Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Drew on March 29, 2004, 12:13:26 am
-
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=519&u=/ap/20040327/ap_on_re_us/un_overseeing_the_net_1&printer=1
If the UN takes over we can say by by to interent freedom as we know it...
-
You mean, they'de be worse than the way the US is handling things? Forcing ISPs to build backdoors in their networks, monitoring email, charging webmasters with terrorism?
Yeah, those stinky Europeans are bound to ruin it.
_____
Just so we're clear, I am not in favour of the UN controlling the Internet. I am in favour of no one controlling the Internet.,
-
you know I was going to be slightly in favor of keeping it the way it is, but rictor just reminded me about that ****, and now, I'm saying the US government should only have juristiction over the servers in it's teritories.
/*votes in favor of international commision to run the Internet*/
-
Actually, this is one case where I agree with Drew. The UN needs to keep its filthy hands of the Internet. People want the UN to control the internet, they're welcome to fund and build their own system and link it together and do whatever they want.
AS screwy as America's stewardship of the internet has been, its our project. We paid for it. We built it. We let other people play in our sandbox, but its still ours. We've done a damned good job taking care of our toy, all things considered, especially given its origins. We could have done a better job, sure, but we could have done a far, far, FAR worse job.
If the rest of the world doesn't like it, well, they know how to configure the routers to route around us.
-
Originally posted by mikhael
Actually, this is one case where I agree with Drew. The UN needs to keep its filthy hands of the Internet. People want the UN to control the internet, they're welcome to fund and build their own system and link it together and do whatever they want.
AS screwy as America's stewardship of the internet has been, its our project. We paid for it. We built it. We let other people play in our sandbox, but its still ours
Well sorry to break your sweet dreams, but no, it isn't yours anymore :wtf:
Let say we cut all connections to the USA, coz they're so proud of "their" baby and think it belongs to them. The rest of the world would still have a fully working internet, with everything bare US websites. I agree, not having them is a big hole allright ( no HLP anymore :p ). On the other hand, you'd get only US websites. No ****ing anything else. I let you think on who would lose in the process.
The internet doesn't belong to anybody anymore.
-
but HLP is running off servers in california and so is google. your life will become meaningless
-
Google isn't that good you know... you could always visit another portal.
And we could always start another forum. :ha:
:nervous:
:shaking: (god, please don't kill me)
-
I think Jesus will kill you instead. I hear he's a fan of Freespace these days.
-
What Venom said. Now, just imagine I said that same thing, only more eloquently, Cause I'm the King of Words I am.
King of Words....
-
Originally posted by PhReAk
but HLP is running off servers in california and so is google. your life will become meaningless
afaik, google has servers in the UE now. No way it could go that fast here w/o them anyway.
And that aside, maybe w/o HLP I'd get a life :p
-
Why not just centralise all the country-level domains in each respective country then spread the '.com's and such across thingies that're cloned in like 15 different countries but centrally drawn from the ICANN master thingy.
That way, if ICANN starts getting bullied by the US, everyone else can just cut them outta the loop. And it'd let countries with restricted internet (like China) have better control over what people could and could not access.
Simple.
-
And logical.
I guess that's the problem, you can't ask for simple and logical stuff from politicians.
-
This is exactly why I like dictatorships. It eliminates the need for politics.
-
Groups Debate U.N. Control of Internet
Most believed an international body had no right to regulate the content of Web sites, a concern for countries like China and North Korea
I think regulating internet content should be only limited to illegal issues (eg. underage pornography, information that is directed at a particular person(s) that is a threat, software, general copyright violations, other stuff like that)
At the same time I also believe this technology (the internet) should be kept maintained in safe places, for example you don't want to have an ICANN office in a war zone, or were the governments been overthrown, you want it somewhere were u know its going to stay online.
Personally the US should continue to maintain control until a separate coalition can form an international organisation that is ready to take over. The UN is too preoccupied with other concerns, they are trying to do too much, they are so not ready :nod:.
Although juristiction over country domains (eg. .au, .us, .uk, etc) should be the country's responsibility but ICANN should still have powers to assign new or shut down misused ones.
-
ICANN shouldn't have the ability to do anything. Because it opens it up for abuse.
Each country should have control over it's own extension and top-level domains should only be shut down if ICANN finds they're being used for universally outlawed things like child porn.
-
If anyone is to have control over the internet, it should be the UN.... as a free information tool, it's too powerful to place in the hands of the one country.
But i think the internet should remain unlegislated - i.e. a free trade zone for information. I think the likes of the UN does have a role, however, in allowing cross-border prosecution of the owners of illegal websites - be it paedophilia or spammers (for example).
The internet has gone way beyond the control of the US, anyways.... and you don't see the US holding control of the worlds road laws because Henry Ford pioneered the mass-produced car, do you?
-
Originally posted by Nico
Well sorry to break your sweet dreams, but no, it isn't yours anymore :wtf:
Let say we cut all connections to the USA, coz they're so proud of "their" baby and think it belongs to them. The rest of the world would still have a fully working internet, with everything bare US websites. I agree, not having them is a big hole allright ( no HLP anymore :p ). On the other hand, you'd get only US websites. No ****ing anything else. I let you think on who would lose in the process.
The internet doesn't belong to anybody anymore.
you idiot, *all* the DNS servers are in america. If america was cut off, you would have no DNS servers which means when you would type somthing into your adress bar it would be sending to nowere which means you would get no were.
a couple years ago a hacker group DoSed the DNS servers. It shut like %75 percent of them down. The internet activity around the world slowwed to a crawl as the remaining few DNS servers tried to keep up with requests from worldwide.
-
Originally posted by Drew
you idiot, *all* the DNS servers are in america.
Nope.
There are at least 3 or the 13 root-level DNS' located outside the US - the I server in Stockholm, the K server in London and the M server in Tokyo. I don't have a complete list - it's a bugger searching google for the keywords - but these are just the 13 ultra lowest level DNS'.
EDIT ; it's 3 apparently
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
If anyone is to have control over the internet, it should be the UN.... as a free information tool, it's too powerful to place in the hands of the one country.
Its our invention. We keep it. (Just like the nuclear bomb was our invention. We kept it, we didnt turn over those over to the UN, thank goodness.) Just like when the government in France makes somthing big, there not gonna want to give it away to some other country or organization. Dont ***** the US cuz they have controls to somthing everybody else wants. Give a case of US abuse of the internet widespread. So far, we havnt caused any problems.
yeah but when theres a story on the news about a kid who bought a gun on the internet, then went out and shot somone, then watch all the legitimt gun sites get put into regulation.
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
Wrong.
There are at least 3 or the 13 root-level DNS' located outside the US - the I server in Stockholm, the K server in London and the M server in Tokyo. I don't have a complete list - it's a bugger searching google for the keywords - but any 15 minute search would have revealed this.......
aye, sry.
BUt still, when those hackers DoSd the DNS servers *here* the world was effected....
-
Sorry Drew, it ain't yours. If you don't like that, take it up with the ARPA guys who made it public in the first place. Maybe, maybe 1/2 of America agree that "its yours". The remaining 7 billion people do not, so you can kindly kiss our collective ass. :D:D
I'm in favour of the current system; the laws regulating your website are those of the country in which your server is located. This is almost always cheaper in non-US countries, with no draconian RIAA laws and so forth. If Congress is willing to put me in jail for 10 ****ing years for filesharing, then I don't see how anyone can think the US is fit to administrate the Internet.
To me, any attempt to legislate or limit the Internet is a bad thing, to put it mildly. The Internet represent anarchy of information, where anyone can say anything. And thats the way it should stay.
-
Originally posted by Drew
aye, sry.
BUt still, when those hackers DoSd the DNS servers *here* the world was effected....
Actually, the reason I knew those 3 servers were non-US is because they were one of the 7 most badly affected (IIRc 2 were in US army labs, and the other 2 were US corporate).
Anyways, my point is that the net is way beyond the control of a single country..... it covers the entire globe now, regardless of the physical location of the various DNS'. Put it this way - would you let China run the internet? Remember, it's not just about any previous abuses, it's also about preventing future abuse.
NB: remember that the original design was intended to be secure (int terms of connection) from a massive nuclear attack. So IMO the network could survive the loss of the US DNSs (probably by relying on the higher level DNS', then adding more DNS' if required) - and it would free up IP adresses by losing the US sites.
-
Originally posted by Drew
you idiot.
**** you. I don't argue with people who start with insulting me, expecially when they're talking bul****.
Originally posted by Drew
Dont ***** the US cuz they have controls to somthing everybody else wants.
pb is, they don't have control :rolleyes:
-
An aside - this is pretty interesting, if a bit beside the point
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/6/30733.html
-
Anyone think "Net Force" when they saw this thread?
This idea does have food sides and bad. On the good side, it will decrease the ammount of hackers and virus's on the net, and allow people to be able to download and converse in peace. Quite frankly, im sick and tired of everyone being so paranoid and thinking that every single download on the Internet is a killer virus. Also, we have to accept that the world is becoming far more reliant on the Internet this lately, its almost becoming another world.
On the down side, the UN needs to be carefull in implimenting this idea. They need to make sure the freedom the current net supplies is still avalible, and that they dont give all the Internet control to one person or country.
Generally however, i would vote yes for such a thing. I'd be alot happier being able to work on the net without fearing everything.
-
[color=66ff00]Drew if you don't can your superiority complex, not to mention your rudeness I'll temp ban you. :wtf:
Contrary to what you believe the internet is not owned by america and can easily exist without america's backing. It has simply too much influence in every countries infrastructure to be abandoned if america's input into the network was removed.
[/color]
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
An aside - this is pretty interesting, if a bit beside the point
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/6/30733.html
Hmm, indeed. I briefly browsed the website linked to at the end to the article; interesting stuff. Got this (http://www.sarahstirland.com/archives/mediacon.htm) picture linked to from the website. I saw a better version somewhere, but this is good enough in showing the media monopoly present in the US (and Australia and the UK to an extent).
-
Its our invention. We keep it. (Just like the nuclear bomb was our invention. We kept it, we didnt turn over those over to the UN, thank goodness.) Just like when the government in France makes somthing big, there not gonna want to give it away to some other country or organization. Dont ***** the US cuz they have controls to somthing everybody else wants. Give a case of US abuse of the internet widespread. So far, we havnt caused any problems.
Internet it ain't yours
nuclear bomb: so why Russian China France etc, has Nuclear bombs
-
Originally posted by Drew
Its our invention. We keep it. (Just like the nuclear bomb was our invention. We kept it, we didnt turn over those over to the UN, thank goodness.) Just like when the government in France makes somthing big, there not gonna want to give it away to some other country or organization. Dont ***** the US cuz they have controls to somthing everybody else wants. Give a case of US abuse of the internet widespread. So far, we havnt caused any problems.
Fine. You keep the internet but Britain wants the TV back then. :lol:
Wonders how long America would last without TV. Doesn't give much hope to anything beyond a week.
-
Originally posted by Holy Imperial Gloriano
Internet it ain't yours
nuclear bomb: so why Russian China France etc, has Nuclear bombs
The nuclear bomb plans were stolen from the US by russia.
The internet wont be anyones if the UN gets there hands on it. Read the UN decleration of rights. The "rights" to free speech can be taken away if they contradict the UN. If the UN had full control of the biggest open source for information on the planet they will start to regulate content.
-
The US already regulates content. Its the difference between a single, highly partisan faction having control and an international one having control. It would be nice if no one had control, but if I had to choose between the US and the UN, I think the answer is obvious. The reason being is that America has always been self-serving with any opwer that they had, so there is no reason to believe they will not be so again - especially given the power that control over the Net gives them. The UN is atleast in theory, impartial since it consists of all nations and therefor is not looking out for any one nation's interests.
_____
Here's a quote I picked up from a book I downloaded (yes, for free) from the website that aldo's article linked to. Interesting stuff, and very cool that the author released it under the Creative Commons licesne, otherwise I doubt I would have read it.
The concentration of power—political, corporate, media, cultural—should be anathema
to conservatives. The diffusion of power through local control,
thereby encouraging individual participation, is the essence
of federalism and the greatest expression of democracy.
-
Of course, several of the key developers of the bomb weren;t American, anyways - 3 were German jews, and one was Italian.
http://www.me.utexas.edu/%7Euer/manhattan/people.html
Also, some info on Soviet development (in some cases apparently ahead of the US) on the H-bomb;
http://www.bullatomsci.org/issues/1996/nd96/nd96khariton.html
(it's worth noting that the stolen US plans did not lead to a working Soviet bomb)
-
Checking summat
-
Originally posted by Drew
The internet wont be anyones if the UN gets there hands on it. Read the UN decleration of rights. The "rights" to free speech can be taken away if they contradict the UN. If the UN had full control of the biggest open source for information on the planet they will start to regulate content.
I don;t see the problem....
( http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html )
Specifically;
Article 19.
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.
And the bit i think you;re referring to;
Article 29.
(1) Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible.
(2) In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.
(3) These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.
With relation to - http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/index.html (too long to fully read, natch)
"WE THE PEOPLES OF THE UNITED NATIONS DETERMINED
to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind, and
to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small, and
to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained, and
to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,
AND FOR THESE ENDS
to practice tolerance and live together in peace with one another as good neighbours, and
to unite our strength to maintain international peace and security, and
to ensure, by the acceptance of principles and the institution of methods, that armed force shall not be used, save in the common interest, and
to employ international machinery for the promotion of the economic and social advancement of all peoples,
HAVE RESOLVED TO COMBINE OUR EFFORTS TO ACCOMPLISH THESE AIMS
Accordingly, our respective Governments, through representatives assembled in the city of San Francisco, who have exhibited their full powers found to be in good and due form, have agreed to the present Charter of the United Nations and do hereby establish an international organization to be known as the United Nations. "
-
Originally posted by Maeglamor
[color=66ff00]Contrary to what you believe the internet is not owned by america and can easily exist without america's backing. It has simply too much influence in every countries infrastructure to be abandoned if america's input into the network was removed.
[/color]
That's exactly why I said if they don't like de-facto US control of the Internet, they can route around us. Its pretty simple.
As far as I'm concerned, its our Internet, and the rest of the world plays at our sufferance. However, the net is democratic at a certain level. The kid with the nicest toys loses influence if no one goes to his house to play anymore.
Cut the US out of the loop, and everyone suffers: most of the real content on the internet is housed in the US and produced by US companies. Most of the money going into internet services ends up in the US. That's just the way things are.
The only way to change US dominance over the internet (and have no doubt, we do own it: with control of the ten of the root level DNS servers, it takes precisely one file edit and once 'killall -HUP named' on the primaries to lock out all the rest and undefine the three foreign ones), is to just get out there and start doing it. Someone else needs to setup their own DNS root network. Someone needs to convince all the ISPs to include that network's zones. The backbone providers have to give preferential routing to routes that snub the US network. Countries need to start enforcing rules about geolocation of servers that serve regional pages (no serving .eu domains out of the US and stuff).
Removing the US from the loop is easy. But no one will do it in this decade. Until its done, we still control domain name resolution. We still control the entire domain name system (remember, InterNIC, the supreme domain name authority exists only as long as the US Government allows it to). We control almost every single major intercontinental data trunk in the world. Hell, we control most of the satellites.
All the rest of the kids have to do is refuse to play in our sandbox and pick another kid (or kids) sandbox to play in. Its simple and incredibly difficult at the same time.
-
All your internet are belong to US :drevil:
....meh.
-
it's true though. the internet is practically run by the US. the US invented it, and the US continues to be the stronghold. it's simple to tell by going to sites like ebay.com or yahoo.com
-
Screw the internet. Give us the Internet 2. The universities can go off and develop the Internet 3.
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
Anyways, my point is that the net is way beyond the control of a single country.....
look at the statistics of some of the internet backbones and servers to the US
-
Its simply this, the UN are not ready for something this big. :p
-
Originally posted by Nico
pb is, they don't have control :rolleyes:
No one does, that's the whole point of this thread :D
-
Originally posted by Drew
Its our invention. We keep it. (Just like the nuclear bomb was our invention. We kept it, we didnt turn over those over to the UN, thank goodness.) Just like when the government in France makes somthing big, there not gonna want to give it away to some other country or organization. Dont ***** the US cuz they have controls to somthing everybody else wants. Give a case of US abuse of the internet widespread. So far, we havnt caused any problems.
yeah but when theres a story on the news about a kid who bought a gun on the internet, then went out and shot somone, then watch all the legitimt gun sites get put into regulation.
Fine.
Give us back Phone and Electricity (invented by Meucci and Volta, two italians). We will see how you will play with your toys then...
-
*wonders how much longer will it take for a greek to ask for democracy back*
*thinks*
*realises that to the US this wouldn't mean much*
-
Originally posted by Stealth
look at the statistics of some of the internet backbones and servers to the US
ACtually, i was referring to the user distribution. Whilst the Us is probably still the largest nation in terms of internet-use, there is sufficient usage in the rest of the world to make decentralised control desirable.
-
Originally posted by Zarax
Fine.
Give us back Phone and Electricity (invented by Meucci and Volta, two italians). We will see how you will play with your toys then...
w/e thats not the point. When those inventors inveted that technology, there was no UN to take it away from them. Should we give all the technologys that contribute to society worldwide to the UN? If france or any other country had inveted the internet, they would have control of it the same way the US does, they would be reluctant to give it up to the UN. Im not saying we should not share the internet, but keep what we put together.
besides... i would rather have germany or the NL control the internet then the UN.
fyi i think sweden or the netherlands has the highest concentratioin of net users....
-
I don't think I've ever witnessed so much bull**** concentrated in to a single thread before :)
-
I haven't seen such a perfect blanket statement ever.
-
The thread radiates arrogance lol.
-
Originally posted by Drew
w/e thats not the point. When those inventors inveted that technology, there was no UN to take it away from them. Should we give all the technologys that contribute to society worldwide to the UN? If france or any other country had inveted the internet, they would have control of it the same way the US does, they would be reluctant to give it up to the UN. Im not saying we should not share the internet, but keep what we put together.
besides... i would rather have germany or the NL control the internet then the UN.
fyi i think sweden or the netherlands has the highest concentratioin of net users....
Internet is more controlled by private corporations than by states...
Just think about who gives you your web space...
-
anything you can dream of the US Gov doing to screw up the net the UN _WOULD_ do
-
Kazan, is there any organization you trust?
I'm just curious...
-
yes
-
Giving anyone control of the Internet is utterly unfeasable. It would totally destroy the meaning of it, it's as simple as that.
I've been online since I used to run a Phone-In Amstrad CPC Bulletin board, and if theres one thing that it's always been about, it's about that Freedom which would certainly be lost if it was regulated in this way.
-
As much as you Euros don't trust the US Government, I don't trust the UN twice as much. They butt in entirely too much in international affairs and I have yet to see them handle something as easily or cheaply as individual governments could.
Other critics say ICANN is too slow in making decisions and adopting new technology, like ways to transmit Chinese and Arabic characters. VeriSign has sued the organization, saying it is standing in the way of lucrative new services.
Define too slow, if they don't handle things just right the clog the plumbing for the whole world, do we want that?
ICANN is a private organization that reports to the FCC much like every single radio and television station do. To say that the FCC has some kind of undue influence over them is sheer idiocy.
-
I don't trust either the US government, the UN, or ICANN to handle the internet.
-
ICANN = I Can't ;)
Unless the Internet is left as free Media, it will never ever survive, that's the bare thruth of it. It will end up requiring so much authorisation and confirmation that no-one will ever bother any more,
Besides, let's take an example, porn, Britain has an age of consent of 16 years, whereas there are some members of the UN who consider ages in ranges from 13 upwards. How do they propose to regulate child porn, for example, if they can't even decide what a 'child' actually is?
-
Even if someone were to take "charge" of the internet, would that be even possible?
-
Taking control of the internet is as easy as creating an unbreakable anti piracy protection...
-
I think the first step they would make is to make the Internet into something completely different. As it stands, it is unmonitorable, theres just too much. I suspect the Internet will be changed drastically to make sure that not one single website can be put up without some kind of core authorisation (plus administrative fee, of course).
Basically, I think the web would probably become one massive Pay-Per-View site.
-
That is like changing the whole purpose of the internet... it wouldn't remain as the internet but something else.
-
Well, the really old systems would be back...
"If you want to watch unofficial stuff call this server phone number with your dial up modem..."
-
WE don't need control of the internet, though.... what we do need - IMO - is a multinational agreement for the prosecution of (for lack of a better word) abuse.
i.e. a way to arrest and convict people who take advantage of servers in places like China to pirate/distribute material, distribute chiild porn, send unsolicited spam emails, send viruses, scam, etc.
As Flipside said, it's hellish to achieve because of differences in law, etc - and there's an obvious problem in what is illegal and what is censorship.