Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Can There Be a Non-US Internet?

samzenpus posted 1 year,29 days | from the new-management dept.

The Internet 406

Daniel_Stuckey writes "After discovering that the US government has been invading the privacy of not just Americans, but also Brazilians, Brazil is showing its teeth. The country responded to the spying revelations by declaring it'll just have to create its own internet. In reality, although Brazil President Dilma Rousseff is none too happy with the NSA's sketchy surveillance practices, Brazil and other up-and-coming economies have been pushing to shift the power dynamics of the World Wide Web away from a US-centric model for years."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Oblig. (5, Funny)

JamesRing (1789222) | 1 year,29 days | (#44956413)

Re:Oblig. (5, Insightful)

TheRon6 (929989) | 1 year,29 days | (#44956435)

I thought we already had an internet filled with blackjack and hookers.

Re:Oblig. (1)

JamesRing (1789222) | 1 year,29 days | (#44956471)

Oh that's true! Thank God for that. :)

Re:Oblig. (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,29 days | (#44956759)

This is the only way for US to win, legalize free-market gambling!

Brazilians? (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,29 days | (#44956429)

How about the entire world.

Different Governments have Different Issues (5, Insightful)

billstewart (78916) | 1 year,29 days | (#44957055)

The most common reasons governments want to have non-US "internet governance" these days are that they want to restrict free speech and free reading by their citizens, or restrict some kinds of commerce by their citizens (US restricts gambling, drugs, etc.) There are other issues; most governments used to have telecom monopolies, either state-run or quasi-nationalized, though the 90s liberalized much of that away. Some governments would like more money to stay in their countries, or keep people from buying goods online that are heavily taxed locally.

It really irks me when international groups get together to talk about internet policy, and advertise their shindig as being about "ending the digital divide" or "providing connectivity to Africa" or other noble-sounding goals, but actually devote most of their agenda to governments wanting censorship. These days, of course, the NSA is giving them a good excuse to want internet governance so they can do their own wiretapping in case the NSA isn't sharing.

Technically yes; practically unlikely (4, Insightful)

YttriumOxide (837412) | 1 year,29 days | (#44956431)

While it should be relatively simple for any country to set up its own DNS servers, interesting services and so on; the sheer amount of 'information' that is hosted in the US would make any 'internet' experience without it severely lacking.

Actually... (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,29 days | (#44956491)

Short of a new network protocol you might have issues getting the IP blocks for international routing. The only way I can see it happening is during the migration to IPv6 and only if either the world unanimously votes to start their own equivalent of IANA allows current non-US blocks to remain allocated without paying a second time (perhaps simply paying their next renewal fee to the Internationalized replacement to 'port over') and formally choosing to disconnect from the US portion of the internet in order to avoid any segmentation caused by US routing tables disagreeing on IPv6 address ownership.

Personally however I think skipping over IPv6 and adding some 'forwards compatible' region address blocks to the protocol to better handle future networking needs (notably for offering an easier way to avoid 'namespace pollution' by seperating the networks into regions based off a numerical 'country id', and perhaps eventually even a 'celestial body' id would go a long ways towards avoiding another IPv4 style migration when we begin approaching the new networks limitations in what will probably turn out to be the forseeable future.)

Re:Actually... (1)

phantomfive (622387) | 1 year,29 days | (#44956547)

notably for offering an easier way to avoid 'namespace pollution' by seperating the networks into regions based off a numerical 'country id'

We already have this. That's why we have amazon.com and amazon.co.uk and amazon.de and amazon.fr etc. This has nothing to do with IPv4 vs IPv6, especially since the latter has more than enough addresses to last until we are off this planet (which will never happen).

Re:Actually... (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,29 days | (#44956839)

Except it has little to do with namespacing and addressing. The network topology of the Internet run a lot non-US Internet traffic through the US. (See the Snowden Powerpoints.) To fix that you need to start laying fiber.

Amazon.*** namespaces (1)

billstewart (78916) | 1 year,29 days | (#44957019)

Amazon's actually using the namespace partly because the publishing world has lots of weird national boundaries - a given book might be published in the US but not yet available in the UK because UK publishing rights haven't been sold to a UK publisher yet, or the UK edition may have different text, title, or cover - and they use the namespace to help keep that isolated.

Re:Technically yes; practically unlikely (5, Interesting)

khasim (1285) | 1 year,29 days | (#44956505)

Initially, yes.

But after a couple of years I don't think there would be that much of a difference.

As long as all the on-line commercial entities in that country were okay with never having any US business. Otherwise the NSA (and others) can demand access to their data in exchange for access to our markets.

And that isn't even considering the old spy standby of either getting one of your spies hired by them or offering one of their employees money to get you access.

The problems are not technological. They are human nature.

Re:Technically yes; practically unlikely (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,29 days | (#44956915)

It's quite amazing how many commercial entities get by just fine by never having any dealings with the US at all.

Re:Technically yes; practically unlikely (0)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | 1 year,29 days | (#44957005)

Yeah - look at Nokia for instance!

Re:Technically yes; practically unlikely (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,29 days | (#44956973)

Technically or otherwise it is quite possible. The Internet was designed to be distributed and fault tolerant. The two main things that put the Internet in the hands of the US is the ICANN, the cables under the control of the US entities, the rest are more or less artificial.

Re:Technically yes; practically unlikely (2)

flyingfsck (986395) | 1 year,29 days | (#44957077)

You are assuming that people in other countries actually find USA content interesting. Most people don't. That is why there are different countries.

National DNS roots (2)

Animats (122034) | 1 year,29 days | (#44956437)

The day may be approaching when some countries will have their own DNS roots and root servers. That's been threatened before, but now it's more likely to happen.

Re:National DNS roots (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,29 days | (#44956715)

That's how the internet has always worked.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Root_name_server

yes (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,29 days | (#44956453)

anything can be non-us based

what's stopping them from building an internet 2.0 stack? financial resources, technical ingenuity and will power are all that is needed

Re:yes (1)

Cryacin (657549) | 1 year,29 days | (#44956985)

And two out of three, ain't bad.

No (2)

symbolset (646467) | 1 year,29 days | (#44956467)

There is no way to defend an undersea cable from the submarine that will be splicing into it far out to sea after a ship accidently drags their anchor across it close to shore.

Re:No (1)

sjames (1099) | 1 year,29 days | (#44956489)

Not even nuclear mines?

Re:No (-1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,29 days | (#44956581)

I'd expect a less idiotic comment from someone with such a low UID. But alas...

Re:No (1)

sjames (1099) | 1 year,29 days | (#44956735)

So you don't believe nuclear mines would be an adequate deterrance?

How about large conventional ones?

of course you could read between the lines and guess that I mean there is a way given sufficient determination. Of course, I expect a certain percentage of ACs to be raised by wolves and barely literate.

Re:No (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,29 days | (#44956787)

Said determination would destroy the lines on its own, thus defeating its own purpose given that the submarine could be autonomous.

Re:No (0)

sjames (1099) | 1 year,29 days | (#44956935)

of course, there couldn't be anything like cameras to catch a party red handed, a mine to create evidence, or an encrypted channel. That would be so beyond anyone's capability.

Re:No (1)

philip.paradis (2580427) | 1 year,29 days | (#44956903)

I can't help but find this [palegray.net] a little ironic given the context of this story.

56 Marietta is a nice facility, though.

To get firmly back on topic, what you're suggesting is unworkable for many reasons. I've seen a few of those reasons firsthand.

Re:No (1)

sjames (1099) | 1 year,29 days | (#44956947)

Why ironic?

Re:No (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,29 days | (#44956509)

There are two methods: satellite based infrastructure, and fortifying undersea cables against submarines and anchors.

The problem with both of them is that they are both economically prohibitive. The NSA essentially found a Sorority that had an unlocked front door and got caught engaged in the most epic panty-raid in the history of unencrypted communications. End to end encryption is going to become the new norm, and stronger defenses against MITM & encryption back doors are going to become a requirement.

Study Cryptography kiddies, this is only the beginning of the arms race.

Re:No (1)

wooferhound (546132) | 1 year,29 days | (#44956613)

Crypt Kiddies . . . I like it . . .

Re:No (2)

symbolset (646467) | 1 year,29 days | (#44956901)

In cypherspace noone can read your stream.

Seriously though, satellites have too much latency, real ships have anchors too big to armor against. Especially considering they can use a supertanker or container ship if they have to and the sub can scope out a likely vulnerable spot to put the anchor. Quantum crypto: once the cable is cut you then need a subsea quantum repeater. Even if the tech were available it would be electronic and therefore subject to traditional signals intercept. Traditional crypto - theoretically possible but forever suspect. The NSA has some rather special people in the field and has poisoned the pool of available art. All of this is assuming they can't compromise or sniff the signal out of either end, which is probably the easiest route. You can't slant drill a conduit all the way across the Atlantic, and if you could the first good earthquake would cut your line.

I am sticking with "not practical with available systems and materials." Maybe one day, with entangled neutrinos or something.

Re:No (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,29 days | (#44956515)

Quantum encryption maybe?
Chances are that encrypted, distributed P2P networks will become more common, which may impact on the larger businesses.

Re:No (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,29 days | (#44956571)

It occurs to me that cutting the dedicated fibre lines of high-frequency traders would be a really effective form of protest.

Re:No (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,29 days | (#44956599)

That's what end-to-end encryption is for.

WTF is the point? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,29 days | (#44956475)

The only thing unique about the United States is the resources. That is what is so sad about this: the entire idea of "American Exceptionalism" is the notion that the United States stands alone as a country; Unique in it's respect for freedom and human rights. The NSA's violation of every honor code existing in TCP/IP has demonstrated the United States to be equally mediocre as any other country, where virtue and abuse of power are concerned.

Once you lose your credibility you can never get it back. Its actions have left the entire internet community in search for new social & technological methods for enforcing these basic tenets of privacy that were previously easy to support via a fragile honor system: the United States promised to not be a dick and molest other people's cake as it got passed to the left.

Re:WTF is the point? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,29 days | (#44956623)

The problem with the US is not just the resources, it's the pussy-ass attitude of spending all of those resources internationally on humanitarian and police actions. Those are freaking EXPENSIVE. Bombing the shit out of any piss-ant country who challenged the US would have been much cheaper.

Take away 100% of US humanitarian aid to foreign countries and 100% US military expenditure on defense or police action on foreign issues and that would save about a half a trillion dollars a year. And what would be lost? I don't know, every other country in the world manages to survive without spending a trillion dollars on foreign policy. If other countries want to bitch about US involvement, go ahead, stand on your own.

Re:WTF is the point? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,29 days | (#44956861)

You're thinking is outdated. The US isn't supporting US interests, multinational capitalism needs an army and we had one standing around. Everyone else is fine with the arrangement despite their euroleft whining.

Re: WTF is the point? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,29 days | (#44956699)

The 1% of the U.S. that owns all the money believes these things. The other 99% have morals. The problem is that the 99% honestly feel killing is wrong. Otherwise there would be more "terrorism" in the U.S.

Yes, but it won't make any difference. (5, Insightful)

Eskarel (565631) | 1 year,29 days | (#44956513)

Fundamentally the reason that the internet is US centric is partially the fact that ICANN is located in the US, but mostly because the most used services are based in the US. To create a truly non US-centric model you would have to relocate ICANN and come up with significant competitors to people like Google etc who have no US presence(once they have a US presence they're subject to all the same laws that allow the NSA to spy on you in the first place).

You could technically achieve this, but the countries which could be candidates for replacing the US in this position are not Brazil and would also spy on traffic. So unless this is yet another pissing match where idiots go in with the slogan "Anyone but the US", making the internet non US centric is a gigantic waste of everyone's time and money. I mean does anyone seriously believe that if Chinese companies displaced the US ones that China wouldn't spy on everyone, or that the Europeans wouldn't either also spy or allow the NSA to spy?

Re:Yes, but it won't make any difference. (1)

asmkm22 (1902712) | 1 year,29 days | (#44956635)

Also, and not to sound like an apologist, pretty much every other country has just as crappy government reputations for things like privacy.

Re:Yes, but it won't make any difference. (1)

aralin (107264) | 1 year,29 days | (#44956677)

No.

Re:Yes, but it won't make any difference. (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,29 days | (#44956705)

Please look into the EU laws on privacy.

Re:Yes, but it won't make any difference. (2)

stenvar (2789879) | 1 year,29 days | (#44956827)

I have. The EU laws on privacy laws have huge holes and exemptions in them for national security and other shenanigans. And even if they weren't, there is no guarantee that they are enforced either.

Re:Yes, but it won't make any difference. (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,29 days | (#44956747)

This seems to be a common strawman argument used when discussing the NSA and spying. No one has suggested that the only government spying in the world is the US. However, the US seems to be granted special privilages by the most of the world in that it is the only nation:

1. That does extraordinary rendition without having to be held accountable by any international body
2. Attacks and kills people in other countries via drones that they are not at ear with
3. Mandates cyberwarfare against not just "intelligence" targets
4. Operates prisons that were specifically created to circumvent human rights treaties and allow torture

Other countries may do some or all of these things but they are belittled, sanctioned, or bombed (usually in that order). The US does this "to protect its interests" and the rest of the Western world says "ok".

All of the items mentioned above happened after someone received "intelligence" and then acted on it. The US is not infalliable and they have made many mistakes that have resulted in innocents getting killed or imprisioned for years. If any other country did this (China, Iran, Iraq,etc) ....well the US and allies would have bombed them by now for being a threat to the rest of the world.

Re:Yes, but it won't make any difference. (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,29 days | (#44956765)

Hell....#2 should be war not ear =/

Re:Yes, but it won't make any difference. (1)

antifoidulus (807088) | 1 year,29 days | (#44956831)

The US is the only one that does this because the US is the only one powerful enough to do this. How quickly you seem to forget what the world was like before Pax Americana, here's a hint, it was a HELL of a lot bloodier than it is today. The rest of the western world accepts what the US does, often times begrudgingly, because regardless of what any self-righteous European says, Pax Americana is much better than what we had when Europe ruled the world. Ah Europeans, self-righteous unrepentant mass murders. Gotta love them.

Re:Yes, but it won't make any difference. (3, Interesting)

stenvar (2789879) | 1 year,29 days | (#44956835)

Other countries may do some or all of these things but they are belittled, sanctioned, or bombed (usually in that order). The US does this "to protect its interests" and the rest of the Western world says "ok".

Other countries have done lots of these things in the past themselves. They stopped doing it because they couldn't afford it anymore; some time in the 1950's and 1960's, countries like France and Britain increasingly just picked up the phone and asked the US to clean up their messes; it was cheaper, simpler, and less risky. And why did the US do it? Because it was pretty easy for it to do so, and because it gives it great power. So, the rest of the Western world doesn't just say "OK", it says "yes, please".

Re:Yes, but it won't make any difference. (4, Insightful)

Dahamma (304068) | 1 year,29 days | (#44956669)

ICANN? Give me a break, that's nothing. Do you even know what ICANN does? Not route traffic, of course.

Fundamentally the reason that the Internet is US-centric is that the US has paid for much of the infrastructure. It's not necessarily about the services either, it's about the routing. If Latin/South America wants to avoid traversing US infrastructure to route their packets to the rest of the world, they will have to build their own backbones and lay their own transoceanic cable. Until they do that it's pretty obvious their data is going to be inspected...

Re: Yes, but it won't make any difference. (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,29 days | (#44957089)

There is exactly one undersea cable that connects South America to the rest of the world that doesn't go through the US.

http://theterramarproject.org/thedailycatch/fiber-optic-submarine-cables/

Re:Yes, but it won't make any difference. (2)

Rantank (635713) | 1 year,29 days | (#44956767)

There is a major difference between China and America though. America is expansionist and a colonial power in nature, China is not. China's only interests in the outside world are face, advantage and income. China doesn't give a crap how many pressure cookers someone wants to buy, but if you want to buy some, they'd like to sell them to you. A Chinese influenced internet would probably remove anonymity and hand control of local users to the respective governments while preserving national borders and security. That's going to be a very easy sell to many countries.

In the short term the Chinese have banned the purchase of American networking hardware, and instead requires people to buy Chinese or if that's not available to buy European. In the long term, China has a history of putting it's money where it's mouth is when it comes to fixing situations it doesn't like. Tricks will only work once against China, after that they start working on a solution to prevent it ever happening again. It may take them years but expect that to occur with the internet too.

I don't know if the American government was naive or incompetent but they only have themselves to blame for how the world evolves the internet because of this. In the end we've lost something that may never have existed in the first place, but we lost it all the same. Thanks America... thanks for nothing.... talk about an own goal...

Re:Yes, but it won't make any difference. (2)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | 1 year,29 days | (#44956975)

China's ambitions of world domination are quite open. They just follow the old doctrine of communism: There's no need to conquer by force. Communism is the natural end state, all they need do is wait and victory will come peacefully.

They are officially communist still, even though their economy has adopted so many elements of the free market system now there isn't lot of actual communism left.

Re:Yes, but it won't make any difference. (1)

Eskarel (565631) | 1 year,29 days | (#44957041)

Man, what the hell kind of dream world are you living in. China may not give a crap how many pressure cookers you want to buy, but they sure as fuck care about your political opinions. Especially if you are or ever were Chinese. Ask any Chinese dissident whether they'd prefer the US was spying on them or China, hell ask most US dissidents.

The US spies on you, but for the most part it seems to have done a whole lot of nothing with any of the information that it has gathered, it's also restricted by law in terms of what it can prosecute you for. China is not, and has already hacked services to get the personal information of people who have "wrong" opinions and then arrested those individuals.

My fucking god I'm getting sick of this idea that China and Russia are good guys who don't oppress their people like the evil US does. The US is only bush league evil, China and Russia are major league.

Re:Yes, but it won't make any difference. (2)

Benaiah (851593) | 1 year,29 days | (#44956815)

If the world decided to leave the US internet, I'm pretty sure that a Competitor to Google/Facebook/Amazon/Netflicks would pop up overnight and happily take in all of the visitors. What actually makes the internet useful is all of the user created content like Wikipedia. Having 2 versions of such a service would be a tremendous waste of human resources. It wont happen though because its just 5% of Senators which are .001% of the population which have been fucking up the reputation of the whole of the US for their own agenda's. If the President wasn't in the pocket of everybody who put him there I'm sure his moral compass would have objected to abusing the privacy of every internet citizen. As soon as this starts to affect the bottom line of US Companies policy will change. However its on each and every citizen to rise up and protest. Or just bitch about it on twitter. At least do something rather be a part of the rampant apathy that has taken over the western world.

Re:Yes, but it won't make any difference. (2)

jandersen (462034) | 1 year,29 days | (#44956885)

...ICANN is located in the US, but mostly because the most used services are based in the US...

Even companies that are perceived as American are no longer really so. Yes, Google, Microsoft, Yahoo, IBM, Oracle, ... have head offices in the US, but the have a very real, physical presence in many other countries, including China. So, today "American company" very often means "a company that started in America", that's all. People in Europe, who use Google probably only pass through the US occasionally. The internet is already "non US-centric". The Brazilians, if they put a cable across the Atlantic directly to Europe and cut the one running to the US, would not even notice the difference.

Re:Yes, but it won't make any difference. (4, Insightful)

Eskarel (565631) | 1 year,29 days | (#44957013)

For the purposes of this argument any service which has any physical presence in the US whatsoever is a service based in the US. All such companies are required to comply with US law, which would include FISA warrants. That's the tricky bit you see.

Re:Yes, but it won't make any difference. (1)

Eskarel (565631) | 1 year,29 days | (#44957047)

As another point, Google no longer have operations in China for the specific reason that having any offices there subjected them to Chinese law.

Can There Be a Non-US Internet? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,29 days | (#44956531)

Does the Tin Man have a sheet metal cock?

Re:Can There Be a Non-US Internet? (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,29 days | (#44956691)

No, I heard it was 10" of solid rebar.

No escape from the NSA (1)

AHuxley (892839) | 1 year,29 days | (#44956533)

Over years the NSA has seen, predicted and pre positioned the US to always be at the forefront of any emerging export grade telco standards or code.
That global US backed standard infrastructure was invested into by many countries on good faith with 'private/public' hard currency loans with real interest rates.
The US and UK baited countries with speed, trade deals, low costs, crime fighting laws to ensure global uptake.
What can be done? Reconfigure all public and private core gov networking? No more wireless, on site staff or wired links. Water, gas, electrical, public/private medical billing, emergency services, transportation, police/jail/legal/gov... everything that a skilled outside spy agency 'needs' to track domestic patterns and target individuals.
Such an air gapped national system running domestic code would suggest to the US needs CIA/special forces teams 'on site' for long term database entry in the future.
An epic nation building boondoggle for domestic hardware supplies, skilled coders, telcos, engineers and private security firms.
The most important aspect the US seemed to have wanted to shape was standards of crypto, OS and database backends per nation. To be decoded and readable from the USA as needed with limited US or local staff 'knowing'.
So you need your own file system, own OS, own database, own crypto and understanding that all wider national and international networks are a constant threat.
Is your country any safer from the NSA and CIA/special forces teams on the ground than say the Soviet Union was? No, but the per site cost just went way up.

Re:No escape from the NSA (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,29 days | (#44956637)

No escape ?

Your perspective is rather limited, as, it seems, your imagination also is.

People thought there was "no escape" from the Nazis too,
and look what happened to them. When enough people
get fed up, all manner of change can happen.

You should study more history, there is much to be learned
from it.

/

Re:No escape from the NSA (1)

AHuxley (892839) | 1 year,29 days | (#44956723)

The US codes and access is hardcoded for law enforcement use per tower, exchange, switch.... the crypto is weak... trade deals dictated you have to buy into the US cloud, OS, databases and be open for business.
Thats a lot of trade law and basic telco infrastructure to rework for any single nation. As far as Soviet or German occupation experiences - people knew their countries where occupied, standards where set, secret police where well networked. Globally cryptographers, telco experts and their political leaders where happy to let their national networks be reduced to junk status after the 1960's.

Not a technical problem .... (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,29 days | (#44956539)

This isn't really a technical issue. Of course a non-US "Internet" can exist - at heart the internet is just a huge network of computers.

The real issue is content. What exactly would a Brazilian internet offer that would interest people in Sweden, the UK or Japan? Or for that matter, people in Brazil?

The US isn't just the predominant force on the internet for technical reasons, although they certainly help. The US probably have the world's largest group of creative people, and the websites and services they create are in English, the only real international language right now.

Big business has such a grip on popular web sites and services that it's easy to forget that many of the most popular sites today were started by a handful of people who had a good idea - like Google, Facebook and Yahoo.

Without good content and services, a non-US internet wouldn't get any visitors - it would be greatly reduced in value from what we have today. It's not impossible - the ability of other countries to ignore US software patents would be extremely useful - but it would take a number of years for the alternative internet to reach the level of usefulness that we have today. Is there enough incentive for companies and people to rebuild the internet from scratch?

Re:Not a technical problem .... (1)

durin (72931) | 1 year,29 days | (#44956661)

The onslaught of marketing from the (currently) big sites in the US has actually helped to kill off quite a few sites in other countries. Many of those sites offered the same thing as the big US sites, and predated them by a few years, but were mostly limited to the local spoken language.
As for the "US probably have the world's largest group of creative people", I'd like some of what you're smoking.

Re:Not a technical problem .... (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,29 days | (#44956871)

The problem is that this kind of "news" is the same kind of bs propaganda Americans have to deal with everyday. Brazil is definitely not trying to block US services or itself from the rest of the world. It's mostly trying to use the human and national rights card to bring servers, services and infrastructure to the country. And doing so by protecting it's citizens rights and holding the companies accountable, at the same time that they protect national resources.
Google and Facebook won't quit a free country with 200 million people just because they will have to spend some money abroad. Specially if you consider that Brazil is in the top countries for their services.

On a different subject, some of the things that are not being discussed in US or in the English speaking internet and actually matters (is true) is how US companies did strategic planning for previous governments (before Lula) that included privatizing communications, oil, energy, etc and having an actual american spy center in Brasília. Our previous governments were part of the American system, all that is coming out and Brazil has been asking for full disclosure so that we can know who is working for whom.

I do agree with you, ignoring patents would bring huge advancements all around the world, and even more in US if they were willing to do the same with their own patents (cause they already do with others patents).

Why do we keep discussing this... (4, Insightful)

geekmux (1040042) | 1 year,29 days | (#44956551)

...as if the United States was the first, last, and only country to hold a government that spies on its own citizens in some way?

Are we really THAT naive to think that A) the United States invented this concept, and B) no other government thought to do it too?

It's mentalities like this that shock me more than anything Snowden could reveal. I find mass ignorance far more alarming, as it tends to hint as to what governments are yet capable of doing to you. To all of us. While the deaf and blind vote for it.

We were ignorant enough to pay for and allow a program like PRISM to come to fruition. Sitting back assuming that no other country has a similar or same capability is like assuming no one masturbates because people don't talk about it.

Re:Why do we keep discussing this... (2)

AHuxley (892839) | 1 year,29 days | (#44956611)

Only the US, UK and 'friends' have the crypto standards, global locations, satellites, cpu power, cash, skill set, storage to keep it all going.
Domestically most nations can do anything they want to their own telco network and any links in/satellites systems above their country.
The rest is embassies, aircraft, spy ships, limited satellites and human spies - easy to track, limited and hard work.
Every other country has to use the US (NSA) telco network at some point if they want to reach out, or make a deal with the USA to be allowed to.

Re:Why do we keep discussing this... (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,29 days | (#44956733)

Hell, what do you think the Russian government is paying Snowden for right now? It isn't just to embarrass us.

Re:Why do we keep discussing this... (4, Insightful)

LordLucless (582312) | 1 year,29 days | (#44956879)

...as if the United States was the first, last, and only country to hold a government that spies on its own citizens in some way?

Nobody thinks that. But the United States was supposed to be different to the hundreds of abusive governments that had preceded it. This does demonstrate that the US is worse than any other government - it shows that it is exactly the same. And that's damning enough.

Re:Why do we keep discussing this... (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,29 days | (#44956981)

...as if the United States was the first, last, and only country to hold a government that spies on its own citizens in some way?

Argumentum ad hominem tu quoque.

Re:Why do we keep discussing this... (1)

gmuslera (3436) | 1 year,29 days | (#44957001)

US does more than spy on it's own people. Does it with everyone in the world, and specifically foreing companies too. And don't stop on that, hacks foreing carriers, force hardware, software, and internet services manufacturers to plant backdoors, and plant trojans and logical bombs in critical infrastructure of other countries. How many more countries does that? Even If you arge, that will be pretty far from the "everyone" of the 200 countries of the world

Remember when? (2)

EzInKy (115248) | 1 year,29 days | (#44956557)

It wasn't all that long ago that most stories about internet freedom covered the abuses of North Korea, China, and the Islamic Republics. Of course there were always a few comments, usually from our brave AC's, who claimed the US did the same but was better at hiding it. Bless all the slashdot anonymous cowards, keep up the good work.

in reality (2)

phantomfive (622387) | 1 year,29 days | (#44956567)

In reality, although Brazil President Dilma Rousseff is none too happy with the NSA's sketchy surveillance practices

In reality, getting a 'non-USA' internet won't do anything to stop the NSA. What difference does it make who gives out DNS names and IP addresses? (because that's what they mean when they say non-USA internet).

Re:in reality (1)

hyades1 (1149581) | 1 year,29 days | (#44956807)

What it will prevent is the ability of US law enforcement, which has long been the whore of US corporate interests, from stomping into US-based server farms and demanding all kinds of "evidence" which will then be used to file charges against people who are doing things US corporate interests might find inconvenient.

It's one thing for the NSA to spy on people and gather information illegally. It's another thing entirely to present such information in a US court and use it to shut down a website in another country, or convict somebody in a US court and demand their extradition.

Re:in reality (1)

phantomfive (622387) | 1 year,29 days | (#44957093)

What it will prevent is the ability of US law enforcement, which has long been the whore of US corporate interests, from stomping into US-based server farms and demanding all kinds of "evidence" which will then be used to file charges against people who are doing things US corporate interests might find inconvenient.

Moving DNS and IP assignment responsibility outside the US will not do any of that. Sorry, bro.

It Does Not Need To Be Done (2, Insightful)

vikingpower (768921) | 1 year,29 days | (#44956685)

The US, over the coming decade(s), will maneuver itself into insignificance, what with the deplorable state its infrastructure is in, its surveillance state, its ridiculous and money-devouring War on Terror, the antipathy its permanent and futile interventionist wars in developing countries. Already now, practically 100% of the start-ups I see with cool new stuff are not US American anymore. They are European, mostly. As a South African singer put it, a few years ago: "The sun is going down over America".

PHP & MySQL (0)

Max_W (812974) | 1 year,29 days | (#44956687)

Say, PHP&MySQL were not made in the USA.

Re:PHP & MySQL (1)

worf_mo (193770) | 1 year,29 days | (#44956967)

Hey now, no need to put the rest of the world in such a bad light!

Re:PHP & MySQL (1)

Max_W (812974) | 1 year,29 days | (#44957051)

Millions and millions of the websites cannot be wrong.

That is not what they declared (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,29 days | (#44956689)

That is not what they declared, building local cloud, secure email services and infrastructure is different from "creating it's own internet" and I never heard this wording here, only in "international" press. The big difference is that when someone talk like that it gives the idea that it will be separated from the rest of the internet. That is not what the Brazilian government is proposing.
The national constitution (I'm Brazilian) states that the State has to provide the basic rights that are not met otherwise (if you can't buy water the State has to provide it, there is free medical care, the best universities are free, etc). Since private communications are a basic right (our constitutuion and the universal declaration of human rights), they are planning to offer alternatives for people who care.
Honestly, to force local clouds seems like a double win. On one hand you make companies accountable for our citizens rights, on the other hand - the one I think is the main point here - it creates investments, infrastructure, brings technology and high tech jobs. The cables to Europe are a need, our internet sucks. I hope they make some cables to China and Russia too, as online gaming is better over there.
But mainly, there is no censorship here, Brazilians will not be separated from the internet and nobody in the country thinks that even a possibility. Specially since this government is the one that fought against censorship in the past, you know, during the US created military dictatorship from 64 to 86/90.

Re:That is not what they declared (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,29 days | (#44956753)

"they are planning to offer alternatives for people who care" I was reffering to the nacional mail service starting an email service. Just notice I wasn't clear.

I find very bad the press is giving this kind of twist, like the Brazilian government is turning Iranian or Chinese. We are fighting for human rights, not against them (and keeping things the way they are is against human rights). This balkanization thing that's going around is the same kind of bs propaganda you guys have to deal with everyday. Be aware and take care.

Yes (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,29 days | (#44956707)

Pssst,

Ever heard about China?

WWW (0)

Max_W (812974) | 1 year,29 days | (#44956717)

The Internet as we know it was invented in CERN, Geneva, Switzerland. The invention was released into the public domain by the CERN administration. That is why we have the WWW Internet.

Otherwise we would have several Internets: a Microsoft Internet, Apple Internet, IBM Internet, etc.

Geneva is an international city and the CERN is an international project.

Re:WWW (4, Informative)

drwho (4190) | 1 year,29 days | (#44956771)

There Internet (Arpanet) existed before WWW. WWW is a subset of the Internet.

Re:WWW (2)

Max_W (812974) | 1 year,29 days | (#44956841)

Yes, but what was it? One more obscure communication protocol.

The WWW Internet is a global phenomenon now. And the WWW Internet was invented by a physicist who was trying to solve a real physical problem.

He was trying to solve a problem of distributing scientific papers among CERN scientists. He did it during work time paid by CERN and on the CERN's computer.

The main database of the Internet, MySQL, is also an International project.

It is just not true that the Internet is sort of an US present to the world. It is not.

We thought that the US government is playing a positive role for the Internet. Until E.S. revealed what is really going on.

Instead of working together with other governments to fight spam, cyber crime, etc. it all came down to the total carpet spying on us, to creating back-doors. It is not nice at all.

Re:WWW (4, Informative)

Dynedain (141758) | 1 year,29 days | (#44956961)

Ever use email? Dropbox? Online games from your XBox or PC? FTP? VOIP? Bittorrent?

All these and thousands more are internet protocols that don't use WWW.

And, by the way, we do have multiple Internets (with a big I). Read up on Internet 2. And there's lots and lots of internets (with a little i) that you don't know about because they're not connected to the Internet (with a big i)

Re:WWW (1)

Max_W (812974) | 1 year,29 days | (#44957015)

There was the technology to transmit images over the telegraph still in 30s. But the real popularity of the net started with the invention of the WWW at the CERN.

By the way, the actual invention was done not by a programmer but by the an engineer who was doing the real work.

Re:WWW (2, Interesting)

Bogtha (906264) | 1 year,29 days | (#44956951)

WWW is a subset of the Internet.

This is a common misconception. The WWW is not merely stuff transmitted over TCP port 80 on the Internet. It's an information space that has the ability to use the Internet as a transport mechanism. It's not a subset of the Internet, it's a higher level abstraction than the Internet.

Anything addressable by URI is a node in the WWW. For instance, POTS telephone numbers are leaf nodes because you can address them with tel:. They are on the WWW but they aren't on the Internet. Something can be on the WWW and not on the Internet and vice-versa.

Re:WWW (1)

simonbp (412489) | 1 year,29 days | (#44956931)

The government of Switzerland may disagree that Geneva is an international city. Cosmopolitan might be the world you are looking for.

Also, it wasn't the web that prevented closed-garden internets, but rather universities. Until the mid 1990s, nearly everyone on the Internet (on any protocol) was at a university or research institute (like CERN). The universities weren't trying to make a profit, so they embraced an open architecture. It was US dominated, because then as now, most large research universities are in the US. Then, mainly US companies took that university network and popularized it. So, it's very much the fault of the US university system that the internet is so open.

Re:WWW (1)

simonbp (412489) | 1 year,29 days | (#44956937)

*word

Re:WWW (1)

Max_W (812974) | 1 year,29 days | (#44957045)

Actually, it is the government of the Republic and Canton of Geneva, which, is, indeed, in the Swiss Confederation.

It is Geneva International all right. It started with another grand idea. Henry Dunant, the founder of the International Committee of the Red Cross, came out with the idea that the wounded soldier does not belong to any state or government anymore. That she/he belongs to the higher authority.

This idea still keeps changing the wold.

Re:WWW (1)

DNS-and-BIND (461968) | 1 year,29 days | (#44957085)

Oh, puh-LEEZ! On Slashdot, no less! The Internet and the World Wide Web are NOT the same thing! That's just embarrassing. I'm embarrassed for you.

Then it wouldn't be the Internet; duh (0)

drwho (4190) | 1 year,29 days | (#44956763)

It's not the Internet without the USA. Sure, take and do what you want, filter all and so forth, but once you disconnect the USA, in its entirety, from your little country's network then it is not the Internet. I am not saying this to condone or damn NSA surveillance; I am just stating the facts.

Re:Then it wouldn't be the Internet; duh (1)

Max_W (812974) | 1 year,29 days | (#44956789)

The USA is a big and complicated thing. There are a lot of different people, groups, schools, parties, etc. in America. As everywhere else.

No one wants to disconnect the North America from the Internet. But its contribution should be positive. Nowadays it leaves an impression of a total eavesdropping of the Internet and it scares people.

The article 12 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights gives the right of privacy of communication and home to all people on Earth.

Re:Then it wouldn't be the Internet; duh (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,29 days | (#44956837)

did the USA actually sign up to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights?
There are a good number of international treaties that the US has not signed.

If I remember correctly, the US got away with Gitmo was because they hadn't signed that treaty.

If the UN wants to take a stand may I humbly suggest that the up-sticks and leave NYC. I am sure Brazil (as well as a host of other countries) would welcome them.

Re:Then it wouldn't be the Internet; duh (1)

symbolset (646467) | 1 year,29 days | (#44956929)

Exactly. Have you seen Europorn? Ick.

Can I attach my puke to an e-mail to Brazil? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,29 days | (#44956773)

Hypocrisy, Latin style.
As if Brazil's spy agencies weren't using the Web to spy on other countries.

The "no-content internet" (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,29 days | (#44956809)

The WWW has been around for at least 20 years. Other countries have had plenty of opportunities to create amazing websites, internet service etc. While there are all kinds of great English-language websites in other countries (like the BBC), well over 80% of popular English-language internet sites were created by US people and companies.

So we can pretend that everybody else in the world is suddenly going to get creative and entrepreneurial, but they have already had 20 years to do it. Why would anything change now? If the US internet went dark, almost nobody would know how to find an alternate search engine, and everyone would be clamoring for their Facebook fix ...

Disclaimer: I am not from the USA and I dislike the internet being so US-centric, but it is what it is - I'm not about to start denying reality. Mod me into oblivion if you so wish.

It doesn't really matter... (1)

theNAM666 (179776) | 1 year,29 days | (#44956881)

Because the NSA is still going to p0wn your routers. And find a way to get the data home. Done.

I still use a remainder of a non-US internet (1)

dbIII (701233) | 1 year,29 days | (#44956899)

The internet as we know it today was built out of a lot of national networks connecting into the US one. Initially charges for data transfer between such networks were very high so servers like mirror.aarnet.edu.au were set up to mirror popular content from other networks - in that case from outside of the Australian network AARNET. That address still has a mirror of a lot of popular content - now available with that newfangled http :)
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?