Imagine A UN-Run Internet 860
Damon Dimmick writes "Small countries in the United Nations have been arguing to put the Internet under the control of the UN so that countries can more easily monitor (read: control) Internet content. It's on hold for now, but this could become a very real censorship problem, very soon. Some nations have gone so far as to suggest "monitoring boards" for internet content. Here is the link to the Financial Times article. It briefly describes the current situation. Just something to keep an eye on."
un-run is right (Score:5, Insightful)
A prophetic subject line? If they run it as well as other things, the internet may be un-run.
Re:un-run is right (Score:4, Insightful)
Is the UN that great? Well no, but it has at least contributed to world peace, stability and such throughout its existence. Its main flaws being that it isn't really above an individual nation states power and is especially vulnerable to the power of the US.
Not quite (Score:5, Insightful)
Nope, just a whole bunch of "little" wars in non-Western-European nations that have killed millions over the years.
Is the world's first supra-national organization and, more remarkably, has had its power seriously challenged only a few times.
What about the League of Nations? Or for that matter, the Hanseatic League?
Re:un-run is right (Score:5, Insightful)
The UN has nothing to do with this. It's the more powerful countries that have prevented this from happening. Do you honestly think the UN could do shit if the US and China decided to go at it?
Has negotiated and enforced many peace treaties throughout that time.
Negotiated, yes. Enforced, no. In fact, more than half of all international treaties are violated on a regular basis, and many are simply ignored because they've been violated so much.
Economic and other sanctions have had positive effects on some countries.
WHO has done some fantastic work in the 3rd world.
True.
Is the world's first supra-national organization and, more remarkably, has had its power seriously challenged only a few times.
Wrong, but another poster already addressed it.
Has, respectively, saved the countries of Korea, Kuwait,and many others i'm forgetting by using multinational forces to defeat a common agressor enemy.
What saved Kuwait was oil, and those that need it. Has Korea been saved yet? Hardly.
I think you should read more. The UN is a joke (outside of it's humanity/charity functions).
Re:un-run is right (Score:3, Insightful)
No, most definatley not. The UN does, however, give them the chance to negoiate their differences fairly peacefully as well as allow other nations of the world ot exert pressure to prevent war.
I maintain that the UN is the world's first supra-national organization, before league of nations, simply because LN did
Re:un-run is right (Score:3, Insightful)
The only good thing about the U.N. is that it's relatively powerless. Conglomeration of government power (whether nationalization or internationalization) is a monopoly; and monopolies in government are even worse than monopolies in economics.
Businesses compete on product features, prices, service, and goodwill (with certain customers, at least). Governments compete on favorable laws and regulations (or lack thereof). The more we centralize governments, the
Re:un-run is right (Score:3, Interesting)
Not true at all. The US as isolationist only with regards to Europe, and then not really. We participated in the Washington Naval Treaty and other treaties with europe throughout the time between the wars. The US also agressively persued our policies in the far east (which lead us to confrontation with Japan).
The US was a superpower after WWI, indeed before WWI, because of
Re:un-run is right (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:un-run is right (Score:3, Insightful)
There are no US peacekeepers in Cyprus AFAIK (mostly british).
The korean UN force was mostly american, but I'm pretty sure there were plenty of Brits and Canadians involved as well as several other countries. But it wasnt a peace keeping force was it?
There are no US peacekeepers in Liberia, Congo, Lebanon, etc.. Mostly done by smaller nations (eg Ireland, Netherlands, etc.. etc..). The US doesnt really get i
Re:un-run is right (Score:4, Insightful)
Hi!
Um--this is something of a stretch. This point might be better phrased "has been used as political cover by the United States to save the countries of South Korea, Kuwait, and many others...." Military intervention by member countries with limited U.N. involvement (South Korea, Kuwait) has been very successful. Military intervention led by the U.N. by itself (particularly where the U.S./NATO has not been involved) has been generally disastrous. I give you Lebanon; the Ivory Coast, Somalia, and any number of other horrid conflicts in Africa; the list goes on and on. Dictators and despots diss the U.N. because they know the U.N. is there to be "peacekeepers." They respect the U.S. because they can watch CNN--and they are well aware that the U.S. doesn't do "peacekeeping" nearly as well as it does killing people. And the U.S. military has a centuries-long tradition of taking "head shots"--gunning for the guy giving the orders.
That doesn't mean the U.N. is a total bust
Not at all. It just hasn't been very credible as a military force. Where it has been extremely credible is in creating a forum for international discussion--both directly and through other forums like the WTO. The U.N. has made a major impact on international trade and the environment through the licensing and monitoring of hazardous materials, the development of international air rules, the development of international shipping rules, and all kinds of dull, dreary, drudgery that doesn't make the front page. The U.N. has played a big role as a forum for Third World countries to state their case--and to build their economies. (The biggest impact for the poorest nations is that they get essentially free trade representation in New York City--the biggest marketplace in the world.) Dozens of poor countries have staked their plans for development on the manufacture of cheap textiles--and the U.N. provides cheap access to the buyers in the biggest market in the world.
The U.N. is better at organizing meetings than it is as a functioning governing body
Where the U.N. has been the most successful is in bringing people together in a common forum. Where the U.N. has been the most laughable is when it attempts to assert authority over something in which it has played no part, has no existing role, and to which it can contribute nothing. It was a U.N. agency, you may recall, that proposed an email "tax"--demonstrating that it knew absolutely nothing about how email worked.
In short...
The U.N. should focus on trying to negotiate realistic limits on fisheries protection and related maritime law--and leave the Internet to the geeks who run it. Or failing that, to the people who actually fund it and own it.
An excellent comparison (Score:5, Funny)
An excellent comparison: when you get right down to it, the UN is like the Vatican, but for atheists. (With the predictble results.)
Re:un-run is right (Score:3, Informative)
Re:un-run is right (Score:3, Insightful)
Many smaller wars, yes but no gigantic world wide changing war yet. It's a small step forward but a good one IMO.
Re:What's a "world war"? (Score:3, Insightful)
Also important to note is that while the cold war might be called WWIII, simply because of the resource
Re:un-run is right (Score:4, Insightful)
The UN has prevented war simply by giving diplomacy a outlet and allowing for world wide discussion of issues. This, combined with the possiblity of military action from the world's superpower, has lead to the near extinction of wars of conquest. Name me more than 5 in the last 50 years -- you won't be able to. Their authority is backed by the world, if the world doesn't care then the UN won't care.
At any rate, the UN hasn't "caused messes" for the US to clean up. It has, indeed, been much the other way around. UN has rubberstamped many US operations that lead to bigger messes indeed.
Wars of Conquest in the last 50 years (Score:4, Insightful)
1. Iraq -> Kuwait
2. Iraq -> Iran
3. Argentina -> Fauklands
4. Russia -> Afghanistan
5. Everyone -> Israel (twice)
Not all were successful, but the UN had a small hand in only one of them (number 1), and the rest were condemned, talked about, but prosecuted anyway.
And this does not even get into African "countries" and their various tribal/civil wars.
-Donut
Re:Is the US a democracy? (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh for God's sake...
The US has tons of problems and our government is neither perfectly transparent nor corruption free. However, to have the gall to compare the government of the US (or Australia, or Belgium, or what have you) to the murderous, thoroughly corrupt regimes that make so much of the 3rd world a living hell is moral blindness of the worst kind.
And you don't have to remind me that the US founded or propped up many of those murderous, thoroughly corrupt regimes. That is true, and we have a grav
Announcing the U.S intranet (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Announcing the U.S intranet (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Announcing the U.S intranet (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Announcing the U.S intranet (Score:2)
Re:Announcing the U.S intranet (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Announcing the U.S intranet (Score:2)
The ITU made a good job of the phone system, non? (Score:2)
Conflating "monitoring boards" with this proposal looks to me like shroud-waving.
Re:The ITU made a good job of the phone system, no (Score:2, Insightful)
The ITU has a history of mandating REQUIRED international standards that include patented (and
UN Effect (Score:4, Insightful)
Defenders of the status quo say handing over power to governments could threaten the untrammelled flow of information and ideas that many see as the very essence of the borderless internet.
The internet is based on the ability to put up a web page and shout out my message to whoever wishes to wander by. It's even more powerful than dead-tree press because it reaches more people in a quicker fashion.
UN control is just that--control.
Not only do I not want UN control... I want as little government control as possible! Inforce the laws of your own country on the people in your own country... and leave the rest of us alone.
Davak
Unimportance (Score:2)
"I am important;
I am separate from all the world.
I am important because I am separate,
Were I the same, I could never be important."
Yet here are three treasures
That I cherish and commend to you:
The first is compassion,
By which one finds courage.
The second is restraint,
By which one finds strength.
And the third is unimportance,
By which one finds influence.
Those who are fearless, but without compassion,
Powerful, but without restraint,
Or influential, yet important,
Cannot endure.
~Lau Tsu, Ta
Re:UN Effect (Score:2)
and US control is just that--control
Some of us want the internet to be free of US control as well. I think that there should be freedom of speech on the internet but that is just a dream. Currently the US wants DMCA, *IAA etc. and the rest of the world does not see why the US should restrict what they do.
What I fear from this idea is that it will end up being restricted by everybody. US, China, Israel, France... they all have their own axes to grind.
US bad, US good (Score:4, Interesting)
So now, we're rooting for the much-maligned ICANN institution... I guess that's not such a cognitive dissonance now that they've actually faced up to Verisign -- though the end of that story is yet to be written [whois.sc].
Interesting that this should come up on the same day that NPR's Morning Edition [npr.org] (just audio, sorry) reported that the US is blocking an attempt by UNESCO to allow countries to subsidize their national film industries to preserve cultural identity.
In one corner, we have the US: protector of political free speech and homogenous corporate culture.
In the other, we have the rest of the world: protector of political speech restriction and diverse cultural heritage.
Damn, it's hard to know what side to root for these days.
Re:US bad, US good (Score:2)
What makes you think that these government subsidizes to "preserve culture" wouldn't be used to preserve the governments views on what the culture ought to be? It's just another form of censorship. People find Western culture to be alluring, they are adopting i
Re:US bad, US good (Score:4, Insightful)
Perhaps you could be so good as to remind me when exactly we of the rest of the world came out in favour of 'political speech restriction'?
Wasn't it Ari Fleischer who suggested that "Americans should watch what they say"?
Re:US bad, US good (Score:3, Insightful)
If you put control of the Internet under the umbrella of the UN, we will see situations like what happened with South Africa [slashdot.org].
Re:US bad, US good (Score:5, Insightful)
Wow! (Score:4, Informative)
PS:I am not saying that what China is doing is correct, all I am saying is that they are monitoring their nation's internet from their nation, the way it should be.
Fight is over content distribution (Score:4, Interesting)
ICANN (Score:2)
I've read many slashdot gripes about some of the horors of the ICANN/Verisign run Internet, but never before heard these used as an excuse for state-sponsored control/censorship of the Internet. Really, even if they manage to work out the logistical headache (read: 120 years at least) this kind of thing would tak
Throwing toys out the pram (Score:2)
Frankly I think the US deserves to have the lion's share of the market. They made it so, they should reap the benefits. If anyone else wants to join the party, fine, but you don't walk into a rave and expect anyone to listen to your demands to make it a cocktail party instead!"
By the way, I'm not from the USA.
Simon.
The internet is dead, long live the internet. (Score:3)
Why doe sthe internet need government? (Score:2)
Governments are already serving both of those roles on the internet already. If my credit card info is stolen on-line, the FBI will try to track the criminal. Ditto for terrorists who try to organize on-line and pedophiliacs who try to lure kids on-line. Governments are also already providing on-line servi
Oh, great (Score:5, Insightful)
This will be great! (Score:2)
UN has no bearing in the US (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, for the US to even recognize a UN ruling requires approval of the president and 2/3 of the House and Senate. Technically, UN rulings are considered treaties. Even when it's recognized, it still requires an act of Congress to enact some sort of legislation before anyone can be prosecuted.
The one thing our government does well is ensuring that we're the only ones making bonehead laws that are enforcable in this country.
Re:UN has no bearing in the US (Score:2)
And treaties cannot conflict with the Constitution. Such a treaty would fly in the face of the first amendment, and wouldn't stand a chance in hell.
Re:UN has no bearing in the US (Score:3, Interesting)
"Not according to this."
Looking at what's here and looking up the court case they looked at (Reid v. Covert), it looks like there's at least precedent at striking down treaties which explicitly violate the US Constitution, but there's still the catch-all of Missouri v. Holland that seems to say "So long as Congress isn't explicitly denied power X..." When you get into stuff that Congress explicitly has control over (like copyright), t
Re:UN has no bearing in the US (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:UN has no bearing in the US (Score:3, Interesting)
I wouldn't worry too much (Score:2)
Now as to U.S. censorship and monitoring of the Internet, that I'd worry about.
This would be right up there (Score:5, Funny)
Luckily the UN is a flaccid organization with no territory or armies of its own. What would it plan to do? Begin a humanitarian mission to the Web by dropping a bunch of Kenyan and Spanish troops near all the root servers?
Yeah right.
Send in the conspiracies (Score:2)
There should be no way one council should hold control over the internet. This is similar to the US trying to dictate who could fly over someone elses airspace. There is way too much room for abuse but people with agendas. It's bad enoug
Imagine... (Score:2)
You might as well shut the whole thing down now.
Centralization is to be avoided. (Score:2)
But the UN? One bad decision binding everyone? (And it would be guarant
Guys, Don't worry (Score:2)
First, they have to pass a resolution to decide to take over the internet. 2-3 years at best.
Next, they need to set up a committee that will decide upon the best way to do this. Countries will argue about who gets to be on this comittee and so forth. 3-4 years.
Next, the Comittee will decide upon how to control all the world's routers and connections going between countries. Every time they are about to release a plan, some piss-ant podunk country
In the past... (Score:2)
Kjella
Absolutely not, the UN is a flawed organization (Score:5, Insightful)
I support the concept of world government, but before the UN can assume that role, a few things need to happen.
- The UN needs a split houses concept similar to the US and other democratic nation. One house gets a number of representatives dependent on a nations population, and in the other house all nations have equal numbers of representatives. This is the ONLY fair way to ensure that all nations are heard regardless of size or population.
- Abolish the security council. It made sense 50 years ago, but not today.
- All representatives should be ELECTED by the people in their nations, with reasonably limited terms (5 or six years max). If these people are going to determine my fate and run my Internet, I'd damned well better get a say in who represents me. Undemocratic nations that don't allow their citizens to vote should NOT get voting seats in the UN.
- It should respect the constitutions of its member nations. The UN should not have the ability to override, veto, or limit decisions or rights made or granted by their sovereign member states.
You'll pardon me for not holding my breath for these changes. The UN is a flawed, crippled organization that tries to grab onto any semblance of real power that it can, and it's in the interests of this worlds powerful nations to make sure it stays right where it is.Re:Absolutely not, the UN is a flawed organization (Score:2, Interesting)
The U.S. should respect the constitutions of its member nations. The federal government should not have the ability to override, veto, or limit decisions or rights made or granted by their soverign member states. -Southern worldview pre-Civil War...
Re:Absolutely not, the UN is a flawed organization (Score:3, Insightful)
Iraqi Constitution Article 983582: The right of Iraq to develop weapons of mass destruction and use them on all Infidel cities shall not be abridged.
You do realize how stupid your suggestion is, I hope?
Yeah, that'll happen (Score:2)
B) If it were, it would never pass a constitutional challenge.
C) If it did, the UN doesn't have enough of an understanding of what the internet is, much less how it works.
D) If they can figure it out, their entire annual budget couldn't possibly pay for the bandwidth, hardware, software (almost certainly Microsoft, after all) and technical expertise to even monitor, much less control the internet.
E) Whoever thought this up is a drooling moron.
The last thing I need (Score:3, Insightful)
Seriously, I say this is bad. The UN should be finding ways to get force countries to accept disagreeable content, not finding ways to make it easier for them to export censorship. Besides, there already is a way for military and religious dictatorships to shield their populations from the horrors of free speech and bare nipples: don't connect to the global internet. Run your own damn closed TCP/IP networks; I'll even send a free CD with all the software they'll need to the first dictator to call.
Of course, just not listening/reading/watching stuff you don't like is a strategy that, while damn near 100% effective, never seems to occur to these paleolithic troglodytes. That goes for Outer Boobistan no less than it does for Inner GOPistan.
Article 19, Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Score:5, Informative)
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 alternative would be? (Score:3, Insightful)
Before you flame me about how your favorite information should be free consider that information includes:
- child porn pictures or other snuff
- virus/worm/hacking tool source code and instructions
- stolen intelectual property (for example: HL2 source)
- [fill in other human rights violation here]
Some of the above might still not be a black and white example of where to draw the line, but at least there are gray areas that need to be discussed on an international level. The conclusion will likely be the need for more then the current inability to remove internationally-agreed-upon unwanted content.
The UN seems to be the right place for this discussion. Just say it out loud "United Nations".
Discussions about wether this organization is efficient at all are to be taken up with your national representatives
Well (Score:3, Insightful)
Child porn: Sorry, but I do not agree with the US position that 18 is some magical age when sex become ok. If other countries wish to have a lower age of consent, that's their right. Then there are those countries that want ALL pornagraphy to be illegal. So if it's ok for us to tell a nation that 18 must be the minimum age for porn, why is it not ok for a different country to tell
I don't think so... (Score:2)
Like this could ever go anywhere or be used for anything other than debate. DOA.
OK *Yawn* (Score:2)
The second-handers strike again! (Score:2)
'Nightmare material'? 'Control'? (Score:5, Insightful)
But I don't understand the intense negative reaction to this idea, particularly by the submitter. The UN is not a repressive dictatorship. Sure, some of its members are, but I highly doubt that a UN-controlled Internet administrative body would have been to stupidly designed that it would impose restrictions on the 'Net just because some UN member applied pressure.
In any case, why can we trust the U.S. government to take a hands-off role towards the Internet any more than we can trust the UN?
Re:'Nightmare material'? 'Control'? (Score:3, Insightful)
In any case, why can we trust the U.S. government to take a hands-off role towards the Internet any more than we can trust the UN?
Because the US has taken a generally hands-off role towards the Internet. Because the U.S. courts have struck down laws trying to restict speech on the Internet not once but twice. Because the U.S., where DARPANET was born, has generally been protective of its intellectual child.
The U.N. is a useless body. In its entire history, it has never accomplished anything without th
The UN has ALWAYS been against Free Speech (Score:4, Insightful)
The UN is an organization that does things like putting Libya in charge of its commission on human rights. Do you really want North Korea or Communist China to have a say in what YOU can or can't read online?
The UN is in no way, shape or form dedicated to the idea of democracy and individual rights. It is an organization by and for bureaucratic elites looking to expand their power and pretiege and ensure themselves easy employment. It has no moral standing, and only the power that is allowed it by the Security Council. It is not now, nor will it ever be, a "World Government," and thank God for that.
There are very few nations in the world that have a guaranteed right to free speech and a free press the way the U.S. does. (In France it's illegal to "insult the dignity" of the French President.) Putting the UN in chaarge of the Internet would be an unmittigated disaster for freedom.
Couldn't we start another network? (Score:4, Insightful)
If this got annoying, couldn't we start another network? I can't think of any reason this wouldn't be fairly easy if there was a demand for it. Start new root name servers, setup a new IP allocation agency. Need new routers, but not new cable as they wouldn't be regulating at the MAC level.
Personally, I suspect multiple Internets are going to be the way of the future. Think Xbox Live.
Monitor *This*... (Score:3, Interesting)
To those who wish to control the internet: don't bother - you've already lost. Your continued efforts to increase your control merely expose your despotic aspirations. The mass criminalization of your countrymen will result only in your own downfall. You will never succeed with technological restraints, as there are far too many who will fight with a true passion to unyolk the minds of their peers; a passion your cold hearts could never comprehend, nor overcome. Look to the government of China for a spectacular mural of failure in the abuse of technology to restrain the use thereof.
I can't help but laugh at the prospect of a worldwide effort to outright control the flow of information through the internet. You can slow it down, make it more difficult to find, and even stop some from gaining access to it, but information can no longer be suppressed to the extent you'd like.
Economist article that predated this (Score:3, Informative)
Here's the article (copied for fair use of news reporting, criticism and review):
Time for UN intervention?
Oct 30th 2003
From The Economist print edition
A regime change may topple ICANN, the controversial internet regulator
WHEN Augustine arrived in Carthage, the saint found a seething, bubbling cauldron of wickedness. A similar fate has befallen the controversial internet address regulator, ICANN (the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers), which hosted its trimestrial public board meeting this week in the Tunisian city. Five years after it was founded as a quasi-private body with the backing of many governments, ICANN now faces its most severe test. The environment for which it was designed has radically changed: the business of selling domain names collapsed; governments are keener to oversee the internet; and ICANN itself proved maladroit in carrying out its tasks. This autumn, these three factors collided. How ICANN handles the situation will determine whether the internet's core infrastructure remains managed by industry rather than by international treaty--and highlights the need to balance stability and innovation.
The most visible dispute is between ICANN and VeriSign, a firm that operates the
This shows how much the market for internet addresses has changed. VeriSign needs new services to generate revenue, since selling names and operating the registration system is not as lucrative as it once appeared. In 1998, it had a monopoly on
More importantly, VeriSign's willingness to risk antagonising its regulator reveals the extent to which ICANN's authority is in doubt. Some governments feel that they could do a better job. At a pre-meeting in September for the United Nations' World Summit on the Information Society, which begins in Geneva in December, a number of countries backed a proposal that a different body, the UN-affiliated International Telecommunication Union, should take on the activities that are currently within ICANN's remit. In policy circles, the idea represents a significant snub to the notion of private-sector management of the internet's addressing system.
The threat of being ousted in favour of the ITU helped to push ICANN to confront VeriSign, to prove that it was up to the task of keeping order on the net. But it also exposed an irony that was made clear at this week's board meeting in Carthage, where ICANN's allies and enemies congregated. In the past, the debate over how to run the internet has focused on the risk that too much government regulation might stall innovation. Indeed, industry and governments themselves
Nothing but a power-grab (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Better than a USA-run Internet... (Score:2, Funny)
And I, sitting on my white, male, obese sitcom-watching, oil burning, corporate lacky ass, thank God you don't live here too.
Damn stinky third world types. Take a fucking shower.
Re:Better than a USA-run Internet... (Score:2)
Re:Better than a USA-run Internet... (Score:5, Insightful)
Where even criminals have civil rights.
God Bless America, so happy to violate international laws
When those laws are put together by the dictator's club called the UN, you bet. You know, the place that puts Syria and Libya on the "human rights committee"?
God Bless America, where "freedom of speech" means race-hate groups like KKK
Where freedom of speech applies to EVERYBODY, even the ones with unpopular causes. Hint: popular causes don't NEED freedom of speech.
God Bless America, with barely 300 years of dire history and culture
Hint: we're still on our first Republic. France is on their fifth, with intervening Reigns of Terror, anarchy, kings, emperors, and Nazi collaborationist regimes.
Hint: our popular culture dominates the world. Deal with it.
God Bless America, with the highest obesity levels in the developed world
Where food is so cheap that even the poorest can (over)eat.
God Bless America, wasting billions to attack foreign countries
They're ours to "waste", Saddam-lover.
Re:Better than a USA-run Internet... (Score:3, Insightful)
After the civil war I'd say we are on our second.
Re:Better than a USA-run Internet... (Score:4, Funny)
> > even the ones with unpopular causes. Hint:
> > popular causes don't NEED freedom of speech.
>
> If it applies to everybody, then why would
> there be a need for a 3-day shutdown of London
> so that protesters don't get a chance
> to "peacably assemble?"
I may only have a US education, but I'm pretty sure London is in another country. It's the one with Radiohead and Boddington's.
Re:Better than a USA-run Internet... (Score:3, Insightful)
But, I think this post raises a fascinating point about what constitutues a culture and a race. Culture is often considered to be associated with language which would probably still make China far more multicultural then the US since even the rural people tend to be bilingual in spoken tongues. The characters, which are functionally somewhat akin to a huge alphabet, don't change, but the spoken tongues vary literally from province to province
Re:Good idea (Score:2, Interesting)
I's sad that in such an "advanced" time, the ideas of censorship are readily and seriously discussed. It isn't feudalism anymore, and people will find ways to get whatever information they look for if they're determined.
Re:Good idea (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Good idea (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Good idea (Score:4, Insightful)
Private ownership is only as good as the law its based on. I'm not a nutjob or anything, but 'ownership' is a fairly flexible term when the state/federal government's needs must be met.
Re:Good idea (Score:5, Insightful)
In most ways it's under the control of wherever the lines happen to run.
Examples:
--China has no problem effectively blocking 3/4 of the Internet from viewing.
--Germany/France have effectively censored certain portions of the net.
--Many countries have unique top level domains hosted within their countries.
The list goes on...
The point being, while the U.S. is definitely HEAVILY involved in the development, maintenence, and overall culture of the Internet (not surprising given the history of the network) it also far from being in any real control of it. Certain members of the U.S. government would like us to sieze control through a variety of means (primarily applying economic pressure to other countries), none of it has been particularly succesful (it turns out that most politicians A) don't care or B) 'get it').
Re:Good idea (Score:5, Insightful)
Open standards that can be implemented by any geek in his mom's basement and distributability.
These are the real enemies governments are fighting. They want control for the purpose of control, not insure openess to the international community.
As for the UN being an international orginisation of nations you have to bear in mind that they have always been nothing more than a permenent meeting hall to engage in otherwise normal diplomatic practices. A permenent base for ambassadors, not a governing body of any kind.
It doesn't change anything about historical diplomatic process between nations other than creating a central point for participation in a city known for really good delis when they break for lunch.
KFG
Re:Good idea (Score:3, Interesting)
The Internet is really the wild west - the great unexplored frontier. To me, it exists beyond governments and central control. When people with malicious intentions come to the Internet, the good people have no problem taking the unwritten law into their own hands. In a weird sense, the Internet is our one chance at an unbounded pseudo-utopia that is controlled by no entity. No one can tell us what to do or how to behave.
The real threat, as you said, are the government or
Re:Good idea (Score:2)
enough said..
.
Re:Good idea (Score:2, Flamebait)
Jeebus, why not just call it the USA-net then?
Don't get me wrong, TCP/IP and the prelimary workings of a global free network were a great achievement (and all from DARPA), but don't make the mistake that this network can't be re-done, in a better manner by emerging 3rd world countries.
Re:Good idea (Score:5, Insightful)
They could also try working on the ability to feed themselves before they do another inet.
Re:Good idea (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Good idea (Score:3, Informative)
Second, the Food Stamp program doesn't have a time limit, you can get Food Stamps for as long as you are under the income limits (hidden way of subsiding our food producers). You may have to have a work part time, if you are able, but that is all. Food Stamp benifits are based on income, the less you make, the more you get.
Re:Good idea (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Good idea (Score:5, Insightful)
huh? says who? i thought it was a network of networks.
some of those networks most definately have controls/policies against free speech.
Re:Good idea (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Good idea (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Good idea (Score:3, Informative)
Don't know? That's OK, that's because they DON'T DO ANYTHING. They print pamphlets! Oh my fucking God! What can't Libya do with those nerfarious pamphlets of theirs!? And... and... and... they do statistical analyses of data!!! God help us! Sometimes they even write opinion essays! They're like the Wall Street Journal, only with a smaller audience and less influence! I hear your call, sir, the UN Security Council must sieze control of all thes
Re:Imagine (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Team Up with the John Birch Society (Score:2)
---Drago Musevni(sic?) from Andromeda
Re:Team Up with the John Birch Society (Score:2)
Yes indeed see quote below from . their website. [jbs.org], but thanks for the suggestion anyway since I didn't know what they were about.
Quote:
We believe the traditional moral values of our Judeo-Christian heritage form the cornerstone of Western Civilization, and that the family is the basic and most vital unit of society.
Re:Well... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:So we can just sit around and bitch? (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes! Damn them! Damn them and the tens of millions of protesters worldwide who rallied against the righteous invasion! I mean, so what if it was the largest protest ever in the history of mankind? Those crazy non-Americans (and un-American Americans) deserve to be shot! What do they know about what's right?
Re:Some objections to the UN in general (Score:4, Insightful)
Only fools and crackpot leftists take representative democracy seriously. Only educated men of property and good character should be allowed to vote or participate in the political process. That is of course how it used to be in the good old days.
It is a den of dictators, murders, theives and their apologists.
How did this nut-case slander get rated as "Insightful"? You're arguing that 90% of the world's population are "apologists". Wake up: Bush has managed to make most of the world angry at the US's foreigh policy - and this is not just dictators but the educated informed newspaper-reading middle classes of Western democracies. You know, it is possible these "apologists" might be right; recent events in Iraq certainly bear out their concerns. In any case, even if you disagree with someone please don't automatically impugn their character and motives.
The so-called ICC makes a mockery out of due process of law. Secret witnesses, evidence, no right to trial by jury.
I think you're confused. The mockery of the due process of law is promulgated by Bush/Ashcroft. Detainees face secret witnesses, evidence, no right to trial by jury. If you have something concrete (not paranoid fantasies) where the ICC was abusive, please post a link. (Also, trial by jury is not a requirement for due process, and may be detrimental when jurors can be retaliated against. Plus from where would you recruit jurors? Think about it before spouting nonsense.)