UN Wants to Control Internet

[USViking]

I did not know the US had control of the Internet
to the extent described in this link:

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn7757
(from the link):

Today the internet has 13 vast computers dotted around the world that translate text-based email and web addresses into numerical internet protocol (IP) node addresses that computers understand. In effect a massive look-up table, the 13 computers are collectively known as the Domain Name System (DNS). But the DNS master computer, called the master root server, is based in the US and is ultimately controlled by the Department of Commerce. Because the data it contains is propagated to all the other DNS servers around the world, access to the master root server file is a political hot potato.

Currently, only the US can make changes to that master file. And that has some WGIG members very worried indeed. "It's about who has ultimate authority," says Kummer. "In theory, the US could decide to delete a country from the master root server. Some people expect this to happen one day, even though the US has never abused its position in that way."

Now the GDMFSOB UN wants to take it over:

(from the link):

But a group convened by the UN last week to thrash out the future of the net is calling for an end to US domination of the net, proposing that instead a multinational forum of governments, companies and civilian organisations is created to run it.

Like, we really wanna just hand this critical and priceless asset
over to some UN committee, which will inevitably include members
such as Red China and Sudan?!

Screw that.

Senator Norman Coleman (R, Min.) has come out against this nonsense,
but not strongly enough, imo:

http://coleman.senate.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressReleases.Detail&PressRelease_id=707

(from the link)

“My probe of the U.N. as Chairman of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations revealed management that was at best, incompetent, and at worst corrupt,” said Coleman. “The first priority for the United Nations must be fundamental reform of its management and operations rather than any expansion of its authority and responsibilities. The Internet has flourished under U.S. supervision, oversight, and private sector involvement. This growth did not happen because of increased government involvement, but rather, from the opening on the Internet to commerce and private sector innovation. Subjecting the Internet and its security to the politicized control of the UN bureaucracy would be a giant and foolhardy step backwards.”

Well, I do not care how competent and honest
the UN ever becomes, I do not want them or
anyone else to lay a finger on this great resource
of ours, which among other things must be a great
counter-terror asset, and I hope this is a case
where the US government can speak forever with one voice.

 

[Hobbit]

Why don't we give them our nuclear arsenal, while we're at it. Geez, I wouldn't trust the UN not to break my Nalgene, much less watching over the internet.

 

[KarlMarx]

Well, the US Government invented the Internet (the Dept of Defense, that is, not Al Gore), so yes they have a lot to do with the Internet....

Can you imagine, the United Nations running the Internet? It would probably be up and running about 5% of the time, you'd be taxed on usage, of course, all dissenting voices would be silenced ....

Turning the Internet over to the UN....... that seems like something you'd see on a "Vonage" commercial!

 

[Gunny]

Well, the US Government invented the Internet (the Dept of Defense, that is, not Al Gore), so yes they have a lot to do with the Internet....

Can you imagine, the United Nations running the Internet? It would probably be up and running about 5% of the time, you'd be taxed on usage, of course, all dissenting voices would be silenced ....

Turning the Internet over to the UN....... that seems like something you'd see on a "Vonage" commercial!

Too bad for them. Screw the UN. They need to quit whining about the internet and DO something about Sudan.

 

[William Joyce]

I had a thought or three. Are the nations really united? Which ones? Against whom, if anyone? Do the Disunited Nations deserve a body? What about the Independent Nations? Do they deserve a body? Would its HQ be in Manhattan? New York or Kansas? Does the Constitution authorize membership in the UN by the US? Are all nations really equal? Is Senegal deserving of the same vote as China? As the US? Is the UN really just a big fucking excuse for wasting a lot of tax dollars of a lot of countries in pursuit of bullshit liberal ideas? Would you wear a blue helmet? Was Michael New wrong to refuse to salute the UN flag over the US flag? Why didn't conservatives come to his rescue on that?

The United Nations. I've got questions.

 

[Gunny]

I had a thought or three. Are the nations really united? Which ones? Against whom, if anyone? Do the Disunited Nations deserve a body? What about the Independent Nations? Do they deserve a body? Would its HQ be in Manhattan? New York or Kansas? Does the Constitution authorize membership in the UN by the US? Are all nations really equal? Is Senegal deserving of the same vote as China? As the US? Is the UN really just a big fucking excuse for wasting a lot of tax dollars of a lot of countries in pursuit of bullshit liberal ideas? Would you wear a blue helmet? Was Michael New wrong to refuse to salute the UN flag over the US flag? Why didn't conservatives come to his rescue on that?
The United Nations. I've got questions.

I see we can agree on something, and I was quite outspoken on the topic. I never enlisted in the UN, nor to serve the UN, and I feel he was within his Constitutional rights and the terms of his US military contract to refuse to serve ANY military force except the US military.

Where they get you is they then issue you an order and if you refuse to obey it, they find in violation of THAT.

http://www.mikenew.com/

 

[William Joyce]

Where they get you is they then issue you an order and if you refuse to obey it, they find in violation of THAT.

Right --- neat trick.

It may not have helped that the only Member of Congress I recall stepping up to the plate for Michael New was James Traficant, D-Ohio, who is/was a little weird, to be charitable. But every once in a blue moon, a wacky Dem gets it right.

 

[Gunny]

Right --- neat trick.

It may not have helped that the only Member of Congress I recall stepping up to the plate for Michael New was James Traficant, D-Ohio, who is/was a little weird, to be charitable. But every once in a blue moon, a wacky Dem gets it right.

Check out the link I posted. More people agree than you think.

 

[dilloduck]

Bullshit idea but doing a little wheeling and dealing with em for it might be fun--- " ok Kofi---We'll give you one hub if you resign --or a couple 15 inch monitors for just building a new UN in Tehran ?"

 

[Johnney]

those retards cant even govern themselves, what makes them think they can do something with the net?

 

[dilloduck]

those retards cant even govern themselves, what makes them think they can do something with the net?

That's exactly why they want it---there's something out there that still works and it just drives em crazy. They just know they could screw it up if given half a chance.

 

[nosarcasm]

to add some substance, this idea to have the backbone running
under UN supervision is an European idea. They are aware that the
US has a unique tool for espionage with having the servers under
their control. I think the Euros threatened otherwise to build
up their own network. The under UN control is some kind of
compromise that is on the table.

 

[USViking]

to add some substance, this idea to have the backbone running
under UN supervision is an European idea. They are aware that the
US has a unique tool for espionage with having the servers under
their control. I think the Euros threatened otherwise to build
up their own network. The under UN control is some kind of
compromise that is on the table.

From a solely commercial standpoint, it would be fine
with me if the UN, the EU, or anyone else tried to
build another network (anything done under the aegis
of the UN will of course be unworkable).

It is the espionage capacity which makes me hope
things stay just the way they are. I do not think
the US is interested in spying on the EU, and I hope
it does not.

There are numerous other countries and organizations
(including the UN itself) which I would like the see the
US able to spy on, as well as disrupt if necessary: it is
now possible to sever any country's access to the net,
and this is an excellent ability to possess and maintain.

 

[archangel]

a US Military veterans salute.........>>>>>> :2guns: :finger:

 

[c.inquisition]

to add some substance, this idea to have the backbone running
under UN supervision is an European idea. They are aware that the
US has a unique tool for espionage with having the servers under
their control. I think the Euros threatened otherwise to build
up their own network. The under UN control is some kind of
compromise that is on the table.

Let them build and the market will prevail. What a unique idea.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by USViking:
Well, I do not care how competent and honest
the UN ever becomes, I do not want them or
anyone else to lay a finger on this great resource
of ours, which among other things must be a great
counter-terror asset, and I hope this is a case
where the US government can speak forever with one voice.

The US govenment wasn't designed to speak with one voice.
It was designed for equal representation. The sooner
these whacked out neo's realize this, the better off
this country will be. I'm definately uneasy about
this great resource being controlled by the folks
in Weimar, Washington.

 

[Gunny]

The US govenment wasn't designed to speak with one voice.
It was designed for equal representation. The sooner
these whacked out neo's realize this, the better off
this country will be. I'm definately uneasy about
this great resource being controlled by the folks
in Weimar, Washington.

The US gov't controls the net about as well as you would control a 3 ton brahama bull. You got the rope, now hang on and ride.

And ...ummm.... WHAT one voice controls the internet? Whoever it is sure is letting a lot of the other side run its collective mouth.

 

[USViking]

The US govenment wasn't designed to speak with one voice.

Logic, pal- that does not mean the US government
is unable to speak with one voice, or that it never does.

In clear-cut national security issues it has in the past,
and I feel this is one issue where it should.

It was designed for equal representation. The sooner
these whacked out neo's realize this, the better off
this country will be. I'm definately uneasy about
this great resource being controlled by the folks
in Weimar, Washington.

I hope you do not mean this "equal representation"
should extend to UN control of any of our resources.

And put me down for siding with "Weimar, Washington",
(whatever the hell that is supposed to mean), and
against Weimar, Germany.

Christ, who gave you rep points for this idiotic post of yours?

 

[Annie]

Logic, pal- that does not mean the US government
is unable to speak with one voice, or that it never does.

In clear-cut national security issues it has in the past,
and I feel this is one issue where it should.





I hope you do not mean this "equal representation"
should extend to UN control of any of our resources.

And put me down for siding with "Weimar, Washington",
(whatever the hell that is supposed to mean), and
against Weimar, Germany.

Christ, who gave you rep points for this idiotic post of yours?

Psst, Viking, I think he lost points there...

 

[USViking]

Psst, Viking, I think he lost points there...

Oh, yeah- I forgot about the 10(?)-point auto-gimme
for new members.