as an act of war and we would have to take appropriate action. I am not trying to be a pig headed yankee here, I'm just pointing out the reality on how it will be seen by our government and cooporations. A UN take over of the internet will NOT be allowed to happen, the US will NOT stand for it. The rest of the world might well have to pull the plug and leave to create their own network, but the part WE are connected to will remain "the wild wild west". Reactionaries in the GOP and TEA parties wouldn't have it any other way (I'm a Democrate BTW).
Worthless organization.
All people understand is bullets anyway.
If you shit where you live,live in it.
So as long as it's a private army of jackbooted thugs beating up people because the owners don't like what you're saying it's just fine???
Gosh, didn't know that.
yeah well, TCP/IP is kinda useless without Maths. so i guess the greeks invented the internet.
Why is math both capitalized and plural here? Not to be a grammar nazu but is that a British thing or what?
CERN.... in case you don't know, that's in the EU.
Eh, not exactly. You would have been right if you had said "it's in Europe", but CERN is an international organization located on the French-Swiss border, and it is officially not under the jurisdiction of either France or Switzerland. And Switzerland is not part of the EU, so no, CERN is not in the EU for a meaningful definition of "in the EU".
What about for very large values of "in the EU." ?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_protocol_suite
The Internet protocol suite resulted from research and development conducted by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) in the early 1970s. After initiating the pioneering ARPANET in 1969, DARPA started work on a number of other data transmission technologies. In 1972, Robert E. Kahn joined the DARPA Information Processing Technology Office, where he worked on both satellite packet networks and ground-based radio packet networks, and recognized the value of being able to communicate across both. In the spring of 1973, Vinton Cerf, the developer of the existing ARPANET Network Control Program (NCP) protocol, joined Kahn to work on open-architecture interconnection models with the goal of designing the next protocol generation for the ARPANET.
By the summer of 1973, Kahn and Cerf had worked out a fundamental reformulation, where the differences between network protocols were hidden by using a common internetwork protocol, and, instead of the network being responsible for reliability, as in the ARPANET, the hosts became responsible. Cerf credits Hubert Zimmerman and Louis Pouzin, designer of the CYCLADES network, with important influences on this design.
The network's design included the recognition it should provide only the functions of efficiently transmitting and routing traffic between end nodes and that all other intelligence should be located at the edge of the network, in the end nodes. Using a simple design, it became possible to connect almost any network to the ARPANET, irrespective of their local characteristics, thereby solving Kahn's initial problem. One popular expression is that TCP/IP, the eventual product of Cerf and Kahn's work, will run over "two tin cans and a string."
A computer, called a router, is provided with an interface to each network. It forwards packets back and forth between them.[3] Originally a router was called gateway, but the term was changed to avoid confusion with other types of gateways.
Yes the United States did make the internet. You're welcome.
And in the shadows, controlling it all.........Al Gore!!!! (and manbearpig).
From the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 29
"Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible. In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.
These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations."
Now re-read the bits about the UN wanting the internet with that last sentence in mind.
Facts, are facts (indisputable): Good job - So, whoever the pricks are that modded you down are just that, pricks (who can't defeat truth/facts & want to "hide" your statement of fact... period!).
* So again, good job, & I'd mod you up for speaking the truth @ least...
Man... IF I had "mod points", I'd mod you up, but alas, as an AC poster? I do not... I can only speak my mind to you directly in a reply post @ best/most is all!
(After all - FACT: The UN didn't create ARPANET, & thus, the internet itself... the United States of America did!)
APK
P.S.=> If anyone doesn't like what I just said? Oh well - I am only merely pointing out the truth of his words... that's all! apk
The Internet is strange in that sometimes, like the sea, it does not respect national boundaries.
Generally, sovereignty says, for better or worse, governments should be able to control what happens inside their borders.
This includes making rules for the the Internet can be used inside their borders
For example, preventing or discouraging illegal content.
Many countries make laws which significantly limit the rights of parts of their population.
Examples include slavery, rights of women and minorities, rules about religion, and rules to prevent a change in rulers.
This says discouraging illegal content in some countries could include repressing women or preventing a regime change.
This may say that consequences of Net Neutrality limiting unlawful content were not fully though out.
(The basic idea NN defending the ability to to innovate from big companies and governments still seems a noble NN.)
Sorting out how the Internet and sovereignty interact is something that needs to evolve.
It seems a bad idea to WCIT to do much in this area in December.
The ITU's strength is in documenting things which already have consensus. This is seems where the questions are still being discovered. Consensus is a distant hope.
If I were a repressive regeim pressing for pressing WCIT for the ability to control the Internet. I would think twice. The outcome might be in the NN direction which would be the reverse of what was desired. (And probably not a good idea for anybody without time to evolve to a consensus.)
If they must do something, a baby step might be to agree that packets passing between source and destination nations are not to be messed with (inspection ok, but modification and delay not ok) by intermediate nations along the packet's path. (We can only hope that this won't have unintended consequences like the Net Neutrality 'legal' content stuff.)
It's really unfortunate that the ITU is treating this a business as usual with regards to stakeholders and the openness of the discussions. The government ITU members may be the legal representatives of the Internet users, but they in no way come even close to to having the ability or desire to represent the majority of the stakeholders. The Internet is something special and deserves better.
...I just got an irony headache. Oww...
"I love animals! Some are cute, others are tasty, what's not to like?" - Betsy Schroeder, Jeopardy contestant
...it's hard to see how the UN/ITU could be any worse.
Back in February I had a conversation with a man who is essentially the head of IT for the entirety of a well-known baguette-centric European country. I can't name names, but at the time, what he told me was almost exactly this. He told me that very soon the entire model of the Internet would change and that governments would switch over to charging sites directly for the traffic they generate (essentially clicks).
Obviously I was blown away to hear this from someone in a position not only to know what was likely to happen, but to have the power to make it happen. I didn't want to argue with him (I'm just an undergrad CS major, what do I know), but the first thing that crossed my mind as problematic is that such a change on a national scale could drive prominent sites away from that country or motivate them to hamper their services to users in order to avoid taxation.
Now I know why he wasn't concerned about that. If the UN passed a resolution with this kind of taxation, websites generating a lot of traffic would have nowhere to go.
by that logic the greeks invented everything ...
If you think of it, China Iran, and Russia already own the internet. They fill the pages of the internet with bogus filth and state controlled viruses, not to mention the take-over they already own in hackers. Russia's " friends " hack the internet more than ever. A control of the internet is ludicris knowing of their army's warehouse sized hackers break into everything imaginable. Our space program, our military, our children's school books, everything. It isn't just that it is the way they now say they should be the big dog lookouts for our free speech. That was the intent of the internet, sharing information with each other. Not putting down or pulling down opposition of their rivals. I reel when I think my words, as uneducational as they are, will be looked at by anyone without a search warrant. We have enough invasion and evasion by the government as it is. Are we going to stand by and let Cuba, Iran, Venezuella, and others take control a way of life and a way of running their own invasion on our projects? I will throw mine in the river before I let them follow my weekly forray into the bypassed news of our world. Would we have an America without the internet? Could we survive without it? Yes. We could but we won't give them the sweat off the keyboards because it is ours, only ours and forever ours. They can start up some commy run baby smashing, car bombing, phone hacking business of their own. This site is taken.
Change all you said to Christian, change a few country names, use Pagan instead and what do you have?
I think everyone agrees that there are a few things that they would rather not see that are on the web, for sure. I'm also pretty sure that most people would agree that there should probably be some kind of an intranet for US citizens if the Chinese are going to be involved in the rerouting of websites and the like. There are things, not only religious things, but things that many people around the globe do on the web that would make them a threat to a regime like China's. It's true that they have made some changes, but even a post like this would be considered illegal and possibly treason to the Chinese government. I'm afraid we have too much red rice on our hands, and we need to do something about it. If the UN agreed to this, it would definitely be worth withdrawing from the UN and the World Wide Web in my opinion. I'm glad to see that most folk are in agreement with that. Things that make you a target: foods and appliances targeted, religious leanings, and even sexual orientation. Personally, I'm straight, and I don't like any funny business. I even want a lot of sites taken down personally. Somethings we could all live without, but I don't think anyone should be anymore of a target than they already are, and regardless of the fact that I refuse to partake in manlove, I don't think you should be killed for that. You will do that to yourself with your lifestyle. Only advice for that is to be celebate, say no to dude love, and of course, some therapy from Jesus. Anyway, I hope ya'll have a good weekend.
It's sort of a British thing.
You really should look around you some time.