Breaking America's grip on the net (US FORCED to give up control of the Internet?)

http://technology.guardian.co.uk/weekly/story/0,16376,1585288,00.html ^ | October 6, 2005 | Kieren McCarthy

[khnyny]

That's right. As usual, it's all about the $$$. Now that the UN oil-for-food pot 'o gold scam has dried up, the vampires are out scavenging. And of course they want to censor, especially China. Who knows, maybe China (and some other exemplary nations like Iran) have promised some kickbacks if this stunt can be pulled off. Follow the money trail...

[Blogger]

Money isn't the only thing they are after. The Chinese would love to limit content as well.

[MississippiMan]

Yup, just one salvo, you're right. We create and the laggards around the world start whining.

MM

[Milhous]

Anyone who wants to can set up a root server, and that's always been the case. There have actually been previous attempts to do just that. All have failed. It's not a matter of law. It's not even a technical issue. It's a social one. You can't force anyone to use any particular root server. Each internet user has the power to use whatever root servers he or she prefers (although few know anything about this, or how to do it.)

So this dispute will be decided by the market.

You just announced a political coup over the running of the internet [sic]. If the brassy little man known as David Hendon kisses my ring on bended knee while offering up $$$ to me as an incentive fee I may just append his server's IPs to my /etc/namedb/master/named.root.

[NickatNite2003]

Actually, a new fiber optic network was just
tested that can transmit whole movies in a
matter of seconds.

But here is an interesting story related to our
topic:

http://news.zdnet.com/2100-1009_22-5889592.html

[porkchops 4 mahound]

How, exactly are these weenies going to "force" the USA to do anything?

Go ahead, build your own, Aholes.

[JSteff]

Sad

[JSteff]

"The Chinese would love to limit content as well."

The money is first though. The content can be controlled at any time, in many ways. If in one swoop they can get the US to start paying taxes to the UN they get an administrative "in" to the US.

The democrats have been doing this for years. If you tax something you need officials and programs to be sure you are getting all the tax and that the tax is going to the "right" uses. So you also have records of where users go and what they see.

With the records and monitoring comes control of content. But first get the money so you can make your government agency even bigger and better at monitor and control functions.

It always comes back to the money when government is involved.

[NickatNite2003]

How are you going to stop them from
seizing *A* building in their own county?

[porkchops 4 mahound]

I respectfully suggest that the critical hardware of the Internet for the USA does not extend to buildings in other countries.

Sure that country could disconnect from the web. How exactly is that going to hurt us?

You do realize that the web was designed to survive multiple nuclear hits right? That by design the web is "diffused"?

Who cares if we can't get French or ChiCom websites for example?

[Caipirabob]

"If YOU want an internet, go build one yourself, Socialist scum..."

[Nooseman]

Yup he invented it and therefore,they have "no controlling legal authority".

[NickatNite2003]

In a way i agreee with you. While most internet
traffic, tends to be "local" as in by country
and region, there is no unique hardware made
in only the US that maintains the WWW, a great
deal of the traffic that is *not* "local"
involves US sites, and commerce with US companies.

There is no technical barrier to other countries
maintaining a network, independant of US controlled
TLDs and oversight, but it defeats the promise
of the Internet by cutting off access and opportunities
by doing so.

Sure, since as stated before, US citizens mostly
visit US websites, French visit mostly French websites,
etc...The US could cut off it's connections to foriegn
Servers, and even build a bigger better faster
Internet 2.0..or 3.0...but it is intrinsically
a limiting action. and as you say, as each squabbling
country/bloc decides that they must have/remake the "Internet" in their own image, interoperability
will break down....and there is litle good that comes from that other than some paranoids around the world, feeling "safer" because they can control the information
traveling on their truncated and annexed "piece" of the "net". Instead of being the great leveler of
opportunities, that it has been, it would become a great isolator, and diminisher of opportuntes.

[porkchops 4 mahound]

I agree. A divided, or fractured, web is a failure, or at least a diminution of the true promise of the net.

But what the heck are you going to do? We live in the real world.

We in the USA cannot control what other nations do.

It is doubtful that the rest of the world will accept our First Amendment, not when the majority of the world's governments are pointedly NOT fans of free discourse.

The danger is, that to "get along", we will "go along"; we Americans will be forced to accept their censored and sanitized versions of the web.

Look at the way both Microsoft and Goggle already have behaved in Communist China. They see money if they help these bloody tyrants remain in control.

Money is money, and money is more important to too many people than Liberty is.