Posted on 07/16/2005 12:27:05 PM PDT by kerryusama04
BRUSSELS, Belgium - A U.N. panel created to recommend how the Internet should be run in the future has failed to reach consensus but did agree that no single country should dominate.
The United States stated two weeks ago that it intended to maintain control over the computers that serve as the Internet's principal traffic cops.
(Excerpt) Read more at wap.oa.yahoo.com ...
Internet for food scandal coming soon. The answer to the Usless Nations, as long as PRESIDENT BUSH is in office, is "NO".
Note to UN - fugitaboutit!!!!!!
Who authorized US participation on such a panel, effectively abetting its tacit authority?
Have they asked Algore's opinion, after all he invented the internet./sarcasm off
We created it. Now they want to eff it all up. (And censor)
No way!
From talking to friends around the world Ive found that most of them believed that the UN was this happy humanitarian organization. My friends wouldn't have a clue about the oil for food scandal or human rights abuses at the hands of the UN if it weren't for the internet.
Personally I think the UN doesn't like people talking to each other and spreading unfavorable news about them.
The Napoleon Syndrome is just oozing out of the UN.
Most of their meetings are held behind closed doors. CSPAN3 would really change the way those snobs do business.
Precisely correct. Think of it as the UN version of Feingold-McCain's CFR. One wants to censor the internet on an international basis while the other one wants to make sure that all domestic political speech is subject to strict regulation.
Government is not our friend.
Yep. They might also believe that the People created the UN.
Much of the worlds media only reports on the UN in a good light. Us pesky internet users keep screwing up the agenda.
If you want to see the future of the internet under UN control I would suggest looking at China or North Korea.
The UN won't be satisfied until they can rape, pillage, and burn over the Internet, too.
"The UN won't be satisfied until they can rape, pillage, and burn over the Internet, too."
Not to mention collecting taxes on its use.
That will come next, to protect them from the potential "drying up" of their traditional sources of revevue: you and me.
The UN needs to confer first with our former vice president who invented the internet. Al is very protective of his inventing the net.
I think we should give the internet to Panama.
There's nothing stopping the UN - or you, me or anyone else - from setting up their own root name servers. Any computer could then use said servers either on their own, or at the same time as they continued to use the standard servers; all it would take is adding a single line to a single file on your own PC. In fact, such "alternative" servers already exist. Here's just one example:
http://www.opennic.unrated.net/
Of course, nobody - and I mean NOBODY - uses OpenNIC, or any other "alternative" domain name servers. Why? Because nobody - and I mean NOBODY, except for people and organizations that hate America in general - has ever had the slightest legitimate problem with how the United States has controlled those name servers.
Thanks for a good post on the subject.
On the other side of the equation, I have never been too crazed about the idea of the UN taking over the "Internet". If they do, there is nothing to stop free people (likely started by Americans) from starting up their own Net.
I think there will always be a free Net. It's a genie that can't be put back in the bottle. If these servers go to a controlled system, it won't be long before a free system emerges.
bump
Here's a silly question you can probably answer. What if I wanted to make a static local copy of a DNS server for the potential event that something bad happens (like terrorists crash it, etc, or the UN starts taxing, who knows.)
How big would that file be? And, or, is there some easy automated way for me to build just a snapshot of IP addresses of my bookmark list? Obviously, over time the static nature of it would deteriorate its accuracy, but at least for some sites it would keep working.
For example, if the UN controlled the root servers and they wanted to insert a filter server in front of FreeRepublic, couldn't they just insert their server in the DNS pointers instead of directly to FR's?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.