United States Government Unites For Internet

[RakuraiTenjin]

http://politics.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/10/23/1715249&from=rss

I like when things draw everyone together in our nation that aren't tragedies and stuff. (Sporting events, international incidents like this, etc)

 

[Solaris]

Yes all you Americans have united to destroy the internet.

Woopdey F*****g do.

 

[Zeus]

I was going to say something but I think this guy's post on there conveys what I want to say perfectly...

what drives this controversy?
(Score:2, Insightful)
by yagu (721525) * <yayagu AT gmail DOT com> on Sunday October 23, @02:48PM (#13858768)
(Last Journal: Sunday October 16, @06:38PM)

How did this ever even become a controversy? Isn't the internet as we know it an outgrowth and result of DARPA work? And didn't the internet essentially grow from those efforts and work?

This feels like envy and jealousy, the United States created a neat and shiny toy unnoticed by the world until it "became" the internet, and now the rest of the world wants some stewardship, whether it is warranted or not (in my opinion, not).

I don't think the U.S. is the wisest and most sage about everything, but seriously, what is considered the risk here for it maintaining stewardship. It may have misstepped once or twice but empirical evidence suggests competent management (note I didn't say the "best"), and I haven't seen any contraindications to the detriment of the rest of the world.

I think some of the threats made by the U.N., et. al., in these attempts to wrest the internet from the United States are misguided, immmature, and more seriously jeapordize the cohesive internet world wide as we know it today.

(Meanwhile, has anyone peeked at the ozone hole lately?)

what do you mean destroy the internet solaris..the internet is being run the way it has always been run, now its the rest of the world trying to claim a stake in the internet who would be the ones trying to "destroy the internet" as you put it..

 

[dream431ca]

As long as it keeps on running how it is now...I don't care who owns the internet.

 

[Absinthe]

http://politics.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/10/23/1715249&from=rss

I like when things draw everyone together in our nation that aren't tragedies and stuff.

Congress united. What does this have to do with everybody else in the USA?

 

[Kangy]

That's good, keeping the internet under US control is best for it, to be honest. Whilst the US has its problems, I don't think switching standards, locations and political control (imagine what'd happen if China had a stake in the internet?) is in any way good for it, and there's no actual NEED for change.

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

Congress united. What does this have to do with everybody else in the USA?

I'm fairly confident most Americans agree with Congress.

 

[Solaris]

If America arn't willing to share the power it could result, in multiple internets, this would be terrible.

Besides America don't deserve it.

 

[Icarusintel]

If America arn't willing to share the power it could result, in multiple internets, this would be terrible.

Besides America don't deserve it.

How can there be other internets? If they're connected by even one link then it's all united. They could make other hubs, which could be beneficial.

Why shouldn;t America deserve it? Simply put, we already have the hubs on US soil. Also, Americans came up with the internet, so, really, it's our idea.

Here's a good question for you - does America also not deserve to host the UN, even though we got it put together and provide the majority of the funding for it? And please don;t give some stupid, reactionary America-hating answer.

 

[No Limit]

I'm fairly confident most Americans agree with Congress.

Nope, Republican controlled congress's approval rating is less than 30%.

If America arn't willing to share the power it could result, in multiple internets, this would be terrible.

Besides America don't deserve it.

America has always been willing to share the power, duh, you are on the internet now . However, I really haven't payed attention to this and will need to read up on it a little more before I can comment. The issue seems to be TLDs and I don't think it would be a good idea to allow every country out there to add any extension they see fit, it would create a mess.

 

[kirovman]

I thought some British guy, Bernard-Lee came up with the WWW?

Just trying to say, the internet isn't exclusively America's invention or property. I at least hope this won't lead to unilateral control of the internet.

I don't think this is about who "deserves" what, but rather who is going to take the responsibility to maintain internet standards. I'm pretty happy with the status quo.
Deserving the internet hardly comes into the picture.

 

[Kangy]

I think the US deserves it: they funded most of the work to get it to the state we see now; they'd be most capable of maintaining it in the future and despite certain issues, they're still patently the best country in the world to be looking after such a thing.

 

[The Mullinator]

Like I said in another thread. The US should never gain control of the internet. Instead we should maintain the status quo. I would rather keep it running the same way it is now rather than go through a long, lengthy, difficult, volatile, and dangerous route of trying to spread it out over the world. Its fine how it is and the benefits of changing it are very minimal, in fact it is more likely to cause more harm than good trying to change it.

 

[Kangy]

i believe besides the simple fact that we DO deserve it, seeing as it is our invention, it should stay in america for a couple simple things. One being that the internet isn't broken... so why fix it? second is that i believe we ARE the best country to keep after such a thing, although i guess anything here can be said in an opinion stated way. So it all comes down to what is the opinion of each country in the U.N. and the opinions of all the members of congress.

It isn't entirely your invention, so don't play that one. Scientists from all over the world worked on it, and different innovations from everywhere make up the internet you see today.

 

[kirovman]

As I said in my post, I don't think it's exclusively a US invented thing, and I don't think it's about who deserves the internet or who deserves the prize etc, it should be about who is going to take the responsibility seriously. I don't have much doubt that the US will be able to handle the responsibility.

BUT

I think the important thing is to discuss in the international community the future of the internet, if the US attempts to assert some kind of unilateral control, we might see some kind of backlash, "splinternets" if you will as people worldwide may resent that, especially after a lot of the unilateral actions that have been going on recently.
It probably will end up being controlled by the US, but I'd like to see some dialogue and consensus before the US government just decides that.

Also if you want to assert control, you're going to have to have access to all the domain servers. I dunno if the majority are in America or what.

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

Nope, Republican controlled congress's approval rating is less than 30%.

I wasn't saying that, I said I'm fairly confident most Americans agree with Congress, as in this issue. It's not even partisan.. or even liberal/conservative.

 

[No Limit]

I wasn't saying that, I said I'm fairly confident most Americans agree with Congress, as in this issue. It's not even partisan.. or even liberal/conservative.

I'm not saying you are partisan, I said that most americans do disagree with congress. Maybe not on this issue but on most.

 

[Milkman]

Nope, Republican controlled congress's approval rating is less than 30%.

How does something elected by the people not represent the people? I don't trust your ungiven source or polls for that matter. The 2006 mid terms will decide who is right.

 

[No Limit]

How does something elected by the people not represent the people?

Buyer's remorse.

I don't trust your ungiven source or polls for that matter.

Name one official poll that has ever been off by more than 6%.

The 2006 mid terms will decide who is right.

Yes, they will. Better get your shit together. Bush approval at 32% on some polls and congress is in the 20s.

 

[Ennui]

Pssh. Noobs.

I own the internet.

 

[Milkman]

Buyer's remorse.

Not familiar with the term, assistance?

Name one official poll that has ever been off by more than 6%.

Hmm, now I must work to answer, but just give me your source and I will shutup for the time being.

Yes, they will. Better get your shit together. Bush approval at 32% on some polls and congress is in the 20s.

My shit? What makes you think I am republican? Because I challenged what you said?


On an unrelated note, whats wrong with the quoting system, I Had to split up your responses, and mine dissapeared as well. Anti-quotepyramid tech?

 

[Zeus]

If America arn't willing to share the power it could result, in multiple internets, this would be terrible.

Besides America don't deserve it.

America doesn't deserve it? Mind telling why not? Considering it is an american invention and everything...

that's like saying Valve Software won't deserve Steam if and when it becomes a huge success as an online gaming store/platform even though they made it.

 

[dream431ca]

Pssh. Noobs.

I own the internet.

Hey!! I stole it fair and square!

 

[bliink]

"The internet sees censorship as damage and routes around it" -That should always stay the case. Anything that changes that is wrong.

 

[>>FrEnZy<<]

Before you all go out shouting arrogantly about how america deserves the internet and how they will do the best job of maintiaining the internet, look at what has happened with other mediums under american control.

Television in america is owned by about three or four american multi-nationals. The same multi-nationals that favoured Bush as the ruler of your nation. These multinationals are the ones that regulate what the media shows, so that while everyone is watching their favorite reality tv show, and worrying about some stupid lady whose given birth to octoplets, The Multi-nationals that own the media are getting away 175 trillion tax cuts.

That's television. Radio in America is owned by only one corporation. It is a complete monopoly.

The media that is supposed to be representing the voice of the people, now represents the voice of a few corporations. And these corporations are bent on nothing else besides propagating masses in order to make as much money as they possibly can. For example, Advertising is a prime example of the way in which these corporations propagate people to make more money.

Now lets look at the internet. Think of all the spam internet you get. Think of the yahoo and msn networks (that are both controlled by corporations) that you use and the advertising you see there. As their power accumilates, these corporations will naturally push to find ever more effective ways of getting consumer money.

The internet is an extremely dangerous place, because it is becoming ever more possible to track down where you have been on the internet, and personal files on your computer from across the globe. Can you imagine what can be done with this power? Under the false premise of terrorism, or pornography censorship, etc, Governments will be able to invade the privacy of peoples computers, and with that knowledge, will be able to do who knows what.

What I am saying is basically this, The internet under complete american control, is not a great idea, because America is predominately controlled by it's profit hungry corporations, who do not care for it's people and people in general. If however, this power was disperised to other nations, as the UN is trying to do, then the threat of a corporate controlled internet (like american television and radio) will not be so intimidating.

 

[Milkman]

I am still not clear on how the hell any government could control something like the internet.

 

[>>FrEnZy<<]

IP adresses. If you have cable, the only way you can change your IP adress is through your ISP. This means, the government can go to your ISP, extract your IP adress, and pillage your computer and personal files. They could delete files and implant how to make bomb documents and then convict your ass back to 1892.

 

[Milkman]

1892? Damn thats pretty impressive. Well the US isn't a socialist state, so I can't see them at anytime nationalising ISP's, therefore putting them under government control.

 

[>>FrEnZy<<]

true, however, the oligopoly in control of the american television networks arent under government control either, however, the things the media covered is heavily mediated. The same thing will happen with the internet if the people are not cautious.

 

[bliink]

1892? Damn thats pretty impressive. Well the US isn't a socialist state, so I can't see them at anytime nationalising ISP's, therefore putting them under government control.

Australia's main ISP, Telstra is majority owned by the government (and used to be 100% owned).

Same deal for BT in England I think.

 

[>>FrEnZy<<]

That's usually a good thing though Bliink, Because the goverment is structured to be changed by the people. However, the public in no way have a say in what corporations do, and when the government and the powerful corporations come together, thats when you have a leathal combination.

 

[Kyorisu]

Australia's main ISP, Telstra is majority owned by the government (and used to be 100% owned).

Well the push for Telstra to do their damn job isn't working. I swear there has been a slow decline in service. Anywhoo I'm on one of their ISDN plans.

/shudder.

The internet is merley a means to connect millions of computers together. It should be maintained by a group no way connected to all the political crap we deal with these days.

 

[>>FrEnZy<<]

Totally agree with you Kyo.

The internet should be maintained by a group of people that encompasess everyones interests regardless of political beliefs, etc.

 

[Septih]

I thought some British guy, Bernard-Lee came up with the WWW?

WWW != Internet. However, a brief look at the argument shows that part of it is focused around domains, which are part of the www structure. Whether or not this means that people like Berners-Lee should be able to claim control simply because it is his 'neat and shiny toy' seems more dubious then the american military and the main internet structure though.

I, for one, would prefer to see a seperate body keep an eye on the internet. It can be based in america or antartica for all i care, as long as there isn't government intervention. The problem with govt. intervention is that governments change in attitudes which can cause instability in the net as to what is allowed or not. For example, Jack thompson becomes president x), bans all porn, satanic, game, etc sites and gets all the ip addresses of people who have visited such sites and persecute them. Or some left wing nut becomes president and uncensors everything. Sorry for my examples, i'm aware that those scenarios are unlikely but i'm trying to get the point across what could happen. I'd rather see continuality in the internet then see it possibly changing every 4 years.

 

[mortiz]

I don't care who owns it as long as I can still download porn.

http://forporn.ytmnsfw.com/

 

[Solaris]

The problem is that other countries don't like America 'controlling' it.

Hell why not give it to the UN, You americans control that anyway.

 

[Jandor]

How can there be other internets? If they're connected by even one link then it's all united.

Not really, with different governments handing out I.P addresses and routing people and whatnot you could end up with many computers trying to connect to two different websites on one I.P address, etc. It needs to be maintained by one entity.

1892? Damn thats pretty impressive. Well the US isn't a socialist state, so I can't see them at anytime nationalising ISP's, therefore putting them under government control.

The U.S. Government does control the internet though, it was going to be made an independant non-profit organization. But Bush blocked the plans, creating the problems we are seeing now.

 

[Zeus]

The problem is that other countries don't like America 'controlling' it.

Hell why not give it to the UN, You americans control that anyway.

a lot of countries don't like america at all, what's your point?

So america is supposed to turn over control of something they came up with just because other countries want a stake in it?

 

[TheGrimSweeper]

I agee that a seperate organization should control it and not the government. I can easily see the US Government trying to pass laws and regulations on usage of the internet that other countries might not agree with, cause laws in their country differ from that of the USA. In that sense it should be given to an organization not controlled by the government, and usage of the internet should continue to be controlled by the government of the country your living in.

 

[Maxi]

The problem with the US running the internet is when Europe goes to War with the US... Then the US closes the intarnet from the world.