Surrendering Internet to Foreign Powers

[2ndgenz28]

edited as needed to keep it within the rules.



Surrendering Internet to Foreign Powers

Sunday, 31 Jan 2010 06:41 PM


By: Bradley A. Blakeman

Without the ingenuity of America’s brightest minds and the investment of U.S. taxpayer dollars, there would be no Internet, as we now know it today.

Now, the "NEW" administration has moved quietly to cede control of the Web from the United States to foreign powers.

This amounts to one small step for internationalism and one giant leap for surrendering America's control over an invention we have every right and responsibility to control and manage.

It is in America's economic and national security interests not to relinquish any control. We are responsible for the control, operation, and functionality of one of the modern world's greatest inventions and most powerful communications network.

What better country to protect the Internet than the United States?

We invented it, and we paid for the research and implementation that made it
possible. We are the freest, most tolerant nation on earth, we believe in the
fundamental right of free speech, and we practice a free market of commerce and ideas.

America has always been against censorship and has shared its invention with the world without fee or unreasonable or arbitrary restriction. The user fee to operate on the Internet is not one paid to the U.S. government; a consumer pays it to private Internet companies, who provide access to the Internet through servers for their subscribers.

Look no further than China's recent move against Google to censor the
Internet, and you can envision what can happen when other nations less free
than the United States seek to control the Internet beyond even their own borders.

America needs to wake up. If we lose control over the management of the
Internet, we have given away one of our nation's greatest assets with nothing
in return to show for it.

The "NEW" administration's actions will set in motion a slow and complete takeover of the Internet by the United Nations or some other equally U.S.-hostile and unfriendly international body. And once it is gone, it will be gone forever.

The surrender of the Internet will spell disaster for our nation, financially, as well as for safety, security and our standing as a great power that values freedom and the free exchange of ideas and information.

As far as I am concerned, America is still the last best hope for a more
peaceful and prosperous world and our president should not be looking for
ways to weaken us. Rather, his job is to work to strengthen us and protect our nation's greatest asset our people's creativity and ingenuity.

http://news.google.com/news?client=o...N&hl=en&tab=wn

[FenwickHockey65]

IBTL.

[Iwantone2]

so...possibly no more camaro5

[UCF w00t]

I don't trust foreign governments to run the internet. Even "good" countries like Australia have participated in some form or another of censorship. I don't care if other countries think it's not fair, we're the only ones that I (and much of the world) trusts to keep it free.

[brandotron]

Alarmist rhetoric.

[mickss]

Ah, Bradley A. Blakeman, no political agenda here huh?
I also like the way The "NEW" administration's is used. quite creative.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php...ey_A._Blakeman

[The_Blur]

Originally Posted by brandotron

Alarmist rhetoric.

Arguing that America is entitled in whole to the internet is like saying that only America should have electricity. Just because an individual or group of individuals in one country invents something does not mean that the greater human significance of that something falls under the exclusive jurisdiction of that country. The internet is a source of data, and that data, be it in the form of images, videos, text, or code, belongs to the world. People in the United States ultimately developed a platform for that data to be stored and shared far beyond the source of that data; however, contributions to the internet come from all over the world. There is no reason that the world's contributors should have as little a role as they've had in it. The United States does not represent the world. There is no good reason that the internet has remained so ethnocentric for so long.

By the way, we should all evaluate the sources of our information.

[a_Username]

I believe the point was not to censor, or control what sites we can view. This goes against freedom of press and could be easily overturned via constitutional law if this is true.

[Number 3]

Oh my God. SKYNET LIVES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Mr. Wyndham]

Originally Posted by Number 3

Oh my God. SKYNET LIVES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

More sky is falling...

[UCF w00t]

Originally Posted by The_Blur

Arguing that America is entitled in whole to the internet is like saying that only America should have electricity. Just because an individual or group of individuals in one country invents something does not mean that the greater human significance of that something falls under the exclusive jurisdiction of that country. The internet is a source of data, and that data, be it in the form of images, videos, text, or code, belongs to the world. People in the United States ultimately developed a platform for that data to be stored and shared far beyond the source of that data; however, contributions to the internet come from all over the world. There is no reason that the world's contributors should have as little a role as they've had in it. The United States does not represent the world. There is no good reason that the internet has remained so ethnocentric for so long.

By the way, we should all evaluate the sources of our information.

I didn't even read the article nor do I know who the 'source' is but I am extremely familiar with the topic and the technical and political issues at play.

This is all about ICANN. It's not about the data that's on the internet, it's about access (particularly ease of access) to that data. ICANN does things like issue domain name (through registrars). They also control the world's IP addresses (which we're rapidly running out of, IPv4 at least). They also control the world's ROOT DNS server (sortof... they're actually run by the various institutions that house them). There is no, and will continue to not be, direct control over the data that passes through the internet, only the way you access that content. The data itself is, or could be, controlled by the people that own/run the connections (telecom companies).

This push is nothing new. It's a power thing. The US has done a fine job of running it up until now, why should that change? We haven't even used it as a blockade or embargo tool against rogue nations. Entrusting it to a beurocracy like the UN is a disaster waiting to happen.

Besides, you're an Apple fan. In your mind we should just let Steve Jobs run the internet like you allow him to control your devices.

[THUMPER20X]

F China, theyre really staring to piss me off.

[2ndgenz28]

Originally Posted by mickss

I also like the way The "NEW" administration's is used. quite creative.

That was done to stay within the rules, post his name in any thread and it gets locked.

[2ndgenz28]

Originally Posted by UCF w00t

This push is nothing new. It's a power thing. The US has done a fine job of running it up until now, why should that change? We haven't even used it as a blockade or embargo tool against rogue nations. Entrusting it to a beurocracy like the UN is a disaster waiting to happen.

Yep, we have done a very good job. And the only way to keep it free, is to keep it under US control. We have the laws that can stop problem in their tracks where other countries do not.

And the UN is a joke, like OPEC. Just a bunch of crooks n theives.