Slashdot Log In
Will the U.S. Lose Control of the Internet?
Posted by
Zonk
on Tue Oct 31, 2006 09:59 AM
from the could-be dept.
from the could-be dept.
MattSparkes writes "The first UN-sponsored Internet Governance Forum (IGF) meeting is taking place next week in Athens, which aims to 'contribute to a better understanding of how the internet can be used to its full potential.' It is likely that several countries will object to the US monopoly on Internet governance, as they did at the last meeting, where the US cited fears of a loss of freedom of speech as the reason for retaining power. Other topics to be discussed include online security, access for non-English users and spam."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
The US is the lesser of two evils (Score:3, Insightful)
Just imagine what China, Iran, etc. would do with control?
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
If you want your culture destroyed, let the U.N. and French run it!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The point of having a multi-national body of control is to prevent any singular extremist nation from having a totalitarian control over the Internet.
-Rick
Control vs Bureaucracy (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
No, but
"The US started the Internet"
is true. Lots of other countries had public internets, not necessarily using IP, at the same time as ARPAnet.
One can hope (Score:2, Interesting)
Will the U.S. lose control of the Internet? One can hope.
I don't know where this insane notion came from that the U.S. is capable of governing the Internet any better than the world community at large. In case you haven't been watching the news, we can barely govern ourselves right now.
The U.S. has a fine history of coming up with a really nifty idea and developing it to the point that it's useful, and then totally screwing it up to the point that someone else has to come in dominate the market in tha
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Sad to say, but look at the alternatives. Having the US run it might not be that bad an idea. The UN? Corruption-wracked, financially bankrupt, incapable of acting when it is most needed. Some other international body? Who, exactly?
Yes, we suck. But others suck MUCH worse.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course it isn't true, but then again all you need is for people to believe it and there you have it.
It's a pretty cool example of social engineering.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes. Like Food for Oil and all the "humanitarian aid" to African nations, etc.
Yes. Like paying the USA for being the majority (if not all) the support/logistics for any operation that's ever undertaken by the UN.
Re: (Score:2)
The UN: The UN gives every country a say, countries with censorship goals and laws out number the countries that protect almost all forms of speech.
The EU: Most EU countries have much more censorship then we do.
Private Corporation: Well thats pretty much how the internet operates right now. With exception of some veto powers the US pretty much leaves the internet alone and lets the companies they contracted run the internet.
About the only negative aspect you can p
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Uhh.....because *we* built it?
In the manufacturing industries that you cite, those companies didn't start using our products, then demand that we release control of the manufacturing facilities to them--they built their own factories and went head-to-head with us. If they produced chips or cell phones or automobiles or videogames more efficiently than us, then
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Just a question, and I don't want to start a flame war, but can you please list out what the US is doing wrong with regards to the internet? I'm not trying to egg you on, nor piss you off. I simply am not aware of what my government is doing wrong here, and I'd like to know. Granted, after you list your facts, I'll look into this to verify what you say, but I'd like a starting point.
It's clear that you don't like the President, and that's fine
Other topics -- one small edit (Score:5, Insightful)
Get used to it (Score:2)
Soft power (Score:5, Insightful)
As you might have guessed, it is out of favour with the current administration, who prefer military "hard power". Previously, the USA could have said to the rest of the world "trust us to manage the Internet" and much of the world would have gone "ummm, ok!". Now the USA has lost much of its soft power, it makes it much harder, and "hard power" doesn't work well in this kind of situation!
Who would you trust? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Who would you trust? (Score:4, Insightful)
Not that I think that the Administration would go that far, but I feel it's necessary to point out that without habeas corpus, you can be seized and you have no ability to challenge the ruling; it doesn't matter that no court would ever affirm your arrest, because you'll never be able to get in front of a court.
Parent
Re:Who would you trust? (Score:5, Informative)
Have you seen the news today? Journalists fall victim to ethnic and sectarian violence, US troops carry out more unlawful arrests [rsf.org]. Oh, and you've dropped even further down the Press Freedom Index [rsf.org]. Far from "higher standards than the rest of the world"; there are over fifty countries with freer speech than the USA.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Proper global oversight can and should be the norm for
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"Put us in charge of your freedom because we know what's in your best interest".
No thanks. I'd rather actually have a *say* in the matter. At least with the UN, my country gets a voice. With the US I get what the US thinks is best for me.
Regulations... (Score:4, Insightful)
access for non-English
Read: Requirements for language translations on web-sites.
online security
Lets have people register to run a web-site! That way we can track things better and "protect" children! And no more defending the Nazis if you want to after the French and Germans get into this.
spam
No more sending email unless it's through state-approved servers.
Yeah, this is gonna be great... We're from the government, and we're here to help!
Access for Non-English (Score:3, Informative)
There's something called IDN (Internationalized Domain Names) that is an effort to change that by allowing DNS to use Unicode characters. That
This is becoming ridiculous (Score:5, Insightful)
You know what, if a country wants to do as they please with their part of the internet, all they have to do is update a couple of DNS servers. As simple as that. In fact, I'm already looking into using an alternative DNS root.
NO debating is needed. NO decision needs to be taken. All those who want a non-USA-regulated net have to do is START using the internet the way they like, simply disregarding USA rules. And, well, be ready to be cut off from any USA network, if the USA were so inclined. What's that you say, your citizens won't like it? Tough luck buddy, that's the price of freedom. It goes both ways.
On a side note, maybe it's time we did away with non-national TLDs. But that can only be done when people stop treating
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Protect the Truth! (Score:2, Funny)
What is there to govern anyway? (Score:2)
What is there in the Internet to govern anyway?
If the sole issue is "what name points at what IP address in the most common DNS system" then who cares?
It's only when you get out of the technical realm and into the craziness of taxes, "legal" versus "illegal" sequences of numbers to send across the lines, and similar oddities, does a question of "governance" even come into the picture.
My take is: just have a central body for managing the DNS namespace (which is not "hardware enforced" anyway) and that's i
The internet is under control? (Score:2)
Since when?
The sure path to censorship (Score:3, Insightful)
The UN Commission on Human Rights counted among its members Cuba, China and Saudi Arabia. After much criticism over the membership of such countries where mass violation of human rights is policy, it was replaced with the Human Rights Council, which includes in its membership -- you guessed it -- Cuba, China and Saudi Arabia.
The UN apparently believes in using the fox to guard the hen house. Does anybody really want Cuba and China to have a say in our freedom of speech?
Why is this a problem once again? (Score:4, Insightful)
Exactly what is the problem that needs to be solved here? Maybe I should expand the number of sites I visit on a daily basis, but I don't think I've ever been blocked from visiting anything that I wanted to look at. Hell, I don't think I've ever even been blocked from things I DIDN'T want to look at. I fail to see why the current management needs to be ousted or even given this much bullshit in it's general course of business.
I'd like to know where this would lead? I'm assuming that it's really the commercial aspect of the internet they are after control over. Perhaps a UN mandated internet tax of some sort, or even better, an online commerce tax mandated by the UN. Certainly we can't say that the Academic aspects of the internet are wholly owned by the US Government, as it's (unless i'm mistaken) pretty much a multi-naitonal group of researcheres and universities sharing information, who could just go ahead and build their own network anyways.
At best, this is just another attempt by a useless neutered organization to grab at power (and money/tax revenue) it dosn't have. At worst, it's a consortium of poorer and/or angry countries picking on the US for all that we have. It kinda makes me think of those arguments where people say "The United States has xx% of the resources but only has x% of the population," and then proceed to ramble about how it's not fair, and we owe it to the world to be their resource providers for free.
Get real. Build your own network or shut up and be thankful we let you be a part of ours.
Less control by US equals more control by China (Score:3, Insightful)
Russia, and other similarly "free" regimes... Be careful, what you wish for, Illiberals.
Re: (Score:2)
ROTFLMAO
Re: (Score:2)
Do you seriously trust the UN more than the US? Even under the current administration?
No wonder you posted as an AC.
As much as I do not support the Democratic party, this administration will pass and cooler heads will prevail. That's not even to say that I think the Republicans doesn't have their fair share of cooler heads, before anyone decides to play partisan politics with my post.
I'm not strictly against other nations having their say in
You're deluded (Score:3, Insightful)
I am an internationalist on many issues, but not this one. Not yet, not when so many governments have proven to abuse censorship power whenever it's given to them.
Re:We can only hope so (Score:5, Insightful)
What are you referring to, exactly?
What have 'they' done thus far to impede the internet?
Last time I checked, I can still download illegal files, go to any website on the web, and e-mail anybody in the world.
Sure, some things may end up with me in the FBI's hot-seat, but that has nothing to do with corporations.
It is likely that several countries will object to the US monopoly on Internet governance
WHAT governance? The sections of the network owned by people or businesses in the US are governed by THEIR OWNERS. Germany can outlaw swastika's and regulate their own country's infastructure, and the US can regulate theirs. That's what made the internet the powerhouse it is today--give people incentive to build infastructure by giving them control over it.
THE ONLY reason to give power to others is so they can assert control over US-OWNED NETWORKS. If they're pissed because some companies ban foreign traffic, tough bananas. Go ahead and ban US citizenry from using your network, if you think you can take the financial hit.
Nice try, UN.
When the US economic power slows, and the EU (or whatever group) has more power, maybe then will the tables turn and it will be the US complaining about lack of power online. Until then, deal with it.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Maybe, but right now the US is asserting control over everyone else's networks.
Here's a real-life example for you: I was sued in a US court for a part of my website. I am a German. I've been to the US once, 15 years ago. I've never been to that particular state. The website is hosted on a server that has never been outside Germany (except probably to be assembled in China). The domain is registered to me, on a german
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Here's a real-life example for you: I was sued in a US court for a part of my website.
How is that relevant? If the UN controlled the Internet (whatever that means), some tool in Cali can still sue you. As it is, just write to the judge or call them up and explain matters. If you haven't been there in 15 years, what's a judgement going to accomplish?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I actually had a long phone conversation with a judge in California. Here's the short version of the jurisdiction insanity:
* Showing up in court, sending a letter to the court, making any statement on the case whatsoever is automatically interpreted as you accepting the court's jurisdiction
* Not showing up yields you a default judgement
* There is only one way out of this dilemma: A "special appearance to challenge personal jurisdiction" - but that a) still require
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The situation you pointed out is a problem, but it has nothing to do with "who controls the Internet." It's a legal issue, one of many examples where the laws have not really caught up to the times. Let me slightly modify your example to show you how complicated it can get: Let's say Bob lives in Germany. His server is located in... oh, I don't know, the UK. Jill lives in the US.
Jill thinks Bob has (for example) libeled her on his website. Where was the crime committed? IE, which court is going to h
How is this relevant? (Score:3, Insightful)
Who gets to control how
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Nice try, UN.
Hell yeah! That UN shold stop staring blindly at their narrow 'world view' and take a step back to look at the wider US picture! These 'United Nations' that try to wrest away control over every American's Internet from the
Re:If USA lost control over internet (Score:5, Insightful)
Considering that it is the middle eastern and Chinese governments that are pushing hardest for this I would say that this is exactly opposite to what will actually occur.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Was vielfach übersehen wird, ist, daß auch ein zentrales Gremium außerhalb der USA keine Verbesserung darstellen würde: es wird hier nur der Teufel mit dem Beelzebub ausgetauscht.
So, jetzt bitte eine weitere S
Re: (Score:2)
It was a stupid idea since they were not requiring XXX sites to use it. All it would of done was to require every company to purchase the
If you want to find porn it is not a problem the problem is that the porn site using similar names and tring to trick people to come to thier site something a
If anything this proves it is better to have
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
As to the whole people from other states having an impact on the laws in your state....well they do. Always have and always will
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So my entire original point was that if I buy whisky, legally, in Colorado, while it is illegal to buy it in Utah, it is unreasonable for the original poster to conclude I am a criminal picking an opportune State in which to commit my dastardly crime.
You seem to think that because the current balance of federal vs. state power is what it is, that's what it should be; or that the current balance is desirable because of your opinion of how cohesive a nation we are or how much we identify with the nation vs. s
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Fortunately, the solution is relatively straightforward. The fact is that the US government paid for the infras
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In the 1.5 million people city, we have about 10 of McDonalds, and one Burger King.