US Keeps Control of the Internet 1057
Adam Schumacher writes "As a result of a a deal reached late Tuesday, the US and ICANN will maintain control over the Internet's core systems. A new body will be created to provide international oversight, which will, of course, have no binding authority."
Still good (Score:3, Insightful)
and who better than the US... (Score:3, Insightful)
What other nation of the world could guarantee the free speech implicit to the internet, as sites like slashdot are testament to?
Waiting for american media (Score:3, Insightful)
Seriously, this whole debate was decided by the pressure from big American IT firms and also the furore in the American press about this whole issue. Anyone less well informed than the average geek would think the rest of the world was planning to take the internet, rape it, tie some bricks to its legs and row it over the bridge with the way the press has dealt with this topic.
Another five years till this comes up again.. i'm hoping for a more democratic contest next time.
Doesn't this remind you of AT&T? (Score:4, Insightful)
The US owns the hardware, has all the control, and is expected not to abuse the power. And there's no one that's more powerful that can tell them what to do.
this is good news (Score:5, Insightful)
Some of that content will be wrong, inflamatory, misguided, illegal, and/or offensive, but having that open forum means that a lot of good will show up, too.
Actually, corporations maintain control (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:and who better than the US... (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:We paid for it.... (Score:2, Insightful)
Ok, so please make 398 Norwegian crowns payable to my account by the end of every the month for the next five years. Thanks.
Re:The Minutes Of The Meeting (Score:2, Insightful)
It may sound paranoid, but the stories of how the unelected EU parliament tries to lord over every mundane aspect of life and of how they tried to widen their scope ever more really gives me second, third, and fourth thoughts about this issue.
I know that how the U.N. might be a more apt analogy in this case, but that just even more shivers down my spine.
Re:Doesn't this remind you of AT&T? (Score:3, Insightful)
Typical UN... (Score:2, Insightful)
Common sense is still here? (Score:3, Insightful)
But somehow we finished good - until next time.
I think in this situation we have lession, brothers - we (and I don't care about the OS, about software, about what care you drive or what your beliefs on global warming are) should spread the world that INTERNET should not be controled by NO politics. Repeat after, me - NO poltics. It is media - as paper, TV, radio. It is necessary for people. It is no more just sex.com or check out lyrics for that Britney song. It is for job, for communication with other dear ones. It is essental for many to survive (yeah, I am not afraid to say that).
So let's send big message - each one of us - to our "dear" politics - please DON'T F#$% WITH IT. Seriously.
Thanks for your attention.
Re:The Minutes Of The Meeting (Score:1, Insightful)
World: We want equal partnership in the Internet
USA: No, it's all ours
World: Ok, we want the US to follow UN directives and not invade countries at a whim
USA: No, can't tell me what to do, I'll invade whatever country I want
World: Ok, we want the US to honour free trade agreements, just like you expect us to
USA: No, I'll break free trade agreements whenever it suits me
World: Ok, we want the US to stop polluting our part of the world
USA: No, I don't give a crap about you, I'll shit on your lawn and piss on your door
World: You know, you really are a jerk
USA: Shutup or I'll beat you up
World: ...
Re:Still good (Score:3, Insightful)
Neither are we. If that were the way the world worked we'd be begging the middle east every time we wanted to make a calculator.
Re:Yeah but... (Score:5, Insightful)
The newly formed oversight committee is to say.
Thus far, the US has had a pretty much hands-off approach to running the internet. That's been great, guys. However, the internet is getting larger and larger and more and more important to the economies and to the security of all nations. The potential power that comes from running the internet is getting greater. The day may come when the US government starts to abuse its position here - for instance, how about imposing export tariffs on domain names, or on IP space?
Hence the oversight committee. If, five years down the line, the US has been naughty, then it's time to seriously think about splitting the internet. But if they've continued to behave as they generally have in the past, then all is well. The committee won't have power as such over the running of the internet, but if it isn't kept happy then the next round of negotiations might not go so smoothly.
A monopoly is a monopoly (Score:5, Insightful)
If there's a difference in philosphy here then can someone please point it out to me? I can't be the only one befuddled by the difference of opinion between the two issues around here.
Re:Al Gore (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Always good when there's a no-yelling solution. (Score:3, Insightful)
This was more an exercise of some countries wanting to exercise content control rather than just technical control. Many people point to the .xxx domain as an example of US interference. I would like to point out that it was a good idea that the .xxx domain got nixed since the very idea promotes censorship. If governments can partition content that it finds objectionable into subdomains, that action aids censorship.
Here's an idea (Score:4, Insightful)
Frankly, I couldn't care one bit where ICANN is based, just so long as politicians bloody stay away from it! If you don't understand it, then it might not be a good idea screw about with it, especially when all of the experts are telling you not to. How hard is this concept to grasp?
To its credit, the US has been quite good about not fucking things up... so far. However, I rather fear that the political fuss over the xxx domain may be the tip of a rather ugly iceburg.
Re:I'm sure the US will listen to everyone else... (Score:3, Insightful)
If the other parts of the world want control of it they should have invented it first ;-)
This "forum" better be shunned (Score:4, Insightful)
Someone needs to put their foot down firmly. While people are free to form whatever little "international internet gossip" knitting circle that they want, the message should be put out that this group will have even less insight to internet governance than the public at large, and all communications from this body will be treated as less than spam.
Do not grant the slightest bit of recognition or credibility to this thing.
Re:The Minutes Of The Meeting (Score:3, Insightful)
Per Merriam-Webster [m-w.com] . . . To bind means to constipate...
Source of statistics (Score:5, Insightful)
IP allocation by country [whois.sc].
USA: 1.3 billion. UK: 254 million. Japan: 141 million. China: 72 million.
Something is going to have to change here.
Re:and who better than the US... (Score:5, Insightful)
If the UN is in control, it could at least limit these types of unilateral actions. Not saying it'd be perfect or even better, but I'd think it might be a bit more fair.
Re:The Minutes Of The Meeting (Score:5, Insightful)
Furthermore the parliament cannot propose laws, so it's really not in the position to "lord over mundane aspects of life". Maybe you're thinking of the Council of Ministers or (most probably) the Commission? The commissioners are appointed by the member states, so maybe that's what you were referrring to. Even then:
Re:I'm sure the US will listen to everyone else... (Score:0, Insightful)
Re:Free speech on slashdot (Score:5, Insightful)
No it doesn't, you can always adjust your display preferences and read absolutely everything.
Re:A monopoly is a monopoly (Score:2, Insightful)
And, even though I'm not a EU citizen, I am from Europe, so I know how the social democratic welfare state imposes restrictions on its citizens. The UN is the largest social democratic institution in the world and would certainly impose restrictions given control of the internet. One must not let people decide for themselves, god forbid.
Re:"Latin languages" (Score:2, Insightful)
Another note, is that from personal experience, I really get annoyed from transliterating words of languages using the Cyrillic alphabet (ex: Russian, Bulgarian, Macedonian,
Another issue, is that I have seen some domains advertised using Cyrillic letters, but ".com" at the end. Now that's even more confusing, especially for non-technical people (and the fact that you have to continuously switch your keyboard layout). Imho, the TLD for those countries should also be available in Cyrillic.
Just my 0.02$ -- sure, there will always be spam problems, but this is about connecting people and making sure the Internet is accessible no matter where they are.
Loved this line from TFA (Score:3, Insightful)
These people are obviously qualified to run the Internet. Pity they won't get the chance.
Re:The Minutes Of The Meeting (Score:3, Insightful)
If countries decided to have their own root and didn't actually change the heirarchy at all - merely added to it (a new.net scenario) nothing would break *at all*.
Re:and who better than the US... (Score:5, Insightful)
Why do American Slashdotters always bring up China? You know there are other countries than the USA and China, don't you? You do realise that it's the UN that manages the international phone system, don't you? Does China censor your phone calls?
Um, how about a country that doesn't have the DMCA? How about a country that didn't force the 2600 website to stop linking to some code because Hollywood didn't like people watching DVDs on their own terms? How about a country that didn't pass a law letting the Church of Scientology pressure Google into removing links from their index? [slashdot.org] And, since you brought up the subject of Slashdot, did you know that Slashdot was censored by the Church of Scientology with a USA law? [slashdot.org]
In France and Germany they ban hate speech. In the USA they ban speech that might offend people with lots of money. Stop pretending you are any better than the rest of the world.
Re:Yeah but... (Score:1, Insightful)
The day may come when the US government starts to abuse its position here - for instance, how about imposing export tariffs on domain names, or on IP space?
Tariffs and censorship are precisely why there is opposition to the UN exerting control over the internet. The nations that compose the UN have demonstrably less support for free exchange of information, and the UN has already made noises about taxing data transfer on the internet to raise money for their own ends. Given that set of facts, I prefer the status quo.
Re:America (Score:3, Insightful)
Those of us who live in countries that are heading the same way as the USA are trying to work out some way of avoiding it, and consider that more important than who controls the root DNS servers - if the USA really tries to screw around with that then there will be some incentive to fix it, but at the moment there isn't really.
Those people who live in countries which respect freedom and the rights of the individual (assuming that such a place exists) are keeping very, very quiet about it, in case immigration suddenly becomes overwhelmed.
In Wales we seem to have sensible politicians at the moment (unusual, I know) - my MEP campaigned strongly against software patents. Unfortunately they are subordinate to the idiots in London. Maybe we adopt Jasper Fforde's idea, and become The People's Republic of Wales...
Re:and who better than the US... (Score:2, Insightful)
The United States, as a country, has no hate speech laws.
Such laws are the province of local (mostly state) governments, and have never had their Constitutionality genuinely challenged.
Please don't generalize a local law into a nationwide ideal.
PS A federal hate crime amendment was defeated in the Senate about a month ago. So for all of you planning to mention that, don't.
Re:and who better than the US... (Score:3, Insightful)
Ok, so far so good.
``What other nation of the world could guarantee the free speech implicit to the internet, as sites like slashdot are testament to?''
What? The country that has free speech zones [amconmag.com], has the media only telling half of the news (the other half censored by themselves - or maybe there is some entity imposing censorship on them after all?) or even blatant lies (I'm thinking of Fox here); the country where one of the political parties blocked Internet access to their campaign site from outside the borders; the country where disagreeing with the government can get you labeled anti-patriotic or even considered supporting terrorists?
The country that invades other countries based on false allegations of possesion of weapons of mass destruction and ridiculous claims of being a threat, without even so much as an apology, or even admitting guilt? The country where corporations have so much power that some people find it hard to believe voting in elections still makes sense?
The country that had Dmitri Sklyarov arrested for breaking a law that wasn't even in power in the country where he lived and worked? The country where the corporate world is a circus of lawyers, with the lawsuits flying even beyond the country's borders, draining the recipients' money and energy, even thought the lawsuits are often completely without merit? The country that, at the same time, lets some of the worst offenders go unpunished?
Yes, there's a lot of USA bashing in this post. Yet, I feel it's no more outrageous than the suggestion the parent makes that the USA is the best country in the world to protect free speech on the Internet. I can think of plenty of countries that would be on about equal footing with the USA.
Re:and who better than the US... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:The Minutes Of The Meeting (Score:3, Insightful)
HAHAHAHAHA!
I like how Germany passed the EU constitution so overwhelmingly through it's parliament while it's people had similiar ambivalence toward it as the French did. I mean, it was not only off by public opinion by a few percent - but the vote of 569 to 23.
I wonder if it went to referendum, how overwhelmingly it would have passed. Or not.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4539393.stm [bbc.co.uk]
We can trust our democratically elected officials for nothing. It's not surprising when the vote in most democracies gets reduced to that of the South Park election parody - Douche vs. Turd.
The thing that has bothered me most... (Score:5, Insightful)
It has been interesting to see, how surprisingly many will state that the UN is same as the EU, which it isn't, and how ignorant the general population can sometimes be. (To these people I would recommend to take a quick look to the world history and how things have built up.) All this however is (at least in my opinion) a clear sing of some sort of anti-EU attitude that is growing in the USA and this can turn into something bigger and worse in the future. It looks like that the USA would really like to cut all connections to the outside world and start living in the isolation. This is especially sad, because there seems to be more and more issues nowadays that require international co-operation between countries. So, all this anti-EU and anti-UN crap I have seen lately is doing nothing good to anyone.
Personally, I don't care how is controlling the Internet as long as it is kept free and functional for everyone. Things have been working pretty decently so far, so why to change anything. But what I care is this ignorant mentality, which seems to color news stories related to EU or UN.
Finally, as far as I know, the UN is not a "nation". It doesn't have a nationality. This seems to be a thing that most people tend to forget. Also, I have understood that the UN does not have a single body or single agenda, which it is trying to pursue. The UN was designed to be a democratic organisation with different sub-organisations, which try to improve this world we are living in. Yes, sometimes some individuals might have some selfish motives, but in the general, the UN was meant to be something completely different what American people seems to think.
OK, now I stop this ranting. Sorry if my opinions hurt somebody. And sorry about my bad English. It just pisses me off to see this black and white thinking I've seen lately when reading news and forum postings.
Re:No binding authority.. (Score:5, Insightful)
This committee will now start its work and lay down a precedence on how the different countries can cooperate and make international agreements when it comes to how to run the internet effectively. Again, with the blessing of most UN nation as always is important when forming working international law. Of course, much precedence is already made by ICANN, but many countries were not particularly impressed with how ICANN has been run. This committee will make start making suggestions to ICANN how to change its course on certain issues. And in some years down the line, ICANN will again have to justify its existence, and the UN will by then have a working system to take over if this committee does its work properly (and ICANN doesn't).
I guess this can be seen as the first step to get rid of ICANN, or a chance for ICANN to reform. Whatever spin you like to put on it. It is at any rate a good thing that an agreement has been reached.
Re:The Minutes Of The Meeting (Score:5, Insightful)
Do the US vote who gets to be Secretary of State? Defence? DHS ? Didn't think so.
SecDef has absolutely no power over American citizens or American Armed Forces. He doesn't even have the authority to tell a private in the Army to drive him somewhere. He certainly can't launch nuclear weapons. What he can do is relay the President's orders to the Armed Forces, act as the second voice of approval in a nuclear launch (two-man system), and advise the President on matters relating to defense.
In the American system of Government that's what the cabinet does. It advises the President. The only cabinet member that you could make a case for needing to be an elected official would be the Attorney General. And there would be disadvantages of having him elected as well -- he could be open to political pressure -- which is the reason why we don't elect Federal judges and they have lifetime appointments. Of course having him appointed by the President is a conflict as well (if he needs to investigate the Executive Branch) -- but that's what Special Prosecutors and Grand Juries are for.
Nobody said it was a perfect system but it seems to have worked well enough for the last 200 years :)
I'll tell you why... (Score:2, Insightful)
The siblings are missing something here. This only makes sense if you abandon the philosophy upon which the internet is built. The founding principle of openness is just as important as the fundamental technology.
How much hubub has been raised around China trying to sensor its part of the internet? Perhaps not enough, but the paradigm you suggest would allow a state such as China to choose not to make any peering agreements and flood the local "intronet" with its own propaganda. It would become just another state run news outlet.
Re:and who better than the US... (Score:4, Insightful)
Do they shut them down by getting ICANN and NetSol to remove their DNS records? No? Then it's not a relevant point.
Re:I'm sure the US will listen to everyone else... (Score:2, Insightful)
And the UN was acting on the same intelligence. There is a big misconception in the US that the UN hasn't been punishing Saddam. The truth is that it has been doing that for years, ever since the invasion of Kuwait in 1990, through economic sanctions, in a bid to limit Saddam's power, and save hundreds of thousands of innocent lives. Most of the world wasn't against the US in punishing Saddam. They were against the use of force without convincing evidence. Turns out they were right.
I don't really understand why the American public looks down at the UN. Probably because they don't understand its role. Over the years it has done a great job in many places. It's not perfect, of course, but it's always ready to take on the dirty jobs that no one else wants.
Re:I'm sure the US will listen to everyone else... (Score:3, Insightful)
And the obligatory "Yay free markets!".
Re:The Minutes Of The Meeting (Score:2, Insightful)
Yeah, I'm sure glad the American government doesn't try to do stuff like that.
- is what I'd say if I hadn't read a newspaper in 50 years and was completely ignorant of things like "digital rights management" or "the USA PATRIOT Act".
It must be nice to live in a cave... on Mars... with your eyes shut and your fingers in your ears.
Re:Get our of your hole (Score:5, Insightful)
That's because the US didn't really suffer all that much because of the nazis. Yes, they lost quite a few soldiers; but Europe was reduced to smoking ruins and half of it was occupied by Soviet empire. Germany still hasn't recovered completely; the eastern half still suffers the results of the communistic dictatorship era, a direct result of nazism.
But put on a T-shirt saying "Osama rules !", go stand next to where the World Trade Center used to be, and start giving Al-Qaida recruitment leaflets to everyone passing by. Let's see how long you'll walk free.
Once you've been arrested for being a potential terrorist, you can reflect on how Al-Qaida is to Americans pretty much what Nazi Party is to Europe, with about 10 000 -fold difference in deaths caused by them - in material destruction the difference is simply uncomparable; Al-Qaida destroyed two scyscrapers, World War II reduced most major cities of Europe to rubble.
The point here is that Americans, at least in this respect, are no more or less free than Europeans; the USA simply has a different boogeyman.
Actually, didn't you revolve so that you wouldn't need to pay taxes to England ? And now you pay them to Washington instead. The more things change ;)...
A nonexistent state can not curtail anyones freedoms, so this is hardly surprising.
Re:Doesn't this remind you of AT&T? (Score:5, Insightful)
The real answer is that no single country should be trusted with control of the Internet and that the UN didn't want to control but to manage the 'net.
Re:The thing that has bothered me most... (Score:1, Insightful)
The US doesn't tell China that they can not level such controls over their countries internet domain. China wishes to put what westerners consider censorship over their
This shows that indiviual nations have control over the internet in their country if they seek it.
I do not see where the UN has the technical infrastructor needed to managed what ICANN does. Also, ICANN is being turned over to the private industry, recall that you couldn't get a domain except throught the ICANN arm.
Since the mid 1990's there has been a group working on turning the control over to the private industry at an international level and that is happening, the first of which was the registrants, they are companies from around the globe.
The UN is supposed to the the new and improved "League of Nations". The UN should focus more on political matters. A country that doesn't allow industry the room to manage and grow their business will have strife amongst it's citizenship.
The UN should work to improve individual freedoms around the world and thy must do this at the political rather than business level.
In order for businesses to strive and at the highly competative global level, a political system must be in place that encourages individual freedoms. Strivung globally improves a nations prosperity and therefor improves the opportunities it's citizens can partake in.
The current structure of ICANN is right for the present state of the world, and the future should see private industry in an even greater role worldwide.
The UN has more pressing issues to spend their time and resources on. The cost of these meetings in personnel and costs could have went to Human Rights issues on nations that violate them.
Monique Bizzell
Yay! (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:and who better than the US... (Score:3, Insightful)
Excuse me but I believe Canada has far more freedom than the US has. Gay marriage, marijuana acceptance, your soldiers fleeing here, DMC and RIAA free, only recently did we get gun registration, no Intelligent Design forced in schools, available cheap prescription drugs and free medical care, a very diverse multi-cultural society...I'm sure there are lot's more examples!
Sure we have our faults but I think overall we have the most freedom of any nation. Part of that is Geography, look at where the US and Canada are, we have no enemies at our borders, we have two oceans (three for Canada) between us and most of the World. We have been isulated for the most part from World aggression throughout our history.
Re:Get our of your hole (Score:4, Insightful)
Once you've been arrested for being a potential terrorist
Actually, merely wearing a t-shirt that says "Osama Rules" would not get you arrested for being a terrorist. It certainly wouldn't get you convicted for anything. And before you throw out the name Jose Padilla or anybody like that, I'd like to point out that there's a huge difference between wearing a t-shirt (arguably free speech) and planning a dirty bomb attack. Not that I wouldn't agree with you that he is being unfairly held without trial.
Wearing such a t-shirt at ground zero would likely paint a giant bull's-eye on your back and get the shit beaten out of you. In fact wearing such a t-shirt anywhere in New York City would probably ensure that you got an ass-whooping. But that's just fine -- free speech doesn't mean you get to escape the consequences of your speech. It only means that you get to say it in the first place. And I rather suspect if I wore a Nazi armband to certain places in Europe that I would get the shit beaten out of me too :)
Passing out the recruitment leaflets could be another matter. That would probably be considered supporting a terrorist organization. But you were passing out leaflets telling Al Qaida's side of the story (infidels in the Holy Land, Israel, etc, etc) you wouldn't be breaking any laws. Think I can pass out leaflets in some European countries telling Hitler's side of the story?
The point here is that Americans, at least in this respect, are no more or less free than Europeans; the USA simply has a different boogeyman.
I disagree. I think I've made my point in the paragraphs above :)
Actually, didn't you revolve so that you wouldn't need to pay taxes to England ? And now you pay them to Washington instead. The more things change ;)...
Actually it wasn't the fact that we were being taxed by the UK. It was the fact that we were being taxed by them and no representation in Parliment. Leading to the rallying cry of "No Taxation without Representation".
Re:The thing that has bothered me most... (Score:3, Insightful)
Standard news will make the UN look bad all on it's own- which you'd know if you've been paying any attention to the oil-for-food scandal, or any other story that's popped up in the past decade or so.
It just pisses me off to see this black and white thinking
I'm sure you're into all sorts of sophisticated and multi-layered shades of grey, but when it comes down to it, there is still Good, Evil, Better, Worse, etc. People like you would use the justification of 'sophistication' to shut down your naturaul-born facilities for judgement, and actually consider any situation less clearly, and take no resolute position or action- all in the name of appearing 'compassionate' and 'understanding'. Such thinking makes a man less useless, slow, and indecisive.
Don't keep your mind too open, buddy, or people will throw a lot of trash into it.
Re:and who better than the US... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:If the UN took control (Score:3, Insightful)
UN: Sorry, the rest of the world doesn't agree.
USA: You must do as we say.
UN: But really, the rest of the world doesn't agree.
USA: You are running out of time. You must do what we say, and do it now.
UN: You are irritating the rest of the world. They want something else. You should respect that.
USA: The fact that you don't take your responsibility to do as we say, proves you irrelevant because of your disrespect for freedom and democracy.
UN: Still, the vast majority is against your proposal.
USA, puts fingers in ears: DOASWESAYDOASWESAYDOASWESAYDOASWESAY NOW YOU FORCED US TO START BOMBING TO DEFEND THE FREE WORLD. THE FREE WORLD, THE FREE WORLD, THE FREEEEEEEEEEEE WORLD. WE ARE THE FREEEEEEEE WORLD, NOONE IS FREE ONLY WE ARE FREEEEEEEEEEEEEE, THE FREEEEEEE WORLD, THE FREEEEEEE WORLD [...]
It aint broke (Score:2, Insightful)
Usually I'm not for the U.S. having special treatment (equal treatment under law), but I'll make an exception for the Internet. It works, it aint broke, it's internationally very libre and practically gratis. Everyone is also free to explore variations, fixes, improvements, etc. but this should be tested by techies and not bureaucrats.
I'm sure we'll eventually truly integrate Unicode in URIs but since ASCII and the Latin alphabet are at the heart of the C-like languages, *NIX, and Microsoft, it will never go away in computers. Unless of course we have to convert to alien computer technology.
No Need for a Central Control (Score:3, Insightful)
OTOH, the second one should not be centralized. There is no reason for having root servers. Replicating the DNS database is something quite easy so we should have root servers at least in each country (plus some additional ones). Additionaly every one should be allowed to use the root servers they want. Shutting down the us servers would have no effect on users. Massive changes would be detected and stopped. Limited changes would still be possible but at soon they're detected, people would be able to switch to a more 'reliable' root server.
Summary: no generic domain (.com ->
Re:I'm sure the US will listen to everyone else... (Score:1, Insightful)
At least we don't like corrupt FOREIGN beauracracies... Homegrown [whitehouse.gov] ones are just fine.
Re:The Minutes Of The Meeting (Score:4, Insightful)
Make no mistake, there were huge issues at stake here. Claiming that who has authority in the system is irrelevant is a case of cynical naivete. Cynical, because you're assuming that any system will be equally corrupt. Naive, because you underestimate how bad it can really get.
Re:Get our of your hole (Score:2, Insightful)
Last time I checked you were not allowed to burn the US Flag, though.
I can burn any flag I like.
My point is that Europe and US are largely similarly free. The difference is in the details.
People left Europe and came over to North America for religious freedom even before there was a United States of America.
That is true. Likewise, some people left the US to come to Europe during the McCarthy era for their political freedoms. Both Europe and the US have moved on since.
Conviction (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:I'll tell you why... (Score:3, Insightful)
That being THE WHOLE DANG POINT (Score:4, Insightful)
Nice troll, and good results so far in the modding anyway... The idea is that no one country should have "control over the internet" in ways that don't include oversight by others. "Transparency" is the usual jargon. Nobody, including us, has had it.
I've corresponded with some friends in Ireland and France over this one, and it's not like they haven't ever read the word "Carnivore" in a news item, you know? You'd like my friends to trust us because you wave a flag and think rosy thoughts about how we're founded on principles of liberty, or something? While all three branches of the federal government are in the hands of a party whose authoritarian leanings couldn't be more clear?
Re:Get our of your hole (Score:2, Insightful)
I always love to hear that argument. I love it because it broadens the definition of "free speech" so much as to render it utterly meaningless. By that definition, ALL human beings in all times, all places, and under all regimes had "free speech." Hell even Jews in Nazi Germany could "say it in the first place." Of course, they would be carted away to "worker camps" about 5 minutes after they said it, but hey, you can't escape the consequences of your speech.
-Eric
Re:A monopoly is a monopoly (Score:3, Insightful)
If a large proportion of the Slashdot crowd worked for Microsoft, I'm sure they'd cheer that monopoly on, too.
Re:Get our of your hole (Score:3, Insightful)
I completely disagree with your concept that being beaten to death does not take away your freedom of speech. In fact I can't think of a worse punishment than that for something you might say. Hell, if freedom of speech means getting a chance to say what you want to say then you always have that.
If you fear for your safety simply because of what you're saying or what you want to say, then sorry my friend, but you don't have freedom of speech on that topic.
Wearing a t-shirt that says "Osama rocks!" can be seen as exactly the same thing. After all you are supporting Osama by doing that.
Only if you agree first that being killed is not a way to restrict your freedom of speech. I think otherwise because I definately would refrain from saying those things if my life was at risk.
Re:Get our of your hole (Score:3, Insightful)
You didn't check very well, did you?
Re:THBBBPPPPPP!!!! (Score:4, Insightful)
while the rest of the world screams bloody murder at their stupid governments because they can't reach many of the sites they use daily. (Slashot being an example of this.)
You wrongly assume that the "rest of the world" eagerly read things on USA web sites.
First, as you undoubtly know, english is not spoken by everyone. Actually, Chinese and Hindi would be a better target language.
Second, there is many similar sites in many countries, which you probably do not know because you'd preferrably read american web sites first.
Third, what "sites" are used "daily" by, say the average people outside of USA? EBay, Amazon, Google, Yahoo, definitly not slashdot. All those big players have portals in other countries. So aside from technical documentation, research papers, american web sites are not so important to the "rest of the world". And you can bet the aformentionned sites or people would make sure the InternetS would both be reachable from where they are. That's how the internet started: exchanging research papers, results and such.
So, no, our american overlords are not so omnipotent that the rest of the world cannot live without them.
Chinese or Hindi (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:THBBBPPPPPP!!!! (Score:3, Insightful)
It kind of reminds me of the airliner thing. France and England got pissed that all the airliners were coming from the US, McDonnell Douglass and Boeing, and so decided to create their own aerospace company from scratch. But where was the British and French aerospace industry? Surely they have fighters built there, right? Why couldn't they build airliners?
Basically, if these countries had been half as progressive as the US was, they'd *already have* control of the Internet because they would have been there setting up DNS with us in the first place. It just bothers me. If you miss the boat, you can't swim out to catch it.
Re:and who better than the US... (Score:3, Insightful)
Now, with all the Freedom pissing contests going on in this thread, lets get one thing straight: None of us are free. We are free-minded, but in the real world, we aren't free to do what we want. We can't go and find a piece of land, build a home, and live on it. We have to pay someone (who paid someone else, who never really owned the land anyway), and then we have to pay taxes on the purchase, and then we have to pay yearly taxes on the property - sort of like a LEASE. If we don't get a job, we can't live on "our" land, so the Bank (who doesn't really own the land) gets to take it away. We are only free if we lump our existing responsibilities into what we call "Freedom."
Stop bitching about who is more free. The USA has shitty laws, Canada has shitty laws, everyone has shitty laws. Laws = control = lack of Freedom. If there is a law, it controls you in some way (unless it's the obvious Law #1 - no laws).
Re:THBBBPPPPPP!!!! (Score:3, Insightful)
Where was European and Japanese companies when we were developing DOS, CPM, Windows, MacOS, Xerox PARC?
I wouldn't be much of a Slashdotter if I didn't point out that you forgot Unix. Which of course was created by Bell Labs. An American outfit :)
Basically, if these countries had been half as progressive as the US was, they'd *already have* control of the Internet because they would have been there setting up DNS with us in the first place. It just bothers me. If you miss the boat, you can't swim out to catch it.
You don't have much of a reason to be progressive/innovative when you have a 35 hour workweek and can't get fired or laid off.
Re:No binding authority.. (Score:3, Insightful)
The main goal for UN is to formulate and shape international law, and in this day and age with the rapid rise in international trade and travel, the UN has become more and more important. As I point out, international law is not formulated in some parliament in a days vote, but takes long time to establish and set into practice. But when some principles of international law have become practice, it is also a long process to change it again. This is why the UN process is so powerful and so important for all countries to play a part in. The way to play a part is of course by having good diplomates and good allies. (The lack of diplomatic abilities is one area where the Bush team will hurt US interests on the longest time scale, for these reasons).
Take as an example the International Criminal Court which now starting to make indicements. Its history goes back to the court cases against people from the third reich in 1946 (and also international courts before), and it has been a very slow process to make it into a permanent court in charge of cases of genocide etc. But this slow process is what you get when you need to build a system which most of the UN nations will respect and abide by. You might think that ICC will not matter to you, but the fact is that international law and court verdicts by this court will have direct influence on the laws in the country you live in. For instance, there are several verdicts in the supreme court in the US where the ruling is based on what the judges see as international law. The ICC took a long time to make, but its rulings will also have a long lasting effect.
It is naive to think that the slow pace of the UN system is a sign of weakness. It is just a sign of the process, not of a bureacracy that is not effect.
Re:Conviction (Score:2, Insightful)
It doesn't matter if there aren't laws specifically against standing in New York with an "Osama Rules" t-shirt, if the US government can arbitrarily arrest people and put them in prison without trials. You don't need to have violated any laws, you're still in prison.
I don't think you would be allowed to wear a t-shirt with a Hitler motive in Germany. But if you are in America and female, you can be arrested for taking off your t-shirt in public. I don't really see why one law means "free speech" and the other doesn't. It's essentially the same thing, it's just that Hitler is taboo in Germany and sex is taboo in America. The difference is that in Germany you would at least have a trial, in America you can be thrown in jail without a trial and tortured (not theoretically, this is happening as we speak).