I can’t wait to see what the tinfoil hat brigade has to say about this:
A senior U.S. official rejected calls on Thursday for a U.N. body to take over control of the main computers that direct traffic on the Internet, reiterating U.S. intentions to keep its historical role as the medium’s principal overseer.
“We will not agree to the U.N. taking over the management of the Internet,” said Ambassador David Gross, the U.S. coordinator for international communications and information policy at the State Department. “Some countries want that. We think that’s unacceptable.”
[link — h/t: Neale News]
Any minute now we’re going to see Cindy Sheehan starting a vigil outside Verisign prostesting all those poor TCP packets that died in transit because of American occupation of the Internet.
Thank God. If the UN ever got control of the internet we would be paying for every byte of info sent, whether the electrons were recycled or not. The UN has no damn business taking it’s bite out of my bytes, thank you.
its interesting that the capitalist monster that is the united states is seen by you and your ilk as being less willing to make a buck off of the internet than the un.
furthermore, insulting the mother of a dead soldier for humour points at the end of a post… thats just pure alberta class.
Kate Maybe the CIA, FBI and sundry other police state agencies that use the I-net to their advantage don’t want to share with the KGB or Chinese police.
It is unwise to worship Bush or his admin as being “traditional conservatives” when they are clearly not…they have a track record of expanding the state and supporting the police state organs in place now.
Ferinstance: Bush has signed into 3 of the most draconian civilian gun control laws on the books…he as refunded the BATF who contiue to entrap citizens with statzi style regualtory terrorism. FEMA was used as a wedge to suspend posse comitatus and the second amendment in the wake of Katrina and initiate Nazi-style house to house military confiscation of legal civilian owned firearms. This was well under way in areas unaffected by the flooding until the NRA got an injunction at the 11th hr. What type of “conservative” does this?
The IRS was given even higher quotas and forclosed on more personal holdings this year than any previous year and the DEA continues to beat up air headed hemp seed salesmen while quasi-legitimate business syndicates run a good import business in contraband addictive narcotics almost un hampered…..not surprisingly this president clamps down on domestic security with the draconial “patriot act” yet defunds and destaffs the mexican border patrols…..the illegal entry into the US from this point is at a crisis point and citizens had to form a force to protect this border. But this isn’t surprising seeing how “GW” gave amnesty to millions of illegals who broke the law to get into the country……..all good republicans no doubt. Then there is the spending spree this administration is on with “reconstruction”. Clinton was very similar when it came to respecting the constitution…clinton had Waco and Ruby ridge as his legacy, Bush will have civlian gun confiscation and open borders as his.
I’m deeply disappointed in “W” and any resemblence he has to a real conservative ( Traditional, Christian or otherwise) is purely a matter of spin by propagandists like Limbaugh.
Republicans better wake up and see their party has been hijacked by staist goofs and global profiteers like the ones who run our PMO….just as the Dems are now owned by socialists like Soros….the real losers are the people who love their freedom and think that change comes from changing parties….uh uh not any more.
Kate, looks like the Young Liberals of Oantario have found your site.
Should provide endless amusing interludes as the they try and deflect and change the channels off topic and away from common sense. Gotta do whatever it takes to hide the corruption and pretend to be “PROGRESSIVE’
It means they fear you and your blog, so keep up the good work.
And remember, the only good Liberal is one who has been able to get on the gravy train and steal taxpayer’s money. That would make Ding-Dongwall their current poster boy.
whew, all this over who routes a few little tcp-packets? some packets just won’t stay lost.
We’ll consider letting the UN manage the Internet after they show they can manage something – anything – else without graft, kickbacks, and incompetence.
Based on how the U.N. (read that France, Germany, Russia, China and friends) treated the advancement of world peace and human rights in Rwanda, Sudan, Bosnia, Iraq among many other examples…maybe a sudden dutiful handover of control to the World’s best knowledge medium from the U.S. to the U.N.’s group of appointed socialistic bureaucratic bandits would be akin to giving the ravenous big bad wolf keys to the old folks home.
At least the americans have a real democracy where those in power have visible accountability. I cringe at the thought of what such a group could do to free exchange of ideas and information we now enjoy.
Gosh, the UN did such a wonderful job with the Oil for Food program. I can’t wait until they start up the Porn for Peace program.
“Kate, looks like the Young Liberals of Ontario have found your site.”
Man, and I thought I was a nerd as a kid.
Hey Fred…I ain’t no “young Liberal” partner….and Bush is still a statist punk who likes to crap on comstitutional rights.
Conservatives are just as bad as “young liberals” are when it comes to removing the partisan blinders …particualrly when they defend a leader who has betrayed them. Martin, Chretien, PET et al have betrayed everthing Liberalism stands for….as Mulroney did the same to conservatives ( civilian gun control and paying Quebec extortionists while he raised taxes 103 times). In the US Bush has betrayed real conservatives by unconstitutionally extending the state into civilian control agencies empowered with”patriot act” martial law powers….meanwhile he is ingnoring true homeland security with open southern border policies.
If you want to defend this skull and bones alumnus donkey be my guest…it only proves that your partisan blinders will allow you to render up your rights to any crook wearing the right color clothing and wearing the right party brand name.
BTW> Sorry for calling you “Kate” again Sean.
The telling statement in the article is that the US considers the i-net “theirs” to do what they want with….no doubt there is sufficient internet surveillence capability now to satisfy US intel agencies that they feel they have control….and do not want to share server acccess with security agencies from other UN security council parteners.
I think we all need to remind ourselves that it was the US administration who wanted to classify PGP as a “weapon” and down loading it across borders constituted an international crime they were willing to let interpol in on. Why would this benevolent capitalist nation fear civilian encryption in private messaging?
Big Bro is watching and listening no matter what you want to believ to male yourself feel better.
We can be thankful that in Canada the punks in Ottawa haven’t the money, manpower or expertise to control or surveil the internet …or they’d be at it faster than a commie on a handout.
Even so all 800hhz traffic is monitored so watch what you say on your cell phones. blackberries or wireless PC modems.
“The telling statement in the article is that the US considers the i-net “theirs” to do what they want with”
The internet started out as ARPANET, a medium for the U.S. military to communicate and control their military under the scenario of a catastrophic nuclear attack. The internet has simply evolved past it’s initial design constraints.
Simple as this:
Now–establish any type of website, say anything on your mind, absolute and unequivocal freedom.
UN control of Internet–regulation of content. Kiss everything you love about the Internet goodbye sucker.
No doubt the Chinese and Saudi authorities will be designated the internet ‘freedom fighters.’
“furthermore, insulting the mother of a dead soldier for humour points at the end of a post… thats just pure alberta class.”
Hey, she’s spent how many months insulting the memory of her own son, so maybe you should point fingers at her first? Her son wasn’t forced into the armed forces, he signed up voluntarily, and he gave his life protecting one of the world’s greatest democracies. That’s a legacy you HONOUR, and I am. It’s his mother that I think is a silly bitch.
I’m sorry you find Albertans so classless. Maybe we here in Alberta should all complain about how white women aren’t having enough babies like a certain former Quebec Premier did so you’ll find us all more socially acceptable?
It’s good to see you rubes supporting the idea that one nation should have monopolistic control over the internet.
“Sorry for calling you “Kate” again Sean.”
That’s all right. Just don’t be telling me that this dress I’m wearing makes me look fat and we’ll get along fine.
“It’s good to see you rubes supporting the idea that one nation should have monopolistic control over the internet.”
No that’s obviously an incorrect interpretation, we’re saying that no one, including the imcompetent U.N. should have monopolistic control over the internet.
“It’s good to see you rubes supporting the idea that one nation should have monopolistic control over the internet.”
Being that I belong to the minority of the population that has worked extensively with enterprise networks and who has a keen grasp of how the Internet is put together, I am qualified to say that the U.S. has done an outstanding job with things up to this point. So much so that I feel secure trusting them with it in the future.
Besides, if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.
WL MacKenzie Redux. Right on. But I still support Bush. Listen, Americans are not like Canadians. They will not lay down and roll over when gun legislation comes. Americans will NOT allow ANYONE to disarm them. Again. Americans are not like Canadians.
But I do agree with much or what you say. For the life of me I do not understand some of the decisions GW is making. The two big areas I disagree with him on are illegal aliens and the war on terrorism. War is hell. Innocent people die. They died in both WWI and WWII. There was a reason why Dresdan was bombed to the ground. There was a reason why two big bombs were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It is useless to try to explain that to people who refuse to understand. GW, or some president after him, will be forced to deal with the radical Islamists in this same fashion eventually. Hopefully soon.
The most important point you make, however, is the one about the Republicans (I’m sure you meant any party in power) being hijacked by the “staist goofs and global profiteers like the ones who run our PMO.” The biggest problem we have is this elite “shadow government” (who are really only a few fabulously rich families) that runs things. They control the MSM and the large multinational corporations. And they own and control most political parties after they get into power.
Having said that I still support GW and the war on terrorism (is that what it’s still called?).
WL, in the political climate we now have in the US and Canada, which party do you think we all should vote for? Nothing is perfect. Sometimes the individual has to stand up and say “enough”. Sometimes the individual has to stand up and just say “NO”. Do you not agree? I mean, how do we handle this? This is the biggest problem we all face. How do we handle it? Simply voting is not enough. This is the reason why I say we should demand that the CPC lay all their planks on the table and to hell with trying to win the votes of a few socialists or fence sitters in central Canada. Give people a choice and make them choose. Then at least people will get what they deserve. Right now there isn’t that much of a difference between the Liberals and the CPC when you get right down to it is there?
Maybe, just maybe the email I received about the conspiracy to tax our emails, prohibit free enterprise on the net and remotely monitor our internet activities is not an urban legend after all.
But then all good workers for the world government could be eligible for that free trip to Disneyland after all!
No doubt the UN could speed up the service. Right up to the speed they pass resolutions. which is just a bit slower than when they decide what is for lunch.
Food for well oiled palms program.
Cal2
Robert M. -read Brian C’s comments again – the internet was INVENTED in the USA. Give your head a shake. The UN has proven that it is corrupt beyond redemption – I say scap it.
The problem is that the Internet runs on meritocracy. The capitalists get it. The UN does not, they only grok elitists.
The Internet is in some ways like guns and drugs, they can all be used for good or evil. Meanwhile, on the ground, global economic systems have become heavily dependent on the Internet infrastructure. The Internet has not evolved beyond its design constraints, it has evolved into its design dream: scalable fault tolerant global packet routing.
The Internet belongs to the United States of America, in the sense that they own the IP and the IPs, and the trade secrets, and the root servers too, and possession is nine tenths of the law.
It’s all well and good to rail on, but it would in general be to the benefit of all if the majestic design of TCP/IP (thank you so very much, Cerf & Kahn) were not to be hopelessly gummed up by the detritus of the pigs at the commons trough.
We are fortunate indeed that the United States of America administers the root domain name servers, pace the proclivities of ICANN. When it comes down to actual meritocracy, what other options are there?
“It’s good to see you rubes supporting the idea that one nation should have monopolistic control over the internet.”
Rubes, that’s who we are, all right.
And let’s all just thank our lucky stars it IS the US and not the People’s Republic of China.
GOD BLESS AMERICA.
GIVE ME BROADBAND OR GIVE ME DEATH.
Why doesn’t the UN or Canada create their own internet?
Ok I thought nobody controlled the internet. As I understand it and it’s begining to sound like I was wrong, that the internet is a huge group of routers and servers not concetrated in any on place but scattered across the planet.
Various cable companies and telcos may have choke points that information flows through but even the control of these can be circumvented.
Am I wrong about this? I realize my discription is vague and overly simple but well educate me.
TCP/IP is indeed fully decentralized, Jeff, that’s why many organizations now run TCP/IP internets as their LANs. Notice though that those are small-“i” internets, the thing that defines the single large-“I” Internet is the collection of root domain name servers, which anyone can query to convert domain names (like smalldeadanimals.com) into IP addresses (like 66.29.54.167).
So, if people only used numeric IP address, then the only limitation would the backbone choke points, as you suggest. It is in that sense that ICANN owns the Internet’s naming system, and that’s what the UN wants to expropriate to aid their grand transnational progressivism scheme.
Last I checked, ICANN didn’t have much to do with the registry.
Your grasp of the inner-workings of the internet is mediocre, at best.
s/ICANN/netsol/g
“ICANN: These tasks include managing the assignment of domain names and IP addresses.” http://www.answers.com/ICANN
“Network Solutions: The first private organization to register Internet domain names […], it continues to be a major registrar along with others accredited by ICANN.” http://www.answers.com/Network%20Solutions
I s’pose one could consider managing the assignment of domain names and being the sole source of accreditation for registrars as not having much to do with the registry.
But what do I know? I always thought ICANN and netsol were the “outer” workings of the Internet, and RFC-793 &c were the “inner” workings. Just the kind of mistake I’d expect from someone who actually enjoyed “A protocol for packet network interconnection”, Vinton G. Cerf and Robert E. Kahn, IEEE Trans. Comm. Tech., vol. COM-22, V 5, pp. 627-641, May 1974, the same year I first touched Unix.
Oops, gotta go, the 17 GB file transfer from Edmonton to Cleveland that I was waiting for just completed. Why, what do you think I’m doing up at 3 AM on Monday morning. No, not disco, server maintenance. Really, disco on Monday morning, what a silly idea.
Fred seems to have brought up a timely topic regarding the young Liberals. Showing that they can make fun of their own party, the young Liberals from Quebec are creating an ad campaign “to promote national unity”. Maybe they’re just trying to make their party more ap-peeling in Quebec.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20051002.wqgrits1002/BNStory/National/
As a practical matter nobody “governs” the Internet. The UN lost its chance in the late 1980s, when the Europe and the UN via the ITU (International Telecommunications Union) tried to replace the Internet TCP/IP communicaton protocol standards with something called OSI. Basically it was an attempt by the world PTT (Postal, Telegraph, and Telephone) monopolies to wrest control of the Internet out of the hands of the IETF.
The ITU is a big reason why phone calls to 3rd world countries are so ridiculously expensive. The bureaucracy of the ITU is Kafka-esque: The OSI documents for TP4/X25 are written in uncomprehensible legalese and you must pay through the nose just to peek at them. If the EU/ITU/UN had taken over the Internet 15-20 years ago with OSI/TP4/X25, today instead of paying $24.95/month for your megabit DSL you would be paying five to ten times that amount for your X25/ISDN connection at 64 kbps.
But this is all on the dustbin of history. The war is over and decentralization has won. The modern Internet is a concatenation of millions of independent networks that all agree to talk to each other voluntarily (the word “Internet” comes from the term “inter-network”). World connectivity happens through an untold number of independent bi-lateral contractual agreements between peering ISPs.
The only centralization on the Internet is at the root DNS nameservers. These suffer ICANN only by the grace of their respective independent owners. The root nameservers are located all over the world. (The largest owner of root nameservers being the US Department of Commerce.) There is nothing to prevent them from bolting and setting up their a new root DNS, or from anyone else using an alternate root DNS.
The transnational progressives and lefty social engineers can chit-chat all they want at their UN workshops about how they want to govern the Internet. But as a practical matter it is a waste of hot air.
I don’t think it’s really about money. Who are the two countries that are pushing the hardest for this? France and China. Who are the two countries that have the strictest censorship laws and are constantly suing US companies? France and China.
If the UN gets a hold of the internet, the ability to censor speech will be embedded deep in every protocol, to “protect” us from ourselves. We can say goodbye to free speech on the net, and goodbye to anyone in Europe or other countries without the strict free speech laws we in the US enjoy, to ever get the truth that is not endorsed by their government.
You can also visit some information dedicated to bonus .