General Discussion

[ProjectVRD]

It appears that some countries are going to try and transfer control of the internet over to the United Nations, however the United States is going resist handing over that control.

As you folks know I am always one for controversy, it makes me feel warm inside, I think the whole of the UN should back this and if America then refuses to hand over control the appropriate action should be taken:

Block America from incoming and outgoing internet traffic beyond it's borders. Literally severe the optical lines and crush it's business machine

Okay, not a realistic proposal and it would likely hurt us as well... but I would love to see America's face when it realises it's whole internet business model had imploded in a matter of seconds.

[Chuk_Chuk]

what do you mean by transfer control of the internet to the UN?

[ProjectVRD]

The internet is controlled by domain masters (if we can call them that for arguments sake) and they are not actually part of the US government, but because they are based in America they must follow the laws and rules set in the nation of America.

These charity like organisations set the technical spec and control the domain name system.

[Chuk_Chuk]

Would it be possible for every country to have their own domain masters?

[ProjectVRD]

No idea, someone who is techy on this would have to answer that for you. I can only imagine it would be difficult to have so many databases with either the same information or even different information and getting it working together to keep the internet running as smooth as it is, I would imagine the American organisations are currently sharing the same database.... this could happen I suppose but we America would not want other nations having access to a shared database like that, it would be easy to bring down their websites..

[emw80]

If this is to do (even partly) with what the department of Homeland Security in the US is trying to do, then opposition is justified. They are simply trying to assume ownership over the internet as a whole in hope that the people who do own domains and the ISPs won't catch on as their ownership rights are transferred too the Dept of homeland security (and other agencies). When that happens,they can now tax you out of service, and slap ANY regulations THEY choose, and you will also fall under a wider set of laws.

All in the name of national security and keeping you safe of course.

This is just the same as how the UK (the state) has assumed ownership over the citizens and no one has caught on. (Well many now are these days) You're born into servitude, your birth certificate is proof of state ownership. they have jurisdiction over you, and you bear their trademark on your birth certificate LOL. You literally are what you owe.

I'm wondering who are these countries that are gong to try and hand over control of the internet to the UN.

The problem is if you start handing control of your nation and its infrastructure etc over too the UN, then eventually you lose your sovereignty, and i don't think that's a good idea. Seeing as all it's doing is furthering the ownership of everything into a smaller group of peoples hands.

[ProjectVRD]

---

emw80 wrote:

If this is to do (even partly) with what the department of Homeland Security in the US is trying to do, then opposition is justified. They are simply trying to assume ownership over the internet as a whole in hope that the people who do own domains and the ISPs won't catch on as their ownership rights are transferred too the Dept of homeland security (and other agencies). When that happens,they can now tax you out of service, and slap ANY regulations THEY choose, and you will also fall under a wider set of laws.

All in the name of national security and keeping you safe of course.

This is just the same as how the UK (the state) has assumed ownership over the citizens and no one has caught on. (Well many now are these days) You're born into servitude, your birth certificate is proof of state ownership. they have jurisdiction over you, and you bear their trademark on your birth certificate LOL. You literally are what you owe.

I'm wondering who are these countries that are gong to try and hand over control of the internet to the UN.

The problem is if you start handing control of your nation and its infrastructure etc over too the UN, then eventually you lose your sovereignty, and i don't think that's a good idea. Seeing as all it's doing is furthering the ownership of everything into a smaller group of peoples hands.

---

So you would prefer America kept control? With all due respect to our allies, they are last nation on earth I want controlling anything. The Chinese would be more responsible, people go on about the Great Firewall of China, yet America has been taking down web servers for many years themselves but the difference is, China blocks these sites internally... America removes these sites externally!

Digital Invasion, that is American policy.

[emw80]

---

ProjectVRD wrote:

---

emw80 wrote:

The problem is if you start handing control of your nation and its infrastructure etc over too the UN, then eventually you lose your sovereignty, and i don't think that's a good idea. Seeing as all it's doing is furthering the ownership of everything into a smaller group of peoples hands.

---

So you would prefer America kept control? With all due respect to our allies, they are last nation on earth I want controlling anything. The Chinese would be more responsible, people go on about the Great Firewall of China, yet America has been taking down web servers for many years themselves but the difference is, China blocks these sites internally... America removes these sites externally!

Digital Invasion, that is American policy.

---

Now I'm not an absolute pro or anything i just speak from my own current understanding, so feel free to correct me on these things if im incorrect.

I would change the question entirely AWAY FROM who" or even "what" should keep control or get control of anything, because we're in danger of unwittingly handing over rights and control over our property and even handing over ownership of ourselves by doing that.

Anyway, our rights as individuals already (are supposed) to guarantee and retain such things too us.

I would prefer for ISPs to stay private both in the sense they are not owned by the government or any of the governments (or otherwise political) agencies, and also in the sense that my details and use of the internet is kept between myself and who i have a contract with.

I would prefer for the individuals of all nations who put their content on the internet to keep control of it entirely, particularly in its regulation and distribution meaning the government or another body cannot take it down no matter how controversial the content may be. 

This is supposed to be protected anyway in AR19 of EU human rights act - freedom of speech and expression. Also under the 1st Amendment of the united states constitution.

It is also why things like SOPA (and whatever name they change it too when the previous version fails) are so dangerous to our rights.

...........

While it is already supposed to be this way - I do believe the internet needs a clear set of universal laws principally based on (officially adopt) freedom of speech and freedom of expression, and in my view those laws would be simple (and need to be kept simple), like as long as they (the individual users and ISPs or anyone else) do not violate anyone else' free speech, threaten or harm anyone, or refuse any of those rights or access too them, just as how it is in real life. or supposed too be LOL.

Oh and i believe in the case of China, it should be up too the people what they want to view or interact with when online, (but they live under communist rule so that's a different ball park from ourselves LOL), so an "Opt in" option should be granted and maintained for all, even in other nations where the government decide to block access to something, which they shouldn't have had the ability too do in the first place, at least in the UK where apparently there is a democracy. And in the US where they have a Republic and so it should have ALWAYS been the people who retain control.

[fenian]

The UN never gets anything done, the US does.

Its only really american companies who obey the rules anyway, lots of countries ignore .edu/.org/.com/.net and just register any old website as .com because they know thats what people will type in.

[foxhill]

---

ProjectVRD wrote:

It appears that some countries are going to try and transfer control of the internet over to the United Nations, however the United States is going resist handing over that control.

As you folks know I am always one for controversy, it makes me feel warm inside, I think the whole of the UN should back this and if America then refuses to hand over control the appropriate action should be taken:

Block America from incoming and outgoing internet traffic beyond it's borders. Literally severe the optical lines and crush it's business machine

Okay, not a realistic proposal and it would likely hurt us as well... but I would love to see America's face when it realises it's whole internet business model had imploded in a matter of seconds.

---

Keep dreaming Project.