Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

D.C. Watson: Hey, step off. Go build your own Internet!
Dhimmi Watch.org ^ | October 16, 2005 | DC Watson

Posted on 10/17/2005 8:04:36 AM PDT by Monty610

D.C. Watson examines the UN's attempts to take over the Internet:

While the United States houses, and provides much of the funding for the United Nations' annual budget, that just doesn't seem to be enough.

The U.N., with many of its own problems, such as astonishing corruption, is now being touted by the European Union as a candidate to control the Internet. http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=19846

From the column:

Viviane Reding, European IT commissioner, says that if a multilateral approach cannot be agreed, countries such as China, Russia, Brazil and some Arab states could start operating their own versions of the internet and the ubiquity that has made it such a success will disappear. Well then, why don't these countries go right ahead and build their own and see how they do? And, you'll never guess who else likes the idea of the U.S. giving up control of the net:

The EU plan was applauded by states such as Saudi Arabia and Iran, leading the former Swedish prime minister Carl Bildt to express misgivings on his weblog: "It seems as if the European position has been hijacked by officials that have been driven by interests that should not be ours." So let's see if we understand this. The United States created, funded, developed, and marketed the Internet, yet we’re "hijacking" it? Is there no end to the asinine statements these creatures will make? If that's the case, then I guess I hijacked my own lawnmower yesterday. I cut the grass with it and wouldn't let anyone else push it. The safety of the American people comes first. And since some of these bottom feeders have websites they use to recruit Muslim terrorists and possibly do some illegal Internet banking money transfers from Islamic charities, the United States needs to have its hands on the controls. What would these countries do if they had the control? Would they attempt to rid the web of anything that is offensive to Muslims? That in itself would likely empty out the entire Internet. Would they attempt to cover up all of their future wrongdoings? Or would they work to monitor and then limit everyone's freedom of speech, for example, "Islamophobic" speech? Does anyone remember U.N. Secretary Kofi Annan's speech confronting "Islamophobia"? http://www.amperspective.com/html/annan_speech_text.html Confronting "Islamophobia"? That's comparable to confronting an iceberg floating in the lake of fire. This might be a good time to contact all State Representatives and Senators to let them know that handing over control of the Internet to that waste of space in New York they call the United Nations would be the dumbest thing they could do, and we all know how handy they are when it comes to doing dumb things. If these other countries want control of an Internet, they should go ahead and develop their own. In a world where wild-eyed Muslims are busy raping babies and swinging machetes at innocent people in Sudan, sawing off heads in Iraq and Saudi Arabia, developing nuclear weapons in Iran, sending foreign fighters into Iraq from Syria, Iran, and Saudi Arabia to fight Coalition forces, wearing suits, ties, and kufis in Washington, hiding behind the Qur'an as they attempt to guilt-trip Americans into coddling Islam, strapping bombs to themselves in Gaza, fighting for the implementation of Islamic law in Canada, making threats to cartoonists in Denmark, shooting and slicing up filmmakers in Holland, attacking schoolchildren in Russia, bombing subways in London, bombing trains in Madrid, flying planes into buildings, bombing nightclubs in Bali, preaching hate in mosques, threatening to attack the Vatican in Italy, and attempting to blackmail the world with oil, the Internet should never, ever be handed over to a corrupt organization that panders to Islam as does the United Nations.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Editorial; Government; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: internet; unitednations
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-53 next last
To: Monty610

Another reason why I'm glad we don't have a Jimmy Carter in the WH.


21 posted on 10/17/2005 8:39:15 AM PDT by CindyDawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #22 Removed by Moderator

To: monkapotamus

Yeah.. I think the legal sanctions may work... Technically, as I said before, I think it's possible for any country today to block the internet. Afterall, the Chinese has been doing it...


23 posted on 10/17/2005 8:41:20 AM PDT by paudio (Four More Years..... Let's Use Them Wisely...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Monty610
Great. Let's let the U.N. turn the World Wide Web into the Third World Wide Web!


24 posted on 10/17/2005 8:43:37 AM PDT by Prime Choice (E=mc^3. Don't drink and derive.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Individual Rights in NJ

How do you prevent collision of IP addresses from the existing net? I'm not trying to be sarcastic, just pointing out that there are parts of the net that need some handholding (AMERICAN hyandholding, of course).


25 posted on 10/17/2005 8:44:38 AM PDT by MortMan (Eschew Obfuscation)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Individual Rights in NJ
What the U.N. wants control of are all the backbone servers. And yes, with that, they can indeed control access to any part of the Internet.

Personally, I don't think that association of tinpot dictators and their lapdogs should be allowed within 100 yards of any part of the Internet. They've already clearly demonstrated that they are not capable of appreciating true liberty or respecting real rights.

26 posted on 10/17/2005 8:48:25 AM PDT by Prime Choice (E=mc^3. Don't drink and derive.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Individual Rights in NJ
If the UN did take the internet, there would be nothing to take, the internet is made up of privately owned servers and websites and hosts. Everyone would just leave and someone would open up a private internet and people would jion that one.

They want the root DNS servers and probably control over IP address assignment.

27 posted on 10/17/2005 8:49:18 AM PDT by antiRepublicrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Monty610
I'm not a big fan of the UN administration, but I also see potential problems with a separatist attitude from the US that might lead to a rejection of foreign innovation.

Tim Berners-Lee created the World Wide Web while working for CERN, a European particle physics laboratory. The US created the physical infrastructure and continues to be responsible for most of the administration, but we shouldn't let our pride blind us to the contributions that those outside of our country have made.

The Internet was meant to be a global medium, and it would be a mistake to allow it to splinter. I believe the Internet is the key to helping countries like China with oppressive regimes achieve their own freedom. The Internet is far too important to the development of the free world to allow politics to interfere.
28 posted on 10/17/2005 8:58:42 AM PDT by botsnack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: botsnack
I also see potential problems with a separatist attitude from the US that might lead to a rejection of foreign innovation.

That's nonsense. The Open Source community crosses all ideological and political boundaries. You think all Open Source coders are going to magically stop collaborating if the U.N. doesn't wrest control of the Internet from the U.S.?? Please.

29 posted on 10/17/2005 9:09:38 AM PDT by Prime Choice (E=mc^3. Don't drink and derive.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: botsnack

"...The Internet is far too important to the development of the free world to allow politics to interfere."

Well put...that is why, we as Americans, can NEVER allow the EU or UN or anyone else to control it...if we keep it in our hands, it is more likely to remain free and open than if it ends up in the hands of say, Belgium or France.


30 posted on 10/17/2005 9:10:55 AM PDT by rlmorel ("Innocence seldom utters outraged shrieks. Guilt does." Whittaker Chambers)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: MortMan
How do you prevent collision of IP addresses from the existing net?

Conflicting IP addresses won't matter if they have a completely separate net. Other than that, we're talking IP address assignment as is currently done by ARIN (us), RIPE (Europe), plus ones for Africa, Asia and Latin America, all of whom assign IP blocks in their own geographic area. IIRC, there is even political wrangling over that, since we have the bulk of them (duh, we invented it), but that should go away with IPv6.

If they were mad enough, they could set up their own DNS root server, and places such as Europe and China would gladly force their ISPs to switch to the new root. Then the Internet would be fragmented as far as the names people type into the address bar, or where most clicked links go.

31 posted on 10/17/2005 9:20:25 AM PDT by antiRepublicrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

Comment #32 Removed by Moderator

To: botsnack
Tim Berners-Lee created the World Wide Web while working for CERN, a European particle physics laboratory.

In August 1991, Tim Berners-Lee created the first website.

His contribution was derived from the existing infrastructure that had already been in place for decades thanks to the US.

There's nothing wrong with innovation coming from any corner of the globe, however, future possibilities regarding such innovations can never usurp the primary reasons behind our insistence that the UN or some other such corrupt entity, such as Communist or Socialist or Totalitarian governments, never be allowed to gain jurisdiction over this medium. The end result would simply kill the Internet as it is and "innovations" would be irrelevant.
33 posted on 10/17/2005 10:05:38 AM PDT by Pox
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: ff1787
"Let's see if these turkeys can go it alone,,, without our [the US taxpayer] help. They'll last about a month."

What a joke! Who in their right mind would want to surf the content on an islamofaciest Internet let alone actually pay for the dubious privilege?

34 posted on 10/17/2005 10:28:12 AM PDT by Desron13 (If you constantly vote between the lesser of two evils then evil is your ultimate destination.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Monty610

When I quit AOL the argument to try to keep me on was that I would no longer be on the INTERNET because it was made up of five companies, I remember him mentioning AOL, Earthlink, I think Internic and MSN, and one other. He said without subscription to one of the five I would merely have access to the World Wide Web.

I'm confused!


35 posted on 10/17/2005 10:39:30 AM PDT by tertiary01 (For every Act of God, the Libs will demand a human sacrifice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tertiary01

Can't figure out why ANYONE would be a member of AOL. Do they offer anything worth having?


36 posted on 10/17/2005 11:09:04 AM PDT by Mr_Peter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Mr_Peter

Just lots and lots of ads for worthless Time-Warner products.


37 posted on 10/17/2005 11:34:20 AM PDT by tertiary01 (For every Act of God, the Libs will demand a human sacrifice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Monty610
Under the current system, the UN cannot control or regulate(read tax ) the Internet. If they get their way they sure could.
38 posted on 10/17/2005 12:43:44 PM PDT by satchmodog9 (Free choice is not what it seems)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Monty610

Paragraphs are your friends.


39 posted on 10/17/2005 12:45:08 PM PDT by TChris ("The central issue is America's credibility and will to prevail" - Goh Chok Tong)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: antiRepublicrat
Conflicting IP addresses won't matter if they have a completely separate net. Other than that, we're talking IP address assignment as is currently done by ARIN (us), RIPE (Europe), plus ones for Africa, Asia and Latin America, all of whom assign IP blocks in their own geographic area. IIRC, there is even political wrangling over that, since we have the bulk of them (duh, we invented it), but that should go away with IPv6.

It still seems to me that IPv6 is unnecessary. If large blocks of "legal" IPs weren't horded by companies, my employer being one of them, for internal networks, then there should be plenty of IPv4 addresses available. Technologies like NAT and dynamic addressing (DHCP) should make IPv4 work just fine for a long, long time.

40 posted on 10/17/2005 12:49:29 PM PDT by TChris ("The central issue is America's credibility and will to prevail" - Goh Chok Tong)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-53 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson