A Private European Internet? 697
jakemk2 writes "Bill Thompson writing in The Register advocates a private European Internet to stop the fact that it has "been so extensively abused by the United States and its politicians, lawyers and programmers that it has become a serious threat to the continued survival of the network as a global communications medium"
Read it here" His logical fallacy is , of course, thinking that the US has a monopoly on this kind of thing.
World Peace (Score:5, Interesting)
Ironically, its proving that due to its non-geographical nature, you dont actually have to _have_ a border to fight over - you can just invent one at your own whim! Think about it
And please take this with a grain of salt, I'm only half-kidding.
Wow... (Score:4, Interesting)
From the article:
Umm... while I might agree that there is a lot of commercial content on the web these days, what about the rest of it, like educational resources, online research, BLOGS, and, well, damn near an infinite amount of other resources?
Nothing like cutting off your arm 'cause your fingers hurt.
Brilliant ! (Score:3, Interesting)
This actually sounds tempting. I doubt it will happen but the Eurohackers will have a lovely sandbox to play in. It might be more useful than the cryptocorporate anarchy that is the Internet today. I wonder if they'll let USAians fed up with the current net join ?
Re:Uhmm.... (Score:3, Interesting)
Granted, the historical strength of the internet has always been bringing people together over distance based on common interests or motives (Slashdot, girlskissing.co.uk and eBay are all excellent examples). Just because it's been that way, however, doesn't mean that it's the only practical use.
What I find interesting is that the author suggests keeping the rest of the world out, as opposed to keeping the rest of the world from getting in (which is what China and a few others have been up to) on a scale that's unprescidented. Technically, I'm sure it's possible to accomplish this, but I'm still uncertain as to the practicality or the wisdom of doing so.
I guess it is a European mind set (Score:3, Interesting)
An important factor in Europe's favour is that we retain a belief that governments are a good thing, that political control is both necessary and desirable, and that laws serve the people.
Hitler/Stalin/Mosalini/etc... (this list is long) would have agreed heartly and would have eagerly supported this notion.
Jefferson by the way would not. A few Jefferson quotes by contrast:
"Most bad government has grown out of too much government"
"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground."
"The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions that I wish it to be always kept alive."
Oh well.
Re:I can understand where he is coming from (Score:5, Interesting)
Yesterday, I heard on NPR that the Secret Service is closing more streets around the White House for "security reasons." I had one thought: "Yep, here we go, building our own Forbidden City."
Jerry Pournelle [jerrypournelle.com] is fond of saying, "but we were born free." There has been much debate of late on his site about the current situation in the U.S., most of it revolving around the "Republic vs. Empire" issue. The U.S. may have been born a Republic, but the 20th century taught us that our security can't depend on two oceans. Unfortunately, if the oceans couldn't protect us, the next option was to expand our influence overseas so the fight would remain away from home.
11 September showed us we can't keep the fight from here without extreme measures. Personally, I don't think the "extreme measures" are worth the cost of personal liberty, but hey, I'm just a poor seminary student and computer geek.
I will say this, though; the EU may create their own Internet, but before long, the same forces wreaking havoc here - bureaucracy and corporatism - will wreak havoc there. Like it or not, we're all connected now, and the havoc is becoming increasingly difficult to isolate.
Re:World Peace (Score:2, Interesting)
Let's see here.... (Score:2, Interesting)
Well, the good ol US of A (of which I am a proud member - note I said of the country: the bozos running it are another matter) does in fact contain most of the network. So what? Are we going to turn it off? Tell DARPA to fsck off and drop that backbone it built? Not bloody likely. And since the jurisdiction of our laws (supposedly) don't reach beyond our borders, how exactly are we "taking over" the web?
This guy wants to isolate Europe. Fine. So does most of the world. But don't bame your jingoism on American policies, as whacked as those policies may be. Or do we need to define the words "soverign nation" for you? Yep, even small countries in the Atlantic are allowed to make their own laws and have their own lawyers and programmers. Go figure.
Good Lord. It's time for lunch. I think I just ranted myself to death with no discernable point.
Interesting idea, but flawed solution and argument (Score:2, Interesting)
However, he attaches solutions to problems that a) have nothing to do with the US alone, and b) are not attached to secured networks.
As far as I knew, personal data, to a degree is protected by law in financial situations, and in many other situations. But regardless, customer information in the form of call lists, subscription lists, etc are going to be shared between companies regardless of a secure communications system.
I can just as easily burn a CD, or, say, print a copy, of my customer database as send it over the magical internet.
Further, the examination of incoming and outgoing data he describes requires more than a secured comm system. It requires Big Brother viewing the data flow. Unless, JUST LIKE WE DO IT NOW, when someone complains, the offending party gets cut off. Which becomes EASIER in a secured system, but it's certainly not impossible now.
This has nothing to do with a secured alternate internet. This has to do with DRM, machine rights, copyright control tech, etc. Which have been examined and set not only by the companies, which exercise the power given to them by consumers, but also the IEEE, I believe. If the EU wants to levy economic sanctions on copyright-abusive content providers and equipment manufacturers, hell, I'll move to the UK. But a secured internet will have little to do with it.
This is just a cheap shot, little material behind it. If there's beef, bring it, otherwise STFU.
It's true, a secured, trusted network would allow content providers to lock down sites that aren't approved. I guess that's what he means by human rights, although his use of the term is a bit confusing.
However, I would assume that there's enough variation over the surface of the European community, that this will still be a problem, and what you'll end up with is governmental censorship agencies, filtering through visited "securenet" sites. An interesting idea. I wouldn't like it. I'll stick with the current version.
-Greg
Re:Cyberspace and laws (Score:2, Interesting)
If someone from Europe called a white supremacist hotline in the U.S. (and they do) the European government would have as much success prosecuting as they would someone who hosted a web page, i.e. none.
Re:Finally, someone came out and said it! (Score:1, Interesting)
By the way, I think there are only two differences between American and European politicians. The first is bribery happens out in the open because it is legal in the US while the same amount goes on behind closed doors in Europe. The second is that the European politicians have their constituents fooled.
Re:World Peace (Score:2, Interesting)
So he's blaming the United States for building software and tools that allow people in China to subvert Chinese Government-Sanctioned censorship. He's lambasting US, for his country allowing their LEO's to use the DMCA to arrest citizens on the behave of US LEO...
Got to love those fine extradition treaties...
But when he went into, and I paraphrase: set foot on US soil, get interred, questioned, tried in an unaccountable warcrimes court, and be executed... I laughed. Then I thought real hard. Ok, interred, questioned, yes, pretty possible in this day and age... executed perhaps (better hope the REAL criminal left some DNA behind..)...
Hmm... a good read. But more of a good laugh.
Re:Hypocracy Is Exuded By Nearly Every Paragraph (Score:2, Interesting)
Although the article is a little over the top it adddress an interesting notion that has become ever more apparent.
The Internet for a very short while was a place outside the rules where anyone could do anything. This freedom was (and is) abused and the companies stepped to protect their interests, on their terms. By claiming that the Internet is beyond rules the Internet community have created a place where the powerfull lobbygroups can have their sway and impose through the US government their control over the rest of the world.
Because the way the Internet is structured you either have total anarchy or a police state we are moving from one to the other at the speed of sound. The crash is resounding and is worrying.
The previous poster makes the common (cultural) misunderstanding about the way laws work around the world. In Europe laws are nearly always a compromise of multiple interests (both commercial and public, majorities as well as minorities) and codify the result of much much to-and-fro-ing, usually striking a fair balance. If you are used to that kind of laws imposing them on the Internet seems not so bad because they protect the public's interest as well as the commercial one.
If it means taking the de-facto control away from one country and giving it to the world in general, providing a place where, my rights are protected and I do not need to live in a police state dominated by big-business, this seems quite OK to me.
Re:I can understand where he is coming from (Score:4, Interesting)
They were BRITISH CITIZENS and they took up arms and killed HER MAJESTY'S soliders.
What a fucking lot of hypocrites you all are now. Fighting a "war on terrorism" when your entire country was FOUNDED on acts of terrorism.
Re:World Peace (Score:2, Interesting)
Well spoken, but ultimately you must remember that there is no (reasonable) limit to the number of websites and/or sources of information out there... I personally do not feel that US culture or values are Good or Bad neccessarily - I read some "big corporate" websites everyday, but avoid other popular ones altogether. This is simply a decision that I have made for myself. Fortunately, everyone else on the Internet is entitled to an opinion and choice of their own. Some common rants:
Think CNN is a tool of the government to brain-wash the masses?
Solution: Read Reuters [reuters.com] or the BBC-News [bbc.co.uk] or any other news site you find suitable. Better yet - read from several/many different sources.
Think Hollywood is controlling what the masses see and hear?
Solution: Check out IMDB [imdb.com]... Read reviews from hundreds of individuals like yourself, and formulate your own opinions.... See and watch only what you choose to.
I can certainly understand why the author feels as he does - It must be frustrating for other cultures to see what must be an obviously American influence on so much of what they read and watch... but no one is forcing them to do so day after day. Everytime they type in "www.abcnews.com" or tune into the Sopranos, I think its only fair for them to take responsibility for the fact that they are about to get information/entertainment from an American source - and should keep that in mind before their fragile minds are corrupted by the big conglomerates lurked inside those sources.
I realize that you took a very objective viewpoint in your post, so not all of this is aimed at you