What is Digg?176 Comments
- ciphex, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Guys, I hate to break it to you but the UN has a lot more control over US policy than most of us realize.
If you think these EU bully tactics (those that making us look like tyrants) are bad try looking into the provisions of NAFTA, CAFTA, and especially the FTAA.
Piece by piece the UN and EU along with agreeable US leaders have been taking the US and countries across Europe down a path leading to the absolution of national sovereignty. Under the guise of free trade etc we are losing much influence in our own nations. This is not just an issue for the US but for sovereign nations around the globe.
This is just one more step towards what the orchestrator's of the UN and the EU have wanted for centuries, yes, centuries. The worst thing anyone can do is ignore the History. If you really wanted to you could draw distinct parallels between modern EU policy and strategies employed by the famed Illuminati (who were rejected and driven underground) hundreds of years ago. Only today in a culture where "open mindedness" is so overrated could people be convinced to ignore human nature to the point where they believe national sovereignty is a bad thing. Nations are made up, in general, of people who have like minds, who share a cultural heritage and who have like needs. This can vary greatly from location to location around the globe. Needs vary, beliefs vary, life varies. To each his own. His own land, language, belief and product.
The issue at hand is not control of the "Internet" but control of the root servers owned and operated by a US non-profit organization (ICANN). What government would let foreign policy dictate how a corporation owned inside it's borders operates? Especially when the fact is that many US government functions rely on the solid operation of this network.
Every sovereign nation, and every sovereign individual, has right to their product... be it intellectual or economic or both. What the EU is attempting here is an intrusion upon US property under the guise of world good. Though ICANN has been doing a bang-up job so far and US policy plainly states that we have no desire but to cooperate with other nations when it comes to developing the Internet.
I do not believe in restriction of information or in governmental Internet "content control." Looking forward I see no EU or UN policy to date that would suggest that our freedom of speech and the freedom of information would be protected against international lobby. Many of the freedoms we take for granted as US citizens are not enjoyed by other citizens of the world. We have no right to force our policy on them and they sure as hell shouldn't be able to do the same to us.
The net belongs to it's citizens, the root servers belong to the US organization ICANN. The US has no desire to negate your efforts on the web. If other nations are uncomfortable with that position then let them develop their own root infrastructures to rely on. We have built ours and are willing to share it with the world.
But if you want to control it...
You can't, get over it. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4"U.S. created it?
Last I checked the creator of the Internet is Sir Tim Berners-Lee (knighted) who graduated from the Queen's College at Oxford University, England, 1976."
Mr. Lee created the world wide web which runs on top of the Internet. Mr.Lee's invention (the use of hypertext) turned a previously all text Internet into one with multimedia capability. The infrastructure that supports the world wide web was developed in the U.S by DARPA in a project called ARPANET for which TCP/IP was created. It was the opening of and eventual expansion of ARPANET that lead to the internet. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3China, a major proponent of a U.N.-administered Internet, already operates the world's largest and most advanced system of online censorship. Thousands of government agents, including some from ITU Director Zhao's former Department of Telecommunications, make sure that websites, e-mails, and even search-engine results deemed threatening to the regime remain inaccessible to a fifth of the world's population. U.S. companies have shamefully participated in this system, as shown by China's recent jailing of dissident journalist Shi Tao based on information revealed by Yahoo!, Inc. Chinese Internet users are unable to access the websites of the Voice of America or, even, the BBC. The regime's filtering is so sophisticated that many sites, such as cnn.com, time.com, and, curiously, yale.edu, are filtered page-by-page, thus maintaining the illusion of openness.
Other WGIG participants have similar policies. Like China, Iran, and Saudi Arabia also recognize that control over the Internet brings them closer to control over minds. It is unsurprising, then, that Mr. Zhao and his ilk support the U.N.'s drive to give them more of it. - grinndaddy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3"The really important point is that the EU doesn't want to see this change as bringing new government control over the internet."
Of course they don't. If we see it as bringing new control over the internet -- Which it is -- Then we will oppose it. - exoendo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3"The germans built the first car - Can we Euro's ban you yanks from driving your nine litre Chevrolet? Arrogant Pricks"
Yes but we've also built our own cars. You are more than welcome to build your own internet. - natsmith9, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3No one has mentioned that the United States created ARPANET which essentially blossomed into the Internet. Screw the UN.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3"It's not a matter of the EU controlling anything here...
it's about providing an equal quality of service to people everywhere and to prevent that domains be shut down without good reason and due notice (not saying that it has happened yet). It's about giving 3rd world countries their own domains and not have them share a couple that we in the west don't use."
Some how I doubt the EU and UN would follow thru on that.
"You're ranting on about EU and Europe being so bad, well, take a good look at your own welfare system and compare it with countries like say Norway, Iceland, Luxembourg, Sweden, Switzerland and yes even the Republic of Ireland."
Welfare might be a flaw in the U.S system, but I can asure you the countries you mentioned aren't perfect either.
"You're so proud of your "system" but don't even understand that you're all being brainwashed by your censored media and misinforming government (The government is your own fault... if you're not smart enough to see that George W. should not lead anything in the first place, let alone a "super power", it's just sad!)."
And you think European countries are above that? Then you really are nieve. France and Germany prohibit the sale of Nazi artifacts (France at least tried to censor Yahoo, including the U.S version).
If I want to watch uncensored TV I would pay for HBO etc, but I don't watch that much TV so it's not really an issue.
"Has it even occurred to you people that the U.S though ICANN might be disallowing content that would be considered legal in european or other countries."
Do you have any proof of this? Do you not understand how the internet works? ICANN doesn't control content they control domains names and the DNS which resolves those domain into IP addresses. In the absense of a domain name one can type an IP address and get the content. I would like to know how you think ICANN could censor the web. If it were so easy for them to filter content why don't they block child porn? Jackass. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5This really is entirely unnecessary.
As far as rights go, America invented, built, maintained, and has exclusively controlled the internet. Just because other people want it doesn't mean we have any reason to give it.
Aside from rights, this is really a destructive move at best, as FuzzyBunny said. Progress will slow, standards will dissolve, and the internet will become fragmented and more cumbersome.
...One other note: ***** the UN. - MisterKen, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Yeah, and I'm sure if they built the Internet they would let us barge in and start regulating & influencing it.
Yeah right...
Typical socialistic European thinking.
This will be just like the EU, they will get a coalition together and not be able to decide anything. - exoendo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3"someone decides to say something bad about your current president, about the handling of a certain national disaster and they are censored."
Censorship isn't a station choosing not to run something - it's the government enacting legislation to stop speech.
They don't have control over cable outlets because those are private enterprises. You don't know what you are talking about. - forrest, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3This is hilarious.
The US is not going to relenquish control to the UN, so whats the point of arguing over it?
Don't get me wrong, I think the UN is a great organization if you need to have children raped or genocide covered up, but for controlling the intarweb I just don't think they are qualified. - DigiRaven, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2UN needs to figure out why Saddam built his palaces with the oil for food program before worrying about something like the net which isn't broken or misused by the US. The EU and UN are using a lot of propaganda and scare tactics about the US and it isn't good.
- ThePharaoh, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5You gotta love how isolationist Americans can be. Everything has to be under our control. There's is no global economy, there's only the American economy. There are no human rights, that are only American rights. Americans quantify the stuck up and egotistical attitudes that prevent the world from becoming a better place. I love the country and I love what it stands for (or at least used to stand for), but the people need a little work. If we ever plan on living in a world where everyone is equal and we can actually be happy about the place, we can't always grab everything for ourselves. We might as well just shut off the rest of the internet and just make our own little AmericaNet that doesn't involve any other countries but our own. That way wouldn't have to worry about the UN or anyone else screwing up what America says it owns.
I would much rather see the United States agree to hand over control to a conglomeration of nations including the United States with strict rules and what can and can't be changed. Draft a constitution that indicates how it really needs to be run, but at least include the opinions of other nations. America does not know everything about everything. America is not the god of all knowledge. Yes, we do do great things in this country and have we have had some incredible discoveries. But that doesn't give us the right to place ourselves on a pedestal away from the rest of the world
I have significantly more to say on this issue, but I'd rather let people mull over what I've said thus far. Cuss, spit, flame, do what you will. But try looking in the mirror and asking yourself if you are really that simple minded and ego-driven that you see only yourself and deny the fact that there are other people in the world than you...
thepharaoh
http://www.frenetictech.com - adml_shake, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2WTF is the UN and EU thinking?! While ICANN is fundded by some government group, they whole point is that they arn't told what todo by the US. Screw those mooching bastards I say.
- mutant, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4I'm not sure how to express my feeling without breaking the fragile ears/eyes of digg users..
Here goes..
**** you ******* ***holes. Take your opinions and shove them squarely up your ***. Further you **** *** snot bubbles might want to consider saying "Thank you" for inventing the ******* thing to begin with. If it wasn't for OUR pioneering telephone technology you backwards ********* would still be stringing tin cans between houses, and the concept of the internet wouldn't have even entered your tiny **** spasm under utilized muscles you call brains. Without Al Gore's internet, people in india would have no reason to use the ******* phone. Please have the courtesy to promptly jump in front of a bus and save the world from your utter stupidity.
**** *** and your whole family.
-- Enraged Netizen - kindrobot, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I'm into sharing, but wow... come play in my yard enough times and you think you own the swingset now? ***** OFF.
- infra172, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3I second that.
We created it. We own it. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2***** Europe and the United Nations. Secret Chinese nuclear warheads behind the Great Wall, keeping off those Mongols even now?
- exoendo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"And that's not fair to other nations with different policies."
Life isn't fair. Let that be a lesson to you. I don't give a ***** if it isn't fair - it's ours.
"and anyone worried about censorship should take a little look at the Christian Right. We Americans go crazy about half a breast on TV,"
The FCC regulates airwaves - they are entitled to set standards, that's not censorship. If that was the case we wouldn't get to see plenty of boobies on hbo. - catullus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2i guess the message to the other countries, then, is "Server Request Denied!"
- brian2k1, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Last time I check we created it. I'm sure if France or some other pseudo ally created a similar global accessible and profitible entity they would NOT be giving it up to us... Screw them.
- cypher073, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Somebody made a good point earlier when they pointed out that that US owns and operates the root name servers, and has no intention of turning those over to the EU nor the UN. The EU can pound its chest and talk about ripping control of the Internet from the US, but they really only have two options if the US declines to cooperate, which they invariably will: create a new Internet or try to force cooperation through other means, such as sanctions, etc.
As for the first option, have at it. I'm sure, with most of the good stuff on American servers anyway, they'll be some sort of interconnection.
As for forcing the US to hand over the goods, I don't see that as very likely. I doubt the EU, even with all the anti-American spew, will jeopardize wider relations with the world's lone superpower over such a thing.
But it boils down to a very simple point: the US isn't handing over the root servers, and there's not a damn thing the EU or the UN can do about it except bitch a little more than they usually do. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I agree. But to be fair, lets get something in return. I demand a share of France's cowardice and unfettered rights to Germany's unemployment situation. How about a dash of China's human rights abuses?
- MisterKen, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"Last I checked the creator of the internet is Sir Tim Berners-Lee (knighted) who graduated from the Queen's College at Oxford University, England, 1976."
You should check again.
The internet backbone was built of of ARPANET in the 1950s by the US Government. - Jammerdelray, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I don't trust anyone but the united states with all the censoring thats going on in other countries
- exoendo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1" and many americans would like to be abolished completely."
err... the welfare system that is . . the welfare system should be abolished. I like existing. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"I'm sure that your government just like other ones aound the world are making sure that people act and think the way they want them to."
no thats the media/RIAA/MPAA - j.carcinogen, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1being feeble minded is believing that bush has total control. Congress approved the iraq invasion. He is just one man in a branch of three counterbalancing branches controlled by an unseen elite. But i guess we have to put up with bush running our country into the ground. oh wait 5% gdp gowth a year while the EU slips.
- BestGreek, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Just because we made it isn't the only reason we have to keep control of it. Are they going to pay anything to the US government for building, maintaining and designing it? I don't think they will. Also the UN and EU overall are hostile to the US and they take every chance possible to hurt us. Like many others have said this doesn't make sense we've done will managing the net and leave it mostly to users to define how it works no matter the country they are in. I know this will never happen but I wish we could withdraw from the UN (which is not doing anything positive) and put the money into drilling for local Oil supplies. With our economy and enough oil to support our self's they'd have no leverage.
- themachina, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Fret not.
This development is annoying but it's essentially toothless. As long as the US remains the dominant leader in Internet development, it will by default have the greatest influence on its direction.
So, go code something sweet, and let our international friends eat their hearts out. ;-) - j.carcinogen, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1to say that america has solitary control of the internet is stupid. does the EU really believe this or is it an excuse to use so that they can "coalesce with the mission of stripping the United States of its solitary control". The vast majority of online purchases are still made in the US and until that changes it only makes since that since the traffic is in this country that the servers are here too. This will change. Its not about putting ourselves on a pedestal, its about supply and demand in an open market system.
Also just because the servers are here does not mean that they are american owned. The 'peans (not peons) will rally behind their governments decision to take power out of "americas hands" at any chance they get. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"GIVE IT TO CHINA! THEY WILL PROTECT FREEDOM OF INFORMATION! HAHAHAHAHA!"
lol
I for one welcome our communist UN overlords, they have done nothing but good so far oh wait ROFL! - jasqwerty, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3LOL Is that what its come to? Is that how impotent and sidelined the UN & EU feel that they come up with this *****?
The US funded the creation of the Internet and its baseline protocols and has been the leader in its innovation and maintenance ever since. HTML is just SGML, also created in the US, and a web browser != Internet, I would expect Digg users to be more informed. Routing, TCP/IP Stacks, MAC Addresses, that's the stuff we're talking about.
Not that 'I made it so it's mine' is the argument I'm putting worth, but don't try to pretend the US isn't directly responsible for the creation/spread/maintains of the Internet infrastructure. The argument is this, "If it ain't broken, don't fix it."
What exactly is wrong with the US maintaining the root DNS servers? Have they ever even remotely ***** up in anyway? Besides, if that is so threatening, well, fine, setup your own national DNS servers and clone down the root US ones and pass laws in your country that it's illegal to use any other DNS servers.
And, how is the EU maintaining the root servers any different/better. Censorship is on big issue, and trust me, the US is the worst country for free speech, besides every other country on the planet :-). Europe easily has 10x as much censorship legislation than the US, and never-mind China. And the UN? God, that's the last thing anyone should want, except China I guess. I mean, come on, you expect China to be happy about domain names like falungong.cn/com/org ??? (Doubt it would end there anyway)
And Lebowski, you're really ***** in the head, seriously, get some Prozac dude. :-/
America hate some more imbeciles, your time has long since come and gone,no one will care about you soon enough. Can't wait for the China v US cold war though, should be interesting. :-)
Oh yah, almost forgot:
"Bush is a moron islamo-fascist Nazi cross-dresser"
"Terrorists aren't chickens they gave their lives for their ideals"
"The War on Terrorism is a joke and Bush is in it for the Oil and it was planned in the Pentagon while Cheney and Rumsfeld ate babies."
--I hope the men in the black suits don't come and get me ;-)
LOL, US (Land of the free) biatches. - SHaBBaZZ, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Maybe the UN or EU shouldnt be overstepping their bounds or whatever but lets not say ***** europe. I'm an American living and working in Europe and its wonderful
Good Things in Europe
1. Free Healthcare
2. Legalised prostitution (not just Holland)
3. Leniency on softcore drugs
4. When I go home to America my pounds are worth twice as much as dollars
5. 20 diverse countries less than a three hour flight away
and anyone worried about censorship should take a little look at the Christian Right. We Americans go crazy about half a breast on TV, but basic TV is full of em over here after 9pm. Theres no chance id EVER live in America again. Once you leave the country and live somewhere else for awhile America feels like a closed off box - zwilliams, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Funny, the US doesn't want to be told what to do. But then the US thinks it can tell other countries what to do.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I've see nothing about the EU or UN that would lead me to believe they would do a better job than the current system. ICANN's board of directors is made up of people from U.N member countries (though not exclusively) so it's not as though there isn't any international representation. One has to wonder for what purpose the EU wants control.
- 8bit_Hero, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Okay i'm abit confused. Improvement on the web: flash, CSS, XML, RSS, Java aren't these all of US creation? What is the UN going to do (as an org) to improve the web?
- matthewsnape, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1This is a really dumb argument. Who cares who made it? The point of the Internet is that it crosses national borders without reference to them. Americans on this site bluster about how the Internet should remain in US hands. But how would you like it if the US government actually used the power it has over DNS instead of just delegating it? Do you really trust the US government to do what is right for the Internet? As a European I don't want the US government to control the DNS. Nor do I want them controlled by the UN or EU. I want them out of the control of national governments and under the control of users. By arguing about national differences, we merely allow the Internet to become a national and governmental issue. We should work together as Internet users for a common good and stop our governments politicizing this. It is true that the Internet would not have happened without America. But the value of this contribution is that it was made freely available for all of mankind, irrespective of nationality. We should be asking how the Internet should be further developed to aid this goal.
- Lynn, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1China and Iran are part of the UN's Working Group on Internet Governance (WGIG). China and Iran have the most heavily censored online infrastructures anywhere in the world. They do not have a good track record when it comes to an open Internet.
OpenNet (see link) found that 34 per cent of the 1465 weblinks they tried were blocked within Iran. Some 15 per cent of blogs and 30 per cent of news sites were inaccessible - as were 100 per cent of porn sites.
http://www.opennetinitiative.net/
I like the Internet the way it is, if it isn`t broke don`t fix it. - tynin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1The amount of mis-information people are spreading on this is rediculous. This is a dispute over who controls the root dns servers, not about the internet. Hell, if they shut off all the root servers most domains would still be accessible for a few days due to dns caching (on multiple levels) and any ISP worth a damn would grab all there cached DNS entries and make them a little more permanate for at least a short while until the root servers are back up. At the very least, people with a clue would not have a problem and I'm sure some HUGE hosts files would pop up with the IP's of everything major. I am sure most of you are using XP, so if anything of the sort happens you can backup your cached dns records easily, and then manually convert it to a hosts file. It isn't rocket science. Just go to a cmd prompt and type 'ipconfig /displaydns > c:somefilename.txt' then just reformat it as a hosts file.
I for one see no reason to give the UN control over the root dns servers. ICANN has been doing a good job keeping them operational, and it isn't like all the root servers are on US soil, there are a few of them spread around the world. Not to meantion your ISP and possibly your country has to opt into using the root dns servers (i.e. they have to point there resolvers to the root servers, they could point them someplace else if they want, and some already do).
This really feels like the UN is trying to fight so hard to gain effectively nothing. They may do as good a job as ICANN, but once again, if it isn't broke, don't fix it. - jefflundberg, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1The EU already has their own root servers (ORSN - http://www.orsn.org/). Ironically, the reasons they give for having their own are the exact same reasons the U.S. wants to retain control of their own. Why would anyone give up control of it's servers? In the end, the more redundancy built on the Internet, the more secure it becomes.
The other argument that the U.S. reserves too many IP addresses for itself is also bogus. The Internet was started in the U.S, so it seems obvious it would retain more addresses for itself. The fact is, there's not enough IPs for everyone with IPv4. The solution is IPv6. The U.S. Government has mandated that all federal agencies must deploy IPv6 by 2008. More U.S. controlled root servers support IPv6 than European ORSN root servers. Since the majority of the Internet is privately run, what more can they do? - sosbythefool, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1The UN/EU has a point. If the entire world runs on Internet technology, then they should all have control over it.
It's like oil. The middle east has a lot of oil. The entire world economy centers around oil. Therefore, OPEC should relinquish control and let the UN/EU/US determine how much oil is pumped, where it goes, and what prices to sell. Very reasonable.
/sarcasm - Twasi, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1It's not a question of who "invented" it, but more of who PAID to build it from the ground up, there is no reason right now to change who has control over it, the US is doing a good job. Please give me ONE good reason to fix something that's not broken? This can only cause a decline. If they want control reimburse all the organizations who paid to make it what it is today, (heh I would like to see that happen)
- Nessguy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I agree with pebble. I haven't heard any real reason to give the UN control, so it's really just them whining about not having control.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1The argument IS censorship, anything else is just ***** jingoism on the part of both Americans and the Europeans/Asians/etc. People who're saying that the U.S. is not keeping the internet free are ignorant FOOLS. Here, watch:
George Bush is an idiot! I am an American citizen! Come arrest me for calling Bush an idiot!!!
*waits patiently*
What's that? Nothing's happening!? What about nudity?
*goes to a porn site*
Holy crap, nipples! Wow! Somebody should arrest me for seeing this on the internet!
*waits for someone to arrest me*
What the hell? Nothing's going on!? I wonder why!
Now I DARE someone who lives in either China or Iran, members of the UN, to post the exact same message in a public forum like this one. Hell, I bet this "public" form is actually banned to them! This is what MIGHT happen to ALL of us if UN gets control! Understand, you ignorant FOOLS? - pebble, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I agree with 8bit hero. I haven't seen a single good reason why the status quo should be changed.
Lebowsky wrote: "it's about providing an equal quality of service to people everywhere and to prevent that domains be shut down without good reason and due notice (not saying that it has happened yet)."
That sounds nice, but means absolutely nothing.
Is ICANN providing a lower quality of service to people in Europe or Africa? In the entire history of the Internet, has ICANN ever censored a single domain?
What is wrong with the current system that so desperately needs fixing? - wthnow, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Isn't this the same people who proposed "e-patents" ? ugh. first DRM in vista now stricter Inet. Open source people have to make / design a new internet.
- pebble, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Let's get a couple of things straight:
1) Nobody owns the internet. Nobody CAN own the internet. If every US-controlled server was shut down this instant, the internet would still continue to exist. Of course you would have to enter IP addresses instead of domain names, but the internet would still technically exist.
2) The UN and EU have no specific complaints about how ICANN is running the root servers. (The UN has made some vague complaints that the west is using up all the good domain names, so that developing countries are stuck with the stupid ones... but I don't count that as a SERIOUS complaint.) Since ICANN is doing a decent job, why mess with what works? - whizzbang, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I think it boils down to this...
1. ANY country having sole control over a worldwide resource is a bad thing.
2. The UN can't find its own arse with two hands.
Any other ideas?
how about haveing each group run their own DNS? US ha sits own, EU has its and China has its own. After all thats all that is being discussed here. - gregcotten, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Do you realize that if this happens we *might* not even be able to debate on topics such as these?
-
Show 51 - 100 of 171 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is