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!

US Internet Control To Be Topic #1 In Rio

kdawson posted more than 6 years ago | from the because-it's-my-ball-that's-why dept.

The Internet 325

Crazy Taco writes "It looks as though the next meeting of the UN's Internet Governance Forum is about to descend into another heated debate about US control of key Internet systems. Although the initial purpose of this year's summit was to cover such issues as spam, free speech and cheaper access, it appears that nations such as China, Iran, and Russia, among others, would rather discuss US control of the Internet. In meetings leading to up to the second annual meeting of the IGF in Rio de Janiero on Monday, these nations won the right to hold an opening-day panel devoted to 'critical Internet resources.' While a number of countries wanting to internationalize Internet control simply want to have more say over policies such as creating domain names in languages other than English, we can only speculate what additional motives might be driving nations that heavily censor the Internet and lock down the flow of information across it."

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

I like to eat shit (0, Troll)

Vaginal_flatulence (1153821) | more than 6 years ago | (#21311073)

.com. in chinese. with spaces.

Just wondering? (2, Interesting)

Paktu (1103861) | more than 6 years ago | (#21311077)

Why the hell would the US cede any control over the Internets to Iran? Do they have something to offer us in return, or something?

Re:Just wondering? (2, Insightful)

GC (19160) | more than 6 years ago | (#21311119)

From an infrastructure perspective it would be better to be able to traceroute a site in Australia/Asia from Europe and not have it go trans-atlantic / trans-america / trans-pacific to get to it's destination.

Russia, Iran and places like that could help a lot in that regard.

Re:Just wondering? (3, Informative)

ejdmoo (193585) | more than 6 years ago | (#21311159)

Why would it have to go through America? Not all internet traffic flows through the borders of the US.

The US "control" of the internet is administrative control (address space allocation, DNS stuff, etc); it's not the hub for worldwide internet traffic.

Re:Just wondering? (5, Interesting)

GC (19160) | more than 6 years ago | (#21311181)

I work for a small ISP and can tell you that the largest carrier of Asian traffic is NTT and all their infrastructure goes from east to west from a European point of view.

There is very little in the way of west to east Internet infrastructure east of the turkey and ukraine.

Check your BGP routing table and you will see I am right.

Re:Just wondering? (1)

Telvin_3d (855514) | more than 6 years ago | (#21311321)

In other words, every time a computer in England or Germany needs to talk to one in China, India or Japan, it gets run through hardware in the United States, right?

Re:Just wondering? (3, Interesting)

GC (19160) | more than 6 years ago | (#21311427)

Well, take this traceroute example from Spain to Saudi Arabia -

# traceroute www.nic.net.sa
traceroute to www.nic.net.sa (86.111.192.10), 30 hops max, 40 byte packets
...
  6 ge-1-0-0-4.r00.mdrdsp01.es.bb.gin.ntt.net (81.19.97.134) 21.455 ms 21.567 ms 21.551 ms
  7 p16-2-0-1.r22.londen03.uk.bb.gin.ntt.net (129.250.5.17) 48.011 ms 47.994 ms 48.084 ms
  8 ae-0.r23.londen03.uk.bb.gin.ntt.net (129.250.4.86) 48.070 ms 48.057 ms 48.159 ms
  9 p64-1-0-0.r20.nycmny01.us.bb.gin.ntt.net (129.250.3.254) 112.603 ms 112.117 ms 112.214 ms
10 p16-0.sprint.nycmny01.us.bb.gin.ntt.net (129.250.9.174) 116.553 ms 116.752 ms 116.385 ms
11 sl-bb24-nyc-11-0.sprintlink.net (144.232.13.185) 116.261 ms 116.371 ms *
12 sl-bb27-nyc-10-0.sprintlink.net (144.232.13.174) 112.265 ms 112.243 ms 112.241 ms
13 sl-gw35-nyc-15-0-0.sprintlink.net (144.232.13.39) 112.209 ms 112.189 ms 112.171 ms
14 sl-telec6-136681-0.sprintlink.net (160.81.172.170) 136.379 ms 136.357 ms 136.366 ms
15 pal6-pal8-racc1.pal.seabone.net (195.22.218.211) 248.549 ms 248.538 ms 248.440 ms
16 customer-side-saudi-telecom-kacst-4-sa-pal6.pal.seabone.net (195.22.197.190) 236.435 ms 235.944 ms 233.302 ms
17 vlan1.ruh-acc4.isu.net.sa (212.138.112.23) 223.492 ms 220.088 ms 219.564 ms
18 citc.ruh-cust.isu.net.sa (212.26.19.230) 280.758 ms 280.745 ms 280.845 ms
Hops 11,12,13,14 look like US hops to me.

Now my geography isn't excellent, but if you were flying to Saudi Arabia from Spain, would you connect in New York?

Re:Just wondering? (1)

rootofevil (188401) | more than 6 years ago | (#21311399)

so how is that the USs fault? because russia and other states in the region havent laid sufficient fiber, the US is somehow responsible?

Re:Just wondering? (0)

GC (19160) | more than 6 years ago | (#21311475)

so how is that the USs fault?
It's not the US's fault, that was never said.

However, for the good of the network as a whole the US should be taking a more active stance in encouraging these countries participation in Internet development affairs in general.

As it is, I see a xenophobic US stance, by many so called informed and presumably intelligent individuals in this discussion, that the network should be US run, US controlled etc...

Stances such as 'It's our Internet', 'We can't trust other countries', 'most countries in Europe prosecute people for thought crimes.' (I couldn't believe I actually read that one!).

Come on guys, wake up, smell the coffee, stop watching so much TV and don't believe all the crap that you're force fed everyday by your media.

Re:Just wondering? (5, Insightful)

rootofevil (188401) | more than 6 years ago | (#21311549)

france and germany actively prosecute people selling paraphanelia from the 3rd reich on auction sites, and france has attempted to enforce this policy on the site itself, regardless of where the auction is being held.

north korea, china and most of the middle east actively filters what its citizens are allowed to read. china has imprisoned journalists for publishing information it does not want posted, and have frequently deemed things 'state secrets' to cover up goings on inside their borders.

meanwhile the US is not perfect, however a group of senators recently had a very rough conversation with the yahoo execs regarding china and what happened with a journalist there. its better than nothing.

youll understand why im somewhat hesitant about allowing iran and china a say in how this whole thing is being run.

Ubuntu (and thus Linux) is a piece of shit (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21311501)

I just spent over an hour trying to get a DVD movie to play. Even the morons in the various forums were of no help.

To Mark Shuttleworth: make Ubuntu play DVDs out of the box or at the press of a button, fucking asshole.

Re:Ubuntu (and thus Linux) is a piece of shit (1)

Celarnor (835542) | more than 6 years ago | (#21311533)

This isn't really relevant...

You can't make DVDs play out of the box in Linux due to the state of copyright law in modern America. Mostly, you have the Digital Millenium to thank for this. However, if the DMCA doesn't happen to apply to you, or if you don't particularly care about the current incarnation of copyright law and want to stick it to the man, libcss is quite available for you to download out of the box.

Automatix should be able to help you with this, and is available with a few clicks over the intarwebz.

Re:Just wondering? (1)

moderatorrater (1095745) | more than 6 years ago | (#21311651)

Correct me if I'm wrong, and i almost certainly am, but is that because you're a small ISP? If you were larger and running some backbones I could see requests for European sites going through your routers, but if you're not running major routers, all this means is that your customers are requesting a lot of sites from asia and very few asians are requesting sites from your customers, which, from a small ISP, isn't surprising in the least.

However, if I'm underestimating your ISP or I'm misunderstanding something else, please correct me.

Re:Just wondering? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21311325)

you're right. "not all internet traffic flows through the borders of the U.S." Only about 80+ percent.
But not all.

Re:Just wondering? (4, Funny)

1u3hr (530656) | more than 6 years ago | (#21311185)

From an infrastructure perspective it would be better to be able to traceroute a site in Australia/Asia from Europe and not have it go trans-atlantic / trans-america / trans-pacific

Do you ralise how expensive that would be to the NSA? They'd have to tap into a lot more undersea cables that way.

Re:Just wondering? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21311187)

Um, no. That's not how the tubes work. And you're a fucking idiot.

Re:Just wondering? (1)

dbIII (701233) | more than 6 years ago | (#21311633)

would the US cede any control over the Internets to Iran

Because there might be people clued up enough to use "internet" instead. This used to be a tech site.

Censorship? (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Brave Guy (457657) | more than 6 years ago | (#21311079)

While a number of countries wanting to internationalize Internet control simply want to have more say over policies such as creating domain names in languages other than English, we can only speculate what additional motives might be driving nations that heavily censor the Internet and lock down the flow of information across it.

Not to be confused, presumably, with a nation whose government has a demonstrated history of violating the privacy rights of its own citizens and stating on the record that it doesn't accord any such rights at all to anyone who isn't one of its own citizens, including the vast numbers of Internet users from other nations whose traffic is all but certain to pass through systems under its jurisdiction, and within which it has repeatedly been shown that major communication providers are more than willing to provide the government with access to traffic they carry without proper authorisation anyway.

Nope, I can't imagine how any other nation in the world could see a problem with that. There is no danger whatsoever of industrial espionage, interception and decoding of confidential government transmissions, or investigations of private citizens of high influence, and none of them could be used to further the interests of a nation with such access at the expense of others anyway.

Re:Censorship? (1)

paranode (671698) | more than 6 years ago | (#21311121)

You do know that stuff you send over the Internet is not considered private, right??

You're delusional if you think funneling it through more countries or even just different countries is going to make it more private.

Re:Censorship? (2, Insightful)

mOdQuArK! (87332) | more than 6 years ago | (#21311137)

Since the parent was referring to the concept that OTHER countries don't want THEIR traffic monitored by the U.S., your response indicates that you must be an idiot.

Re:Censorship? (1)

ravenshrike (808508) | more than 6 years ago | (#21311199)

The administrative control that the US currently has as no major effect on the US's, specifically No Such Agency's ability to monitor that traffic. It may make it slightly easier, but really not all THAT easier. However, there's a reason the main proponents of this are Iran, China, and Russia. And it ain't because they want to spread warm fuzzy feelings to their citizens.

Re:Censorship? (2, Insightful)

omeomi (675045) | more than 6 years ago | (#21311247)

You do know that stuff you send over the Internet is not considered private, right??

Maybe not from a technical point of view, but from a legal point of view, you can certainly get into a lot of trouble intentionally intercepting private communications over the internet.

Re:Censorship? (1)

Slithe (894946) | more than 6 years ago | (#21311131)

Not to be confused, presumably, with a nation whose government has a demonstrated history of violating the privacy rights of its own citizens and stating on the record that it doesn't accord any such rights at all to anyone who isn't one of its own citizens, including the vast numbers of Internet users from other nations whose traffic is all but certain to pass through systems under its jurisdiction, and within which it has repeatedly been shown that major communication providers are more than willing to provide the government with access to traffic they carry without proper authorisation anyway.
As long as their are major systems in place (routers and such), that will always be the case, as it is in any country.

Bad News... (2, Insightful)

Penguinisto (415985) | more than 6 years ago | (#21311143)

Unless its encrypted, you have no privacy online. Just ask any SMTP admin, or for that matter, anyone with a packet sniffer. This means that privacy means absolutely zilch when it comes to infrastructure. (Note that how individual sites handle your personal information is another story entirely...)

/P

Re:Bad News... (1)

GC (19160) | more than 6 years ago | (#21311243)

Unless its encrypted, you have no privacy online. Just ask any SMTP admin, or for that matter, anyone with a packet sniffer. This means that privacy means absolutely zilch when it comes to infrastructure. (Note that how individual sites handle your personal information is another story entirely...)
Very true, and even if they can't decrypt your encrypted traffic, they still know who's talking to who, and that can be pretty useful for them as well. Sometimes you might be better leaving it unencrypted to ensure you don't arouse false suspicion.

Create their own network then? (4, Insightful)

DarkTempes (822722) | more than 6 years ago | (#21311167)

If it's such a big problem the nations that don't like how the US-run internet works can always just seperate from the network and create their own network (or at least threaten to).

Though I doubt anyone has the balls. Personally ICANN/IANA does a pretty good job at what it does, and the FCC seems to only step in extremely rarely (if at all). And I promise you that a large majority of nations, if not every nation, intercept/store/decode internet information. Changing who 'owns' the internet would not change that at all. It would just potentially change who gets what IP blocks (alot of businesses would be pretty upset if this changed), what TLDs are official and valid (and nothing stops a nation from having their own ISP's DNS servers adding TLDs), and I guess some protocol stuff.

The US may do some terrible things but with regards to the internet it's policy is typically 'do not regulate if possibly'. Unless that changes this is all just a bunch of moaning to stur up anti-american sentiments.

Re:Create their own network then? (4, Insightful)

cyphercell (843398) | more than 6 years ago | (#21311397)

Personally, until china, russia, and many others clean up their goddamned spam issues, we ought to talk war, when they talk about "their" Internet. Seriously, expecting an effective Internet from these people is like expecting safe toys [google.com] from a nation well known for blatant human rights abuses [google.com] .

Re:Create their own network then? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21311541)

If it's such a big problem the nations that don't like how the US-run internet works can always just seperate from the network and create their own network (or at least threaten to).

Yes, they can just do that. Now given that it's going to cause a lot of headaches all across the world, including within the USA, if this happens, it's in everybody's best interests to come to an equitable arrangement where this is not necessary. And the most direct way of doing that is to share control of the Internet. Sharing - remember that? It's good, especially where network effects are concerned.

Though I doubt anyone has the balls.

Uh, yeah, China. They make their own microprocessors, their own operating systems, they have their great firewall. A non-USA-controlled network infrastructure is the next logical step.

The US may do some terrible things but with regards to the internet it's policy is typically 'do not regulate if possibly'.

That's why Google and Slashdot have been censored wrt. Scientology, why 2600 have been censored wrt. DeCSS, why they are leaning on Russia to censor MP3 sites, etc?

this is all just a bunch of moaning to stur up anti-american sentiments.

No, having critical business infrastructure beholden to another country that is getting more unstable by the day is not "anti-American sentiments". It's basic common sense. Stop with the faux paranoia, you know damn well this has nothing to do with "America-hating", so stop pretending you are being persecuted.

Re:Censorship? (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21311207)

Whatever problems the USA may have, practically speaking there is no better guardian of the Internet. You think the UN would do any better? The organization where the Human Rights Council is run by countries like Syria, Sudan and Libya? The USA may not be perfect, but it's the best the world has to offer at the moment.

Re:Censorship? (1)

Pyzaros (674474) | more than 6 years ago | (#21311283)

If you limit your choices to Syria, Sudan, Libya, and the USA - maybe. Throw Canada, England, France, [Insert First world Country Here] into the mix, and the "best" choice isn't so clear.

Re:Censorship? (1)

moderatorrater (1095745) | more than 6 years ago | (#21311673)

I absolutely agree with the exception that France and other first world countries have a tendency to not limit rogue countries (see the entire military infrastructure of pre-2003 Iraq). While France itself isn't going to do something bad, they're not going to keep another country from doing something bad. The US isn't perfect, but it's better than France in that Respect.

England, through CCTV, has shown that it's no better than the US when it comes to privacy. Germany's laughable in its computing laws and knee-jerk reactions to video games (not directly related to the argument, but a symptom). Canada doesn't have the cajones or the ability to back any international policy, Russia and China belong in the first group you listed. Anyone else?

Re:Censorship? (2, Insightful)

jonwil (467024) | more than 6 years ago | (#21311335)

Encrypt it and/or use Tor & friends.

I want a world where encrypting internet traffic is as routine as locking the house when you go out.
I want a world where encrypted internet traffic (especially email, IM, chat, voice chat, video chat and other private communications) is the rule and not the exception. And the encryption should be done in ways that prevent man-in-the-middle attacks and snooping. No computer outside of yours and the one at the other end should ever see the plain text or encryption keys. For real time communications such as IM and voice chat, the encryption should be performed using keys calculated at runtime (with diffe-helman or similar) and thrown away after the communication is finished to prevent anyone from being able to hack into your PC and steal the keys (or force you to hand them over).

Re:Censorship? (1)

SeekerDarksteel (896422) | more than 6 years ago | (#21311705)

Not that I don't agree with your sentiment, but man in the middle attacks are incredibly difficult to defend against without a secondary trusted channel, which is simply not feasible for a lot of internet traffic.

Re:Censorship? (4, Insightful)

drmerope (771119) | more than 6 years ago | (#21311373)

Apparently you live in some sort of reality distortion field. Well here's the deal: communications used to use microwave communications. These were easily intercepted and routinely. This sort of stuff is called 'Signals Intelligence'. A nice British chap,a former assistant directory of MI-5, was at the forefront of this this, and he wrote a book about his experiences called spycatcher [wikipedia.org] .

The book also provides an examination of the techniques used by the intelligence services, along with a candid expose of their ethics which had until then been mere speculation (notably the "11th commandment" which states that "thou shalt not get caught"). Wright explains many of the technologies used by MI5, some of which he developed himself, and which allowed the agency to bug rooms using a variety of clever electronic techniques.

These technologies have been updated for fiber-optics. Yes, a lot of interception takes place directly in the United States, but in fact it is going on all over the world. Its done by all of the major powers, not just the United States--and guess what, they are all spying on eachother

You're mistaken in thinking that privacy is better part of liberty. No, liberty is only liberty when it doesn't matter who knows or doesn't know what you are doing. Its our liberty that makes the US different from the autocratic regimes which rule many countries in the world. Every government is listening; only some let you do what you choose regardless.

Wrong issue lemming (3, Insightful)

SuperKendall (25149) | more than 6 years ago | (#21311473)

Not to be confused, presumably, with a nation whose government has a demonstrated history of violating the privacy rights

Stop right there, privacy is a different issue than censorship.

"Brave Guy" indeed, what a lemming. Just spouting off the same message about privacy issues even when it has nothing to do with the topic under discussion!

And as a last thought, are you seriously going to sit there and say a U.S. citizen has more to worry about from their government than a citizen of *Putin's Russia*? Than any Chinese citizen?

Come on.

Well I'd hope (4, Insightful)

Sycraft-fu (314770) | more than 6 years ago | (#21311105)

They'd talk about really internationalizing it. You know, things like setting up a new system of non ICANN roots and such. Try and get infrastructure that is independent of the US systems but interoperable and then once it is established and working well, talk about redelegation of control. For example if the EU were to set up a central agency that controls a bunch of EU based roots, mirror the ICANN root zone, get all that going well. Then they go and talk to ICANN and say "Hey, how about we split the root zone, we take the EU nations, you keep the rest, we both mirror each other." Do that in a few places around the world we could have a DNS system with more regional control, that would also be outside the ability of a single government or governments to screw up. For example if the EU later decided to be jerks, ICANN and others could stop accepting their updates, and people in and out of the EU could use the other roots.

However I have a feeling that it is going to be like most of these meetings where people just whine that the US companies should have to give up control of their resources to some international oversight body. In addition to being rather greedy, this is also stupid. Having a bunch of systems in the US that control everything but are theoreticly under international control changes nothing. The US government could change their minds at any time, and if the companies and servers are in the US they'll do as the government says because they won't have a choice. You haven't really solved anything, just added more bureaucracy and more people who can control what's going on normally but the buck still ultimately stops with the US government.

The real answer is many systems, all around the world, that are controlled by many groups. In that way there really isn't a single group that "runs" the Internet. Of course that isn't what most nations are at all interested in. They are interested in just having the US keep control, so long as the US will do what they are told.

Precisely! (4, Insightful)

Chas (5144) | more than 6 years ago | (#21311355)

From what I've seen thus far, all they've done is demand control of systems and services that don't belong to them (but they're given use of).

Unless they're willing to actually, y'know, INVEST in supporting the infrastructure (their own root servers, etc), they need to step off.

It's like some of these nations that get sent food demanding steak instead of the grain.

Re:Well I'd hope (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21311401)

you must be new here.
on a more relevant note, how's about this. there is absolutely no way that any entity which has been decreed power shall yield it voluntarily. if you choose this to be a "U.S. thing", then so be it. it would be asinine, but so be it.
and, btw, if you seriously think other nations can tell the U.S. "what to think", then i question your take on world events. far better would be for all parties to simply acknowledge the egos involved and move on.
even better would be to not attempt recognition in a forum which yields nothing. but that's a judgment which shall both haunt me and net a harsh moderation.

Really, (4, Insightful)

jd (1658) | more than 6 years ago | (#21311451)

I'd hope that control of the Internet was taken out of the control of any non-representative body. I don't care who is not getting represented, the important thing is that the Internet is a federation of networks and you cannot have a federation that is run by a theocracy. If it's a federation, it cannot have anyone in overall charge, which is the way the Internet should be run. Particularly if it is supposed to be resilient to damage (cyber attacks, nuke attacks, etc).

Re:Well I'd hope (2, Interesting)

moderatorrater (1095745) | more than 6 years ago | (#21311695)

The real answer is many systems, all around the world, that are controlled by many groups.
Good idea. The group in Russia is actively attempting to hack all the other systems, the Chinese group is hacking other systems while censoring everything coming/going out of it, and the US group is setting a standard and then not following it so that you get locked into a proprietary system. Whether you like it or not, the best government is a benevolent monarchy; when there's actual wrong doing, then something will be done. Until then, too few people will care to build momentum for a change.

Make your own Internet (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21311107)

If you really need to control one. I'll stick with the "US Internet" 'cause it works fine.

why not set up a `seperate internet?' (1)

bogaboga (793279) | more than 6 years ago | (#21311115)

Although the initial purpose of this year's summit was to cover such issues as spam, free speech and cheaper access, it appears that nations such as China, Iran, and Russia, among others, would rather discuss US control of the Internet.

Instead of whining, these nations should explore means of setting up a separate Internet backbone. I understand this is entirely possible, though I cannot speculate on how it could be implemented at all. Go figure!

Re:why not set up a `seperate internet?' (3, Insightful)

GC (19160) | more than 6 years ago | (#21311135)

You mean like Alt roots [wikipedia.org] ? or a complete seperate network without any interconnections between the two?

The whole point of the Internet was to interconnect systems.

On a more general note, are any other non-american slashdotters noticing a rather alarming number of questionable political posts on this site recently?

Us non-americans might need to go get ourselves our own slash site too. :-)

Re:why not set up a `seperate internet?' (2, Insightful)

1u3hr (530656) | more than 6 years ago | (#21311211)

are any other non-american slashdotters noticing a rather alarming number of questionable political posts on this site recently?

Especially the little rider to the summary "we can only speculate what additional motives might be driving nations that heavily censor the Internet and lock down the flow of information across it." There was nothing in the Yahoo article linked about censorship. So who is "we"? And how about the motives of countries that know that the US is spying on every byte that passes through its jurisdiction (and probably a lot that don't)? They have no reason to be concerned -- no, they must be only motivated by the desire to censor?

Re:why not set up a `seperate internet?' (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21311349)

Several high ranking Chinese officials (Including the one whom the UN would put in charge of the Internet) have been quoted as wanting to "Clean up" the internet and stop the spread of "Misinformation". Think about it.

Re:why not set up a `seperate internet?' (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21311409)

Never mind the Chinese, every now and then there are AMERICAN political officials who toss around the idea of censoring the internet (legally). THOSE are the ones we need to keep an eye out for. As long as American politicians keep their heads out of their asses/take their heads out of their asses, the U.S. won't cede control of the Internet anytime soon.

Re:why not set up a `seperate internet?' (1)

Nefarious Wheel (628136) | more than 6 years ago | (#21311145)

Shouldn't be too hard to set up a .fred instead of .com, should it?

I for one welcome our new A-level domain overlords.

Re:why not set up a `seperate internet?' (1)

omegashenron (942375) | more than 6 years ago | (#21311203)

When they do set up their own highspeed internal networks or even talk of doing so, slashdotters and the US gvt say omg restriction form the world wide web. A quick google shows this: "China's bid to divide the Internet" [slate.com] where the author slams china's development of a high speed internal network and participation in protocol design.

Give the guys a break.

Re:why not set up a `seperate internet?' (-1, Flamebait)

bogaboga (793279) | more than 6 years ago | (#21311255)

A quick google shows this: "China's bid to divide the Internet" [slate.com] where the author slams china's development of a high speed internal network and participation in protocol design.

The author of that article should be reminded that nations of the world are free to determine their own destiny good or bad just like the US did and continues to do.

For example the US as a nation has single handedly contributed to the devaluation of the dollar, messed up in Iraq and pushed vast numbers of its own population into poverty. No nation complains about this.

Re:why not set up a `seperate internet?' (1)

guabah (968691) | more than 6 years ago | (#21311559)

You're right, they do should build their own internet, with blackjack and hookers...

Give it to the UN? FU! (2, Insightful)

p51d007 (656414) | more than 6 years ago | (#21311139)

Give control of the TLD's to the Useless Nations, and watch what can be said, posted and read disappear. If these other countries don't like the fact that the USA (who invented the net) runs it, then develop your own and leave the rest of us alone.

Re:Give it to the UN? FU! (0)

GC (19160) | more than 6 years ago | (#21311161)

USA (who invented the net)
Umm, I would rather say that the US (actually DARPA) founded the Net, and back then it wasn't anything like it was now, they didn't even have IP, let alone TCP/IP.
Since those early days the development of the Internet has been a multi-national collaborative effort.

So, basically, you are wrong.

Re:Give it to the UN? FU! (1)

deftones_325 (1159693) | more than 6 years ago | (#21311217)

well back when there weren't a lot of computers on a network, there would be no need for transmision control or collision detection. thats like saying the Wright Brothers didn't invent flight because they never built a jumbo jet.

Re:Give it to the UN? FU! (1)

GC (19160) | more than 6 years ago | (#21311287)

thats like saying the Wright Brothers didn't invent flight because they never built a jumbo jet.
You very succinctly prove my own point! [first-to-fly.com]

Re:Give it to the UN? FU! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21311461)

ok, so the GP is a tard and doesn't understand that the wright brothers could not have "invented flight", in that birds have prior art (by a few k-years, i would suppose).

the assertion of the U.S. creating "the net" is most certainly valid, though. to suggest otherwise is the height of arrogance. or a french perspective. the two are sometimes difficult to discern.

irregardless, let us suppose that there actually exists an international body which could perform these duties. one which cannot be influenced by a particular sovereignty. just for the edification of all reading this thread, can you provide the name of such an organization?

or do you console yourself with the belief that your access to an established infrastructure came with the rest of your surroundings? if, in fact, you reside outside of the continental united states, do you suppose that the technology you enjoy is a fruition of the greater consciousness?

Re:Give it to the UN? FU! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21311661)

Because this Brazilian started building an airplane a year AFTER the Wright brothers flew, you discern from this that the Wright brothers did not invent flight? Being Saturday night, I'm going to assume you are way passed drunk.

Re:Give it to the UN? FU! (3, Informative)

JBMcB (73720) | more than 6 years ago | (#21311303)

The Internet basically refers to a wide area network of computers connected by TCP/IP. ARPANET was the first network to operate on TCP/IP, which was also created by DARPA. The word "Internet" was coined to describe this type of network in RFC675. The modern internet sprang from NSFNET, a clone of ARPANET created by a few US universities. Sorry, the guts of the internet came from the US. That's why we run the thing.

The web was invented at CERN, so if you're Swiss you can be proud of that. It was an evolution of Gopher, however, which came from the University of Minnesota. Go gophers! :)

Re:Give it to the UN? FU! (1)

IvyKing (732111) | more than 6 years ago | (#21311597)

Umm, I would rather say that the US (actually DARPA) founded the Net, and back then it wasn't anything like it was now, they didn't even have IP, let alone TCP/IP.


If I'm not mistaken, TCP was invented in the US and tested ca 1977 (see a recent CNet article on the 'Internet Van'. The focus outside the US was drawing up the specifications for the OSI networking stack. The first widely available OS to support TCP/IP was BSD 4.2 - though it may be argued that Berzerkeley isn't really in the US...

Re:Give it to the UN? FU! (1)

omegashenron (942375) | more than 6 years ago | (#21311237)

Fine you can have the net, but by your logic, world wide web design and content should be approved by Switzerland since it was invented there.

Have fun with your bbs

Re:Give it to the UN? FU! (1)

jd (1658) | more than 6 years ago | (#21311361)

The US invented IPv0 (which nobody uses any more) and DARPAnet (which nobody uses any more either). How this differs from Europe's X.25-based International Packet Switch Stream, I don't know. Other than IPSS was routinely subscribed to by members of the public long before Compuserve provided an Internet gateway, of course. Did I mention that IPSS was also available for multimedia systems (CAS Online was fully graphical, for example) and computer games (eg: Essex University's MUD-1)? These sorts of systems existed in the US via bulletin boards such as TBBS and FIDONet, sure. And doors-based games were none too shabby. Many a poor soul got lost in massively multiplayer online turn-based games. In comparison, can you name me the truly massive game engines of DARPAnet? No, 16-player X11 games don't begin to get close to some of the stuff out there.

They want to control U.S. what? (0, Troll)

deftones_325 (1159693) | more than 6 years ago | (#21311155)

ARPA designed the ARPANET. Long story short...Other contries need to sit down! Unless they came up with the idea of ehternet and redundant pathway internets. United States can do whatever we want. We built the fucking thing. Moderate away non-US nerds.

In Soviet Russia, (3, Funny)

Ethanol-fueled (1125189) | more than 6 years ago | (#21311171)

You control botnet.

Uh, what? (2, Insightful)

ChromeAeonium (1026952) | more than 6 years ago | (#21311173)

Those nations could encourage economic prosperity that would encourage their citizens to create web pages, thus increasing how much of the internet they 'control'.......or they could just bitch that the people who invented the internet used their native language.

Re:Uh, what? (1)

Lulfas (1140109) | more than 6 years ago | (#21311323)

That I think is the biggest point. This appears to be another case of Johnny come lately's mad that they didn't do something first. "We know you figured it out, and created it all. But... uh... give us it anyways!"

Easy! (1)

Pasajero (164368) | more than 6 years ago | (#21311183)

All other nations have an easy solution:

If something is in your way go around it. Disconnect your net from the USA. If all nations isolate the USA then probably you have something to negotiate with. If not, then you have some begging to do.

disclaimer:

I'm an American and I live in the United States, just not the "America" ones.

It's all about censorship (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21311223)

It is sometimes difficult for Americans to comprehend that very few countries understand the concept of the free speech and a free press. For example, in our 21st Century, most European countries will prosecute individuals for thought crimes. In Russia, the state continues to repress the free press. The Russian web and broadcast outlets have become targets for Putin's heavy handed interference.

Muslim countries block access to web sites deemed too sexual or which differ in religious outlook from their repressive theology. China? Well, we know that story all too well. The quest of these regimes toward control of the the Internet is not rooted in a desire for "freedom" or "diversity". Quite the contrary. It is a desire to control and repress.

Re:It's all about censorship (-1, Flamebait)

harshmanrob (955287) | more than 6 years ago | (#21311329)

The desire to control and repress is part of the long term plans of the Evangelical Christians here in the US. Their desire to control thought and crush dissent is just as appetizing as it is to the Chinese communist party. But fortunately, smarter (yet more dangerous people) are using the open internet to track the activities of others rather than trying to censor it.

Don't fret, censorship is coming to the US soon, but not before they are done getting red list/blue list together. Internet 2 will be the "US Internet" that one will have be licensed to use and one will take oaths of pledges to allegiance of the evil aggressor state of Neocon America.

People who think that "freedom" or "diversity" are alive and well in America needs their head examined.

"The United States is a nation of laws: badly written and randomly enforced." -- Frank Zappa

Re:It's all about censorship (1)

Bill, Shooter of Bul (629286) | more than 6 years ago | (#21311391)

Your first paragraph is arguably true ( Evangelicals are losing power now, and they might want some greater censorship they would never be able to agree amongst themselves what should be censored), but the rest is just crazy. Its like you posted it on the inter.... oh wait, we are on the internet. Then its like you posted it on slash... Ah forget it. But it is that crazy.

Neocons are in decline, any movement lacking that much common sense is destined to fizzle out. Now its just a scare term those on the far left fling around to scare everyone to vote with them. Much like the term liberal is used by far right conservatives.

Re:It's all about censorship (2, Informative)

G Fab (1142219) | more than 6 years ago | (#21311463)

I don't disagree with you very much, but do you understand what a neocon is? It's a fusion of liberalism and conservatism.

Like you seem to understand, the far right is very much like the far left (look at Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich). Absolute liberty and extreme isolationism, for some reason lead to similar conclusions from the opposite point of view. Socialism in practice sometimes works through fascism.

Anyway, a neocon is similarly blended, but in an attempt to be moderate. It's not really all about israel, that's just a misunderstanding used by demogogues.

Whether we're on the same page or not, you're right to be skeptical of the paranoia above. The fundamentalist christians have less power now than they did yesterday. Their ability to control will never reach what it once was, and just as the GOP is going to nominate a pro-choice neocon with the pathetic blessing of Pat Robertson, the ability of the overly religious in america to exert power is weakening... it may swing back at times int he future, but never back to where it was in the early 90s. They had their chance to dominate, and they couldn't then and certainly won't in the future.

But that's not true everywhere.

The internet, liike many things that were invented decades ago, is an American thing used by the entire world. That's not to the detrimant of the rest of the world, as its productivity seems to be eclipsing the US quite a bit, but we made this internet, and it's fair that we have more control over it. Until we do such a bad job that there is enough incentive to make a new network, we ought to keep what's ours. It's not like we're any more evil than the UN... quite less actually.

If this is about waving dicks around by each nation, then ok. If it's about fairness and justice, then we have the better case.

what "neocon" actually means (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21311563)

It's the modern way for anti-Semites (on both the Left and Right) to say "Jew" while appearing to be socially correct.

Re:It's all about censorship (2, Insightful)

Bill, Shooter of Bul (629286) | more than 6 years ago | (#21311333)

Thats the funny thing. Most of the posts here in favor of internationalizing the Internet are complaining about a loss of privacy due to NSA wiretapping. Well a lot of the countries that want it to be internationalized, want more control over the content that can be viewed. Much less passive, and much more oppressive. Even if it were to be reorganized such that the US held no special pull on the governance of the internet, you can bet that wouldn't stop the NSA. Its mainly an academic topic, the benefits of any potential internationalizing of the internet don't outweigh the potential problems.

Re:It's all about censorship (0, Flamebait)

Robert1 (513674) | more than 6 years ago | (#21311525)

Exactly. No other country has a history of free-speech like the US, nor do they have it so prominently featured in their government, nor do they have a history of holding free-speech in very high regard. Yeah, the government may overtly monitor traffic (as I'm sure all governments do!) but that really has no basis for who controls the internet. Why in the hell would give the single most open tool for communication to regimes that are the defacto standards for censorship and oppression?

Seriously slashdot, why are you so stupid sometimes?

thought crimes (2, Insightful)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 6 years ago | (#21311381)

according to Nightline NBC, horny men who get chatted up by someone who claims to be a 14 year old girl and then show up at the allotted place for sex can be arrested in the US for attempted child abuse or similar charges.. sounds like thought crime to me.

Re:thought crimes (1)

yndrd1984 (730475) | more than 6 years ago | (#21311487)

14 year old ... show up at the allotted place for sex ... sounds like thought crime to me.

If they just thought about it, it wouldn't be a crime. Heck, if they just talked about it, it wouldn't be a crime. But when someone plans to commit a crime, and then shows up to commit it, then it's no longer just "thought", is it?

There are plenty of other ethical issues with this sort of thing, but it isn't punishing people based solely on their thoughts.

Re:thought crimes (1, Interesting)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 6 years ago | (#21311519)

I like the way Nightline NBC never reports any of the cases where the accused have pleaded not guilty.. I imagine the case goes something like this:

Judge: right, we're here because apparently you intended to have sex with a minor, is that correct?
Defense: yes, your honor, my client was on Nightline NBC and..
Judge: oh, this shit again. Where is this minor that you intended to have sex with? Is she in the court room today?
Prosecution: uhh, no your honor, but we have members of the police and..
Judge: I'm sorry, what part of the 6th amendment don't you understand? Either get the accuser in here or you've got no case.
Prosecution: well, umm, there *is* no 14 year old girl.. we lied to him.
Judge: the accuser is fictional?
Prosecution: yes.. but the accused sure thought she was real.
Judge: This isn't story book time. This is a court of law. We don't do fiction here. Case dismissed!

or, ya know, at least in a world where rationalism was valued over witch hunts. Tell me, if I intended to kill someone who didn't exist.. like, say, Mr Burns from the Simpsons, would a court in the US hear the case? What if I really really thought Mr Burns was a real person? Like, really.

Re:thought crimes (1)

tony1343 (910042) | more than 6 years ago | (#21311663)

Actually, I don't believe the cases go that way. Intending to have sex with a minor is a crime. If you think someone is a minor and you intend to have sex with them that is a crime. I don't believe mistake of fact (person isn't actually a minor) here is going to be a defense.

Re:It's all about censorship (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21311417)

In Russia, the state continues to repress the free press. The Russian web and broadcast outlets have become targets for Putin's heavy handed interference.

The US doesn't exactly have free press either. While usually, almost anyone can publish almost anything, the main media outlets are all controlled by a few companies and organisations who rarely publish anything anti-government. Also, anyone can get almost anything censored in the US nowadays by simply sending a DMCA takedown request.

In your free-press nation, try printing an article on how to remove AACS or BD+ from a HD disc.
Try publishing an article that contains something about Prince.
Try publishing an article that talks unfavourably about Scientology doctrine.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_in_the_United_States [wikipedia.org]
AT&T Censor Pearl Jam http://www.blacklistednews.com/view.asp?ID=3962 [blacklistednews.com]
CBS News hid Abu Ghraib crimes http://www.blacklistednews.com/view.asp?ID=4396 [blacklistednews.com]
C-Span Cuts Off Caller Who Discussed Bush Executive Order http://www.blacklistednews.com/view.asp?ID=3848 [blacklistednews.com]

Re:It's all about censorship (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21311489)

It is sometimes difficult for Americans to comprehend that their country isn't the most free in the world, and that Europe isn't full of evil communist dictatorships that prosecute people for 'thought crimes'. Because all those European countries such as Austria, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Macedonia, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom -- which scored better than the United States of America in the 2007 Reporters Without Borders Annual Worldwide Press Freedom Index -- obviously have no concept of freedom of speech and a free press.

Russia is not the entirety of Europe, nor does it make up a majority of the countries in Europe. How did your bullshit manage to get modded +4 Insightful?

Re:It's all about censorship (1)

Kjella (173770) | more than 6 years ago | (#21311551)

It is sometimes difficult for Americans to comprehend that very few countries understand the concept of the free speech and a free press. For example, in our 21st Century, most European countries will prosecute individuals for thought crimes. In Russia, the state continues to repress the free press. The Russian web and broadcast outlets have become targets for Putin's heavy handed interference.
If by "thought crimes" you mean things like mass slander, mass libel, mass threats, denying genocide with one hand while encouraging it with the other then yes. They're more than words, and if said about a specific individual the US courts would react too. Why they think it doesn't matter when it's a group I don't know, perhaps they're under the mistaken impression that it is too generic, too vague to punish. We have learned the hard way that this is false, that this is how you drive a people into committing mass murder. Something is seriously wrong if conspiring to kill one man is a crime, but conspiring to create a new Holocaust is free speech. Nobody on this side of the pond believe that if you just flush it into the open, everything will sort itself out. The markings, the ghettos... ok perhaps people didn't know about the death camps but they sure knew jews were being rounded up and treated like subhumans.

On a completely different note, I'm glad I live in a country that doesn't go apeshit over a tit on TV or someone saying a bad word. And if you want to talk insults, the muhammed cartoons came from europe. Right now here in Norway an extreme-comedian Kristopher Schau is trying out the seven deadly sins, and apart from some advertisers threatening to pull out noone is talking about a legal reaction. And don't get me started on the US coverage of the Iraq war, the Pravda had more critical press than that. In short, unless you're advocating to take basic human rights away from someone, and I'd say "all men are created free and equal" is pretty basic, then you'll have free speech. There are limits like yelling fire, kiddie porn and such. You can't just go "We have more free speech, we win." because I don't think encouraging hate crime is of the good sort.

Re:It's all about censorship (1)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 6 years ago | (#21311577)

1. Godwin's Law
2. People who commit murder are the criminals, not the people who tell em to do it. That goes for hit men too.
3. Limiting any kind of speech is starting down a slippery slope that has been shown again and again to lead to persecution.

Re:It's all about censorship (1)

Eli Gottlieb (917758) | more than 6 years ago | (#21311627)

4. He's from Norway, and as long as the oil money pours in they will continue to act as the social-democratic counterpart to America -- rich, arrogant, ignorant, and telling the rest of the world how to live their lives.

Don't mind it.

Re:It's all about censorship (1)

keeboo (724305) | more than 6 years ago | (#21311605)

It is sometimes difficult for Americans to comprehend that very few countries understand the concept of the free speech and a free press.

How patronizing...
It is sometimes difficult for Americans to comprehend that very few countries think that farts from the U.S. smells better than the rest either.

The one who posted this article made a careful choice of listing countries like Russia, China and Iran. Nice manipulative way to put this situation.
Where's "Brazil" in that list? (the article mentioned that country)
The guy ommited that - how clever! Let's add North Korea too!

Now, if China gov't want to use their internet structure to supress dissidents (as they currently do), quite frankly, that's between them and their people. Same for Iran, Russia etc.
Well, if the US gov't want to screw _their_ own citizens, that's ok for me. I couldn't care less.

And let's stop this BS of "ah, the US invented the internet".
Yeah, thanks. But did you pay for the structure deployed in my country?
Oh, you didn't? Then I guess we can do whatever we want, even screw that completely.

On the US side too (1)

aepervius (535155) | more than 6 years ago | (#21311613)

Don't be silly. The quest to keep control on US side is not based on free speech, diversity, melting pot and American way of life and whatnot. It is based on keeping the control on what is a vital part of all society : the communications pipelines. On both side it has been recognized it is a form of power and now both keep to get/keep as much of it as possible.

Re:It's all about censorship (1)

dbIII (701233) | more than 6 years ago | (#21311713)

It is sometimes difficult for Americans to comprehend that very few countries understand the concept of the free speech

It's true! When it comes to free speech the USA is in the zone!

For a comparison consider most of Europe, Canada, Australia and US newspapers from ten years ago. The point was valid BUT other parts of the world at looking at trends in the USA and are worried about exactly what is described in the previous post. Look past blind pariotism and muttering dark things about the darkies - they simply do not trust US management on this issue. I think the historical behaviour where everyone else pays the USA for traffic in either direction is really what is behind this.

I think that it's a great idea (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21311279)

The UN should take over the entire non-US part of the Internet, turn over management to such pantheons of freedom as China, Russia, Iran, Cuba, etc., and cut all links with the US Internet.

I say this as someone who will happily be on the US Internet after the split.

Why change a good thing? (1)

mehtars (655511) | more than 6 years ago | (#21311343)

Personally I think the US has done a phenomenal job of keeping the internet as open to the average joe as possible. By transferring control, they will probably just manage to mess things up, and find some way to add an additional cost.

Not completely innocent... (1)

RazorRaiser (895600) | more than 6 years ago | (#21311345)

"we can only speculate what additional motives might be driving nations that heavily censor the Internet and lock down the flow of information across it."

I really don't think the US is going to stay free of blame much longer, and I'm a somewhat privileged citizen.

Same old song and dance (1)

leereyno (32197) | more than 6 years ago | (#21311351)

China
Iran
Russia

Are these nations known for their defense of liberty? Are their citizens free?

The more things change, the more they stay the same. The internet is just another area where those who seek power to oppress their fellow man are hard at work erecting barriers to the free flow of information, barriers against truth. They did it with the spoken word. They did it with the printing press. They did it with broadcast media. Now they're sinking their claws into the internet.

Evil never sleeps and stupid never dies.

Re:Same old song and dance (1)

vga_init (589198) | more than 6 years ago | (#21311599)

Are these nations known for their defense of liberty? Are their citizens free?

Yes, and no. The concept of society in general is, at its most basic level, the relinquishment of individual freedom in exchange for human gain. To a certain extent, freedom harms a society, just as a certain extent of control would be just as harmful. All of the nations you've listed have prided themselves as being the best nations ever (most free, best society). The USA is no exception among these.

To put it differently, you believe that the USA is "known" for defense of liberty because that's precisely what you were taught to know, and people in your social group have been taught to know the same thing. That doesn't mean that the USA had not done great things for freedom in the past, but it always happens that these examples are affirmed constantly while whatever evil your nation has done goes unmentioned or put in the best light possible. For example, if you were from Iran, you'd probably know Iran as being the birthplace of human rights.

People in glass houses (1)

kwerle (39371) | more than 6 years ago | (#21311645)

leereyno,
I looked at some of your other posts, and I wish you had worded this one a little differently.

Are these nations known for their defense of liberty? Are their citizens free?

Patriot Act
Warrantless Wiretapping
Guantanamo

America is hardly at its height in the human rights game. Hell, we're confirming an Attorney General who isn't sure that waterboarding is illegal/torture.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21698732/ [msn.com]

No, we're not yet as bad as the nations you listed.

Evil never sleeps and stupid never dies.

But let's keep our eyes open.

ALLAH! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21311353)

All you goddamn americans need to die. FOR ALLAH!

Why not make it international? (2, Insightful)

Infonaut (96956) | more than 6 years ago | (#21311363)

After all, the UN is a model of efficiency and transparency. It should be easy to share control of the Internet!

I agree -- there should be an internet UN (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21311367)

I agree -- there should be an internet UN that handles this. I'm just thinking of 9 years from now when the Republicans take control again... and this time there really will be the technology to control everyone if thats what people want. Why would a foreign business want to have to deal with the US if they didn't have to anyway? (sad but true)

Re:I agree -- there should be an internet UN (2, Insightful)

Shihar (153932) | more than 6 years ago | (#21311699)

I agree -- there should be an internet UN that handles this. I'm just thinking of 9 years from now when the Republicans take control again... and this time there really will be the technology to control everyone if thats what people want. Why would a foreign business want to have to deal with the US if they didn't have to anyway? (sad but true)
Being something like 20% if the consumer market helps in getting business to want to 'deal' with the US.

As far as the UN 'handling' the internet, is this the same body that puts Cuba, Syria, and Libya on the human rights committee? The same guys that watched the Rwandan claim 10% of the population? Yeah. The UN is not exactly a model of speed and efficiency. By the time they realize they have a problem, it is a decade too late.

Of course, this is all an utterly moot point. The "control" the US has is just keeping a copy of the DNS list. You can actually go up into your browser settings and use someone else's list if you really want to. If the rest of the world wants to use a new system, absolutely nothing is stopping them other than that if they get out of sync with the US, they might have pissed off users. The US doesn't have to 'give up' anything. The rest of the world just needs to point their browsers in a different direction.

The internet is... (2, Interesting)

istartedi (132515) | more than 6 years ago | (#21311447)

...a network of networks. If every company I've ever worked for set up a private network, and decided to provide a restricted gateway, so can China. And, guess what? None of those companies created an international incident to do it. They just did it. And don't say that doesn't scale, either. It does.

That's a hell of a choice... (1)

Secret Rabbit (914973) | more than 6 years ago | (#21311459)

"we can only speculate what additional motives might be driving nations that heavily censor the Internet and lock down the flow of information across it."

The devil you know or the devil you don't. We know that *many* in the US want to limit free speech or otherwise censor the internet. So, how much further down that road will others take it.

IMO, the many could provide (depending on setup) a redundancy that could make many types of censorship moot. It's pretty hard to cut something off in a robust distributed environment. Bittorrent (at least) has proved that.

Well, that and the US's politics makes me *very* nervous about the future on freedom of speech on the 'net.

p.s. The countries chosen to be in that list seems rather loaded to me.

It's broken. Fix it. (1)

femto (459605) | more than 6 years ago | (#21311483)

There is something broken with the Internet if people are discussing who gets to control it. Control indicates centralisation and a point of failure. Rather than discussing who gets to control IP addresses and domain names, the discussion should be how do we eliminate these points of weakness and make those who want to have control irrelevant?

While it doesn't hurt to be politically active don't let it become an end in itself. Once the bickering starts the geeks are probably better to leave the politicians to it while getting on with the real job of routing around them.

Many topics are not on the agenda for Rio (2, Interesting)

karl.auerbach (157250) | more than 6 years ago | (#21311495)

Much of what is happening in Rio is not on the agenda.

Both the US Gov't and ICANN have tried to put many issues off limits, not the least of which is ICANN itself.

It is slowly dawning on people that there is a mad grab by industrial interests, with a lot of assistance from certain parts of certain governments, to lock-down large parts of the net and keep "the mob" (you, me, and the other people who use the net) as nothing more than puppet consumers.

That exclusion, which amounts to a total inversion of the idea that governmental authority derives from the people, i.e. a rejection of democracy, is a foundation stone of most of internet governance - see my note "Stakeholderism - The Wrong Road for Internet Governance" at http://www.cavebear.com/archive/rw/igf-democracy-in-internet-governance.pdf [cavebear.com]

look out for number one (1)

Max_W (812974) | more than 6 years ago | (#21311607)

I trust neither the governments of Russia, China, Iran, not the USA.

The USA is known to listen to all the international calls to / from its territory. What makes us sure that they will not listen to all VoIP calls?

I know well the mentality of the government people. They do not care of us, they do not care of our security. The friend of Tony Blair, the former UK PM, was the mastermind behind the Herbalife spam scam. He helped Tony Blair in another scam too? - to buy 2 apartments, almost legally, but times cheaper. So the government is the spam.

The US administration hijacked the values of democracy and freedom for the benefit of the US oil companies. Just like Napoleon hijacked the ideals of French revolution to conquer the whole Europe at his time.

Internet should be designed in such a way that the users have got the control. We. Not "kind", "wise", "caring", "honest", "noble" government officials, who in reality care only of themselves. Why shouldn't they?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?